UTDM-monster and Patch 469 discussion

[papercoffee]

You forget link in the header

Yeah I did ...I did cut too low.

[sektor2111]

It's not about UTDMT, to me it seems that here is being a variables soup mixing an INT with a BYTE just because they have the same name. Me and my wife are using the same first name but definitely we are not the same person. Instead of talking about ATTITUDE (people more specific), I would like to find some small technical explanations why things were turned this way, game log spreading some "mismatch" problems which weren't there before and things were functional. UTDM whatever things were just pointing/showing some changes in execution methods which were remapped and we (stupid ones) are not understanding why doing this variables mix. I'll look in last version if things were adjusted...
The rest of 469 features are indeed a big plus - the big minus for me is that I don't have XC support for it and then... all things which I did are now useless.

[anth]

It's not about UTDMT, to me it seems that here is being a variables soup mixing an INT with a BYTE just because they have the same name. Me and my wife are using the same first name but definitely we are not the same person. Instead of talking about ATTITUDE (people more specific), I would like to find some small technical explanations why things were turned this way, game log spreading some "mismatch" problems which weren't there before and things were functional. UTDM whatever things were just pointing/showing some changes in execution methods which were remapped and we (stupid ones) are not understanding why doing this variables mix. I'll look in last version if things were adjusted...
The rest of 469 features are indeed a big plus - the big minus for me is that I don't have XC support for it and then... all things which I did are now useless.

Technical explanation: https://github.com/OldUnreal/UnrealTour ... 1528992165

More generally, we cherry-picked and backported a number of UnrealI/UnrealShare fixes from Unreal 227 because enough people (in the Unreal modding community, UT modding community, or often both) agreed that these fixes were necessary and/or useful.

In some cases, these fixes broke mods that relied on the buggy behavior. We typically address this by making the fixes optional and disabled by default.

There have also been a few cases where we broke network compatibility. Luckily, this hasn't happened too often and, in all but one case, we caught and fixed the bug before we released the final patch. We also compiled some guidelines based on the lessons we learned and included these in our SDK in a document called COMPATIBILITY.md.

[EvilGrins]

I honestly never saw those links or indicators on this forum's portal.

My bad, I so blind.

[TankBeef]

I honestly never saw those links

So, with so many discussions, and posts, not one, many, many posts, for at least 4 years, maybe more, on not one, but many forums. You should know, cause you visit them all.
And you "never saw those links".
Grins, you are not "blind", man. You're the one who always finds bugs on maps. On the contrary, you have too much good eye.
At this point I truly believe you are being sarcastic. Even if you don't. And guess what. You are not being funny. This not something you can just brush aside. You really should take a look at yourself and what you are doing.

[EvilGrins]

Grins, you are not "blind", man. You're the one who always finds bugs on maps. On the contrary, you have too much good eye.

Nobody's perfect, I honestly didn't pay it any mind.

Which makes some sense given for the longest time that patch had the aforementioned glitch... so I may've simply tuned it out as I wasn't expecting to use it until it was fixed.

Like it is now.

[Buggie]

I am sure if v469b RC or v469c RC will be installed, issue found and reported, then it be fixed for v469b or v469c.

But if wait appear "release" badge, then happen what happen - you wait for fix year or more.

It is exactly this example why need installed and test RC, before "release" badge appear, when window of opportunity still open.

[OjitroC]

As a matter of interest, the issue first appeared on this forum in November 2021 in this thread - when 469a was out (though it had been noted in passing by sektor2111 a while before November). It was reported as an issue on GitHub in February 2023 in relation to 469c.

[Buggie]

Yea. issue goes be fixed only after EG personally report it on github. Need report on proper places.
Also I want mention next dates:
Jul 22, 2022 - v469c RC2
Aug 5, 2022 - v469c RC3
Aug 22, 2022 - v469c RC4
Oct 30, 2022 - v469c Release.

So there be possibility report it, and possible get fix for it. Which not happen.

v469b release appear Mar 11, 2021 without RC, but this not really matter, since it before first mention issue.

I even write exact this info on Thu Nov 04, 2021

Until you not fill issue on github (usually in form: Reproduce steps, Expected result, Actual result), issue not exists.
So nobody will investigate it.

So if your way is

Guess then I'm not getting that patch.

issue can be never solved.

If you want solve issue and

find someone to figure out why they aren't doing as they used to.

You need make issue with minimal reproducible example for start.
After that can be options, but that very good attempt for success.

And later

Well. Possible if you start feedback at v469a, then at v469b your problem be solved.
Look like you not really need fix it. So possible you miss window of opportunity for v469c and all can goes to v469d or later. Which can out after few years.
Yours choice.

What exactly happens.

[esnesi]

Buggie is on point here.

EG is trying to get it fixed without a github report.
And he'll manage to do so, mark my words.

Everybody already came to him, instead of the other way around.

[OjitroC]

Buggie is on point here.

EG is trying to get it fixed without a github report.
And he'll manage to do so, mark my words.

Everybody already came to him, instead of the other way around.

Just to point out that EG did make a report on GitHub and the issue has been fixed. The key point though is that the issue could have been addressed much earlier had a report been submitted sooner (and had EG participated in testing 469).

[esnesi]

i'm sorry for my incorrect assumption then.

[TankBeef]

Just to point out that EG did make a report on GitHub and the issue has been fixed. The key point though is that the issue could have been addressed much earlier had a report been submitted sooner (and had EG participated in testing 469).

To me, the "key point" is his attitude. Instead of thanking, he goes "very pleased, wonky timing".
At this point I am reminded of Veruca wanting an Oompa Loompa now.

[OjitroC]

To me, the "key point" is his attitude. Instead of thanking, he goes "very pleased, wonky timing".

I certainly can't disagree with that - I did think of suggesting that EG thank the devs for the fix and explain in a bit more detail his evident reluctance to install the patch but I didn't eventually.

[EvilGrins]

I certainly can't disagree with that - I did think of suggesting that EG thank the devs for the fix and explain in a bit more detail his evident reluctance to install the patch but I didn't eventually.

I'll get there, just debating whether to use the patch on my original install of UT (which I still have) or use it on the Unreal Anthology UT (which I primarily use) or install an entirely new one on a different drive for testing purposes.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.