1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Unreal 95 / 97 Alpha Research

Discussion in 'Unreal' started by Leo(T.C.K.), Apr 23, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Leo(T.C.K.)

    Leo(T.C.K.) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    29
    Did anything else get changed apart from unbones and readded missing skins? I'm asking because even though the filesize is smaller now and that's good, it requires opening the inidividual archives and isn't obvious what changed or not.
     
  2. Leo(T.C.K.)

    Leo(T.C.K.) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    29
    Due to people accusing the "november 97 beta" being fake, I had to investigate the matter and I came to a completely different conclusion:

    The 1998 beta is fake. And has been all the time. It is in fact from December 1997 still. The reasons the dates and everything mentioned 1998 is because it was recovered from deleted files and each of the file had a new name in it. Therefore the two versions aren't that far apart, while some maps might have been compiled later. They also did something on purpose in order to confuse people who would try to leak these full testing betas...
     
  3. Delacroix

    Delacroix Successor of Almarion

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    804
    Likes Received:
    2
    As in, changed the compile date in a hex editor? Remember that the log says when the damn thing's binaries were compiled and the date there is indeed February 1998 if I remember correctly.
     
  4. xBRYAN2000x

    xBRYAN2000x Betatester

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2013
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unreal Feb98's Log

    ###############################################
    # Unreal, Copyright 1997 Epic MegaGames, Inc. #
    ###############################################

    Log: Log file open, Monday, June 13, 2016 07:39:24
    Log: Starting Unreal 99
    Log: Using Unreal Virtual Machine 99
    Log: Compiled with Visual C++, Feb 6 1998 04:10:55


    Unreal Nov97's Log
    ###############################################
    # Unreal, Copyright 1997 Epic MegaGames, Inc. #
    ###############################################

    Log: Log file open, Monday, June 13, 2016 00:05:50
    Log: Starting Unreal 98
    Log: Using Unreal Virtual Machine 98
    Log: Compiled with Visual C++, Nov 3 1997 06:01:10

    And there you can see the same label "# Unreal, Copyright 1997 Epic MegaGames, Inc. #" on both logs

    According to Tim Sweeny's log


    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    12-3-97

    ====98
    + Found mysterious James arrowspawner bug.
    + GetMasterPackage prototype.

    + When get compile error, lose default class properties!
    + UnrealEd show class package and names together; new class needs proper UI.

    X UPackage should take on all the functionality of FObjectManager? -> Overly complex.
    X URoot should be derived from UObject,TArray<UPackage> and should be the global package list.
    X Load a package with UPackage ctor -> Complications with existing packages.
    X UPackage take on the functionality of ULinker, ULinkerLoad, ULinkerSave. -> Bad idea.
    + No "Package" statement in class def: can deduce that from directory and object's package.
    + In UnrealEd, show class and package name as in "Engine.Actor", "UnrealI.Skaarj".
    + Cleanup object creation and initialization: No longer need empty default ctor.
    X Temporary, unnamed objects on stack? FindObject only find RF_Public stuff?

    + Move UnNames.h to Core and eliminate ENoName.
    + PROPERTY_ALIGNMENT
    + Cleanup name code based on new assumptions; eliminate unnecessary code.

    ====99
    + Brush rotation isn't snapping.
    + Default(Class).Var compiler bug.

    + UPackage.
    + MasterPackage
    + TransientPackage
    + UObject::GetPackage()
    + Use UPackage for objects' packages instead of FName.
    + Get the new code working.
    + New fire texture crashes (my bug).
    X Autoregister classes by package FName to prevent duplicates.
    X EndState should take new state name parm?
    + UnrealScript CallGlobal should not compile-time bind.

    + UPackage::Bind.
    + UClass::Bind and intrinsic function associate use UPackage.
    + Fully garbage-collect DLL references.
    + Cleanup ResolvePackage.

    + Improve PreRegister handling.
    + FindPackage.

    + Texture brws scrolling still fucks up, don't realloc frame buffer if no mode change
    + Cleanup linker, loader, and saver based on new assumptions.
    + Update saving: Object manager tags objects, ULinkerSave does all saving?
    + Scrutinize texture, palette, uobject, and ufractaltexture; dynarrayize.

    + Convert UTexture over to arrays.
    + Verify that you can build and play levels without the UnrealI package.

    + Move all models and graphics to package-specific directories.

    + Logging on fails when server starts after client.
    + Aim for preferred packet size + one extra replicant.

    + Save-all-modified-scripts-as-u's option in UnrealEd
    + Save .u files individually into package-specific directories.
    + Save map files relative to their specified dependencies.
    X Add package / remove package option.
    + Delete classes: Make sure there are no references.
    + Delete texture or texture set: Make sure there are no references.
    + Fix "import-dont-merge" option.

    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    Both builds 0.98 & 0.99 had been released at the same day.
    Build 100 was compiled in the next day after November 3rd, 1997.

    [​IMG]
    Unreal v144 was compiled in February 6, 1998, NOT v99

    The leak from Feb98 has UnrealEd dated to January 24, 1998.
    That's my 1st evidence.
     
  5. Leo(T.C.K.)

    Leo(T.C.K.) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    29
    Yes that's what I mean. It all clicked into place from all the information I have and the story of how the february 98 beta came to be leaked. The leakers wanted to make sure it seems all fresh and new.

    Also Bryan, December 3rd, it said 12 not 11. Just a minor thing to point this out. There have been other instances before this in the log where tim commented on removing the hud/adding it back and such. I think same happened here or it was made in comparison. The maps were probably added later to each respective build to make the full beta. Remember that these are compile dates of the first release/unrealed standalone versions.
    EDIT: A late edit but still...I want to point out that it might have been a trivial error to make it november 3 instead of december 3 what was the real date, this could have been simply by the northwest falcon company having their computers set a month earlier especially if they rebuilt/recompiled this themselves. Fact is that the so called November 1997 beta is still more real than the really more fake February 98 beta which is another december 97 beta in practice.
    Truth be told!

    Zora was correct after all when she named her stuff zmu97 as i initially thought before being convinced otherwise...
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2016
  6. xBRYAN2000x

    xBRYAN2000x Betatester

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2013
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting Update

    0.874d has dedicated server support!
    [​IMG]

    Even works on 0.871d too!

    Unreal.exe -ded (Dedicated Server)
     
  7. Leo(T.C.K.)

    Leo(T.C.K.) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    29
    So this works for you? Without gatecli? Now that's a great news. We can try this later together, I have to go right now though. But this is a great find. I knew only of the gatecli way and the broken -net or whatever it was....
     
  8. Leo(T.C.K.)

    Leo(T.C.K.) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    29
    I tried this myself, not with bryan yet...but it's all very finicky. You need to be in the same map before connecting to the server and each time you interact with a mover a crash usually occurs... but its network play alright with replication errors/glitches.

    EDIT: Confirmed because each time you interact with a mover. the stuff really crashes with it failing to "assimilatechanges" this is like the moved without proper hashing bug...also if you destroy a woodenbox a copy of it will appear at location 0,0,0 or something like that. It's really so strange, otherwise it's not as bad, but the crashes really do 0.874d a bad name. It was a testing version at a convention however...but I wonder how they prevented from others seeing the crashes, did they go like "DONT TOUCH THE MOVERS DAMMIT!" or something like that during deathmatching?

    EDIT2: 871d works better especially when using dmruins. No crashes even with bots online even though its glitchy and funny as hell.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2016
  9. Leo(T.C.K.)

    Leo(T.C.K.) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    29
    Btw Entry.unr in the so called 1998 beta still has its original date, even though its possible these other maps were saved/recompiled later for the testing, entry.unr is correctly dated fourth december 1997. Just a day or less after its conception (given it could have been compiloed late in the evening). Wouldn't be possible if it was made in 1998.

    My theories have been proven correct.
     
  10. Delacroix

    Delacroix Successor of Almarion

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    804
    Likes Received:
    2
    No, it simply means that they left the map alone because of no need to change it. Remember that Unreal v200 (retail) was capable of running some beta maps out of the box, does that mean it's fake as well? Of course not.
     
  11. Leo(T.C.K.)

    Leo(T.C.K.) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    29
    The maps weren't fake, they were building that version from the real version "99" which was from december 3rd in the evening, the first compile. You see the rest of the game doesn't take an instant for process, aas in when Tim made changes the rest of the team had to build up on it and some versions were entirely left alone without building anything on them. Still I believe the stuff has been hex edited to show an incorrect compile date. Because they had to restore it from deleted files, all of it. That story has been confirmed by talking to the people who were there when the beta leaked and knew the story. It's only consistent with the ego driven community that has been growing around there to edit the dates, either that or it was another customized build.

    Still I find your argument suspicious, because that's not what it's about at all and that's not the kind of logic that I would or anyone else who knows this would think. Does that mean you stopped responding because you switched to the other side? Ignoring all the real evidence I've been gathering and proving that the other build is not fake despite the flak? The fact that two people (me and bryan) provided real evidence and the other stuff wasn't?

    EDIT: As for compatibility, of course, but found98 for example didn't work on 98 or 99 out of the box, but on version 88 yes, still they were basically compatible but it required a bsp rebuild at the very least to keep it from crashing but otherwise it required changes to unreali etc to get it working on the later betas out of the box....This simply means they kept maintining basic compatiblity from version 1 towards later and the later the version became the better compatiblity with the other. That holds still true for Unreal Tournament version 400 etc, despite it being different game it ate most mods/files that were created on the original game....

    Only after version 200 they decided to add a warning that will say this map was saved by a previously incompatible version, they changed the format a little to not allow these old maps(or packages more like) to be easily loaded anymore and everything had to be retail. Of course this was forgotten about when dmvilla2 was worked on.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2016
  12. Delacroix

    Delacroix Successor of Almarion

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    804
    Likes Received:
    2
    Frankly, I believe no beta leak is fake, one way or another. Tampered with, yes, possible, but that doesn't make any of them fake. Also features coming and going is no evidence of the build being technically older. For example, you have feature A in the 1997 build and it's gone from the 1998 build - maybe somewhere down the line it caused bugs between the two builds and they simply removed it with intention of readding it after rework? Things come and go and then come back again. See Windows Vista development. Back when it was referred to as the Longhorn project, there were several features in the early builds, including the WinFS system, that were later cut mid-development. From what I know WinFS never came back but other features did after they were fixed up. So just because a build of Unreal doesn't have a feature an older build had is no evidence it's a technically older build. It may as well mean they came back to a solution that was at that point in time better working.

    I stopped responding because it went absolutely out of hand and even my name got dragged through the mud by a certain person and on top of that, nwfalcon's identity as the leak provider was disclosed even though it was our mutual agreement that he remain anonymous in the matter. I call it a betrayal of trust and that person is guilty of that.

    This entire matter disgusts me to no end and I wish no more part of it than I would wish part in literal crap slinging at one another. I'd rather not stink with shit at the end of the day if you know what I mean.
     
  13. Leo(T.C.K.)

    Leo(T.C.K.) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    29
    But I am not disagreeing with that! That's indeed something that's common in the developement, here see the hud change....

    And that's given the fact that not every change was logged including the full hud stuff, but the slap in hud was commented on..

    As for the leaker's nickname or the company, I first mentioned it elsewhere but I was provoked to say it in his defense actually. I wasn't claiming he was fake but it was a mistake I did under the load of everything and didn't realize. I can only apologize for that.

    Perhaps honesty can sometimes hurt in situations like these.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2016
  14. Delacroix

    Delacroix Successor of Almarion

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    804
    Likes Received:
    2
    I actually thought it was brought up first in the e-mails by the other guy, Leo. The person we're talking about also claims that I did nothing with the betas which is nothing short of a malicious lie. See, from a legal standpoint, you're not responsible for releasing any of the builds on the internet, I am. Nobody in their right mind would have the basis to touch you even, as I am responsible. I did just that, I released all those Unreal and Emissary thingies into the wild while fully responsible of the risk involved and that has to account for something, goddamn it.

    So maybe the compile date on the "Feb 1998" leak was tampered with (needlessly) to make it look more credible. Even if so, it's not a fake beta. It's been tampered with in which case let's say it outright when it was most likely compiled and leave it at that. The entire shitstorm and calling stuff fake because of some warez asshole tampering with it is just out of place.

    The community is small enough for two talented members to participate in a shitstorm like that. Both you and AlCapowned are needed here. Each for their respective reasons. Be civil, goddamn it. Both of you.
     
  15. Leo(T.C.K.)

    Leo(T.C.K.) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    29
    This is basically something I posted elsewhere but removed certain part from it. It seems that the recent 97 beta might indeed be more fake than it seemed. alcapowned might be right.

    ------------------------------------
    I said before that I cannot 100 percent confirm someone didn't mess with the beta around 2012 and didn't import alcaapowned's krall mesh. Turns out someone really did that, probablty because it looked better.

    I exported the meshes and compared them.

    The headers weren't proof because of how the format has been changing/evolving and the reason alca's method for extracting 0.8x meshes worked is that they were stored in a raw format in the files...

    But I don't think anyone can deny this:
    97krallshit.rar

    What's for sure not faked about this all is:
    The presence of the alpha/beta textures in unscathed form like the lensflare etc which was "scathed" in unreal psx and it couldn't have been remade like this because it always looked diff when it was tried with other psx textures the pixel and infromation were missing due to the "compressed" low res textures.

    EDIT: I really do wonder though. Why did this happen? Why did someone bother to modify the .u file in the modern times. And why alcapowned's mesh instead of the 97 tech demo one which was already avaiable to begin with extracted too, either by alcapowned or the original source in late 2012/early 2013. Why did someone do this? It doesn't make any bloody sense right now, why leave such a clue/hint? To get everyone into argument?
    When I explained why would Epic re-uv map their mesh again I explained because of the animations that would be to-be-used in the modern maps, not to conflict with alarmpoints and such. But it would really be a major coincidence if the meshes had the same size even if epic re-uv mapped them.
    But that means someone would have to modify the alarmpoints which actually would be easier to do than importing alca's mesh in practice. So...what's going on here? Who's behind this really?

    EDIT2 due to some mishap/miscommucination elsewhere:
    It can't be entirely fake and that's the thing. Some of the material there, the textures I mentioned for example are real and the 98 build is still confirmed (as in 98 the engine version number). The maps are probably not fake either as it does match up. The unreali.u file has been messed with and modified, the little difference of dlls are such is because it was technically just one number a build earlier.

    And why does it matter what is true and what is not? The raw recovered stuff from emissary with the orig installers, that's original and unmodified. RoR as in release on rampage group had their releases untouched as well and with original installers. And so did a couple of other groups which got that stuff untouched. It was a proper thing to do.

    But since the late 97/early 1998 stuff, things started to change and the "1998" beta is fake in the sense that the dates have been messed with. I confirmed it based on a document that was recovered with the untouched stuff. If anything this is all to have it documented.

    The only thing that's been proven was that the header/dates have been changed and that the krall model has been added too....

    EDIT: Also if someone claims the entire build is fake, how come the "1998" beta doesn't work online and this beta does as well as any of the 1997 betas since august 1997. We tried it with Bryan. The unreali.u switching also doesn't work as was said, but probably you guys got different dlls or something or had them swapped with the "1998" beta ones. I got the thing as soon as the link was published.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2016
  16. Leo(T.C.K.)

    Leo(T.C.K.) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    29
    I finished converting the December 1997 beta.
    http://www.oldunreal.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1448816478/30#34

    All the levels have been ported right now. I am still convinced that the levels are not fake by any merit though.

    Especially as I had the chance to examine them thoroughly during this conversion.

    It's clear someone modified the unreali.u and that's all I can say. Someone thought it must be better looking that way.
     
  17. Leo(T.C.K.)

    Leo(T.C.K.) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    29
    Someone is locking my developement threads here. It says not open for further replies. What's going on?

    I cannot reply further to my own threads. This seems to be common theme in my threads here now. Even though I had some update to post on upsx. Do I have to make a new thread for the rework project or what?

    This is an exception that I can post here, but all the others are locked.

    Seems like anything I started gets locked. Who's responsible for this?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page