Unreal Evolution for UT3

  • 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.

Dogger

New Member
Oct 4, 2004
122
0
0
Does this mod have any minimal requirement to dev for, or is it just for any bozo with ut3 and a half baked idea that can join up. If it is the latter then good luck with your inconsistent art styles and designs.
 

GreatEmerald

Khnumhotep
Jan 20, 2008
4,042
1
0
Lithuania
I'm sure all the maps will be reviewed (and probably altered) before release, but nothing forbids you to try and remake a map.
In a sense, the whole Unreal is inconsistent. One time you're in a dark mine, another - in a bright outdoor passage, yet another time - in a gloomy temple. And most of the maps were originally created by different level designers as well.
 

KillerSkaarj

Art for swans is dope!
Jan 24, 2008
486
0
0
  1. It's extremely unlikely the mod would be coming out tomorrow. You have better odds of watching Elvis pilot a UFO into the Loch Ness Monster and seeing Bigfoot climb out of the capsizing wreckage.
  2. Pentium Dual-Cores still suck. They're a notch above your Celeron D. Get a Core 2 at least.

I never said I wanted the mod to come out tomorrow. Also, why would I want to pay 3/4ths the price of a new computer (200-300 dollars) to buy a Core 2 Duo? It doesn't matter anyway, I found out my box o' crap can't handle either of those upgrades, so I'm getting a new one. Plus, the recommended specs for UT3 didn't say "Core 2 Duo", they said "Dual-core", and that's what I'm getting.

Oh, and GreatEmerald, Passage is the level that you enter after Depths of Rrajigar, right? I can't really remember.
 
Last edited:

FuLLBLeeD

fart
Jan 23, 2008
946
1
18
Kansas
awwsmack.org
I never said I wanted the mod to come out tomorrow. Also, why would I want to pay 3/4ths the price of a new computer (200-300 dollars) to buy a Core 2 Duo? It doesn't matter anyway, I found out my box o' crap can't handle either of those upgrades, so I'm getting a new one. Plus, the recommended specs for UT3 didn't say "Core 2 Duo", they said "Dual-core", and that's what I'm getting.

Oh, and GreatEmerald, Passage is the level that you enter after Depths of Rrajigar, right? I can't really remember.

UT3 is still going to run like **** on your proposed system, so why bother? Take Dark Pulse's advice and get a Dual Core, but if you plan on doing development in UE3 you should really get a quad core processor.
 

Northrawn

New Member
Feb 21, 2009
571
0
0
I dropped a pm and email to Sir_Brizz and never got an answer so I guess this project is dead :( :(

A mod cannot be dead before some unskinned weapon-renders (one render is of an AK-47 of course) are published alongside a huge announcement how this mod will change the gaming-world.

After that you can be pretty sure the mod is dead after a few days.

;)
 
Last edited:

KillerSkaarj

Art for swans is dope!
Jan 24, 2008
486
0
0
UT3 is still going to run like **** on your proposed system, so why bother? Take Dark Pulse's advice and get a Dual Core, but if you plan on doing development in UE3 you should really get a quad core processor.

That's weird, I was told by two other sources that that would be sufficient, not to mention that someone suggested I use that CPU in these very forums, along with the video card I wanted. In fact, the video card I want plays at about 70 FPS on a resolution higher than mine, so where's your proof that it won't work?

EDIT: Make that three sources that confirm that the E5200 will run UT3, at least overclocked. So screw Core 2 Duo. Guess who was wrong? That's right! FuLLBLeeD! Oh, and Dark Pulse.

EDIT2: Oh, I see why you guys thought the E5200 wouldn't run UT3, you assumed I had one of those oversized monitors. I have a monitor that is 1024x768. That's tiny compared to you guys with monster computers, and will definitely present no problem for the CPU.
 
Last edited:

Dark Pulse

Dolla, Dolla. Holla, Holla.
Sep 12, 2004
6,186
0
0
39
Buffalo, NY, USA
darkpulse.project2612.org
That's weird, I was told by two other sources that that would be sufficient, not to mention that someone suggested I use that CPU in these very forums, along with the video card I wanted. In fact, the video card I want plays at about 70 FPS on a resolution higher than mine, so where's your proof that it won't work?

EDIT: Make that three sources that confirm that the E5200 will run UT3, at least overclocked. So screw Core 2 Duo. Guess who was wrong? That's right! FuLLBLeeD! Oh, and Dark Pulse.

EDIT2: Oh, I see why you guys thought the E5200 wouldn't run UT3, you assumed I had one of those oversized monitors. I have a monitor that is 1024x768. That's tiny compared to you guys with monster computers, and will definitely present no problem for the CPU.
Uhh... no, I'm not wrong. Allow me to break it down.

  1. The E5200 is a Pentium Dual Core. That helps UT3 tremendously, since it is, after all, two CPUs.
  2. The catch is they are neutered in the Cache department. That E5200 has about 2 MB Cache, and runs at a bus speed of 800 MHz. Generally speaking, for every 2 MB increase in cache, you can expect about 10-15 more FPS. Higher FSBs also mean it can shove more data around, which translates to... more FPS.
  3. Less cache = more that the game has to potentially read off your (much slower) main memory or - worse - your hard drives if your memory is low. That equals stutters and swapping.
I never said it wouldn't run, I said it sucked for running the game. And it does. It's a slight step up from your Celeron D, to be granted - you're going from 512k L2 Cache to 2 MB, and of course, one CPU to two. The fact of the matter is that UT3 will still stress that system hard, and the lowered cache and FSB is going to rather severely affect your FPS compared to a slightly pricier Core 2 Duo.

Also, that 70 FPS figure is under best conditions. Trust me... you're not always getting best conditions. Especially when stuff's whizzing around. Also, if your videocard isn't up to snuff, that will be the bottleneck and no matter what the performance will still be under that.

Also, if you have less than 2 GB of RAM, don't even bet on playing UT3 at the highest details. When I had 2 GB of RAM and one of my sticks died, I had to temporarily play on only one stick. And it took FOREVER for things to load, and things were VERY stuttery for at least the first five minutes of a match. Trust me on this... 2 GB is the minimum you want if you plan to go any higher than texture detail level 3.

Here's the thing though... even the cheapest Core 2 will run UT3 like a dream. Like this Core 2 Duo E8500 for a mere $179.99.

The Pentium Dual-Core E5200, however, is $69.99. Long story short, you can have a far superior processor if you throw in another Benjamin and Hamilton. It's really not that much. And you won't need to overclock to get to work with UT3. It's really not all that much for a CPU... and it's not a bad one at all. Well worth the money, if you ask me.

Regardless of the purchase, make sure your motherboard can support it. But remember... cheap parts, cheap performance. If you don't want a huge, fancy videocard, fine. In fact, you probably don't need more than a 8800 to run the game good. (But if you can, by all means get something slightly improved, like the 9800s.) But that's an awesome CPU for under 200 bucks there... it'd be like night and day compared to your Celeron D. Whereas, in my opinion, the E5200 would be more like night and dawn.

Simply put... Faster bus + more cache = better performance + more fps. It's your money in the end, but if that thing can barely handle UT3, it'll have heart attacks versus something like, say, Fallout 3.
 
Last edited:

KillerSkaarj

Art for swans is dope!
Jan 24, 2008
486
0
0
Also, if you have less than 2 GB of RAM, don't even bet on playing UT3 at the highest details.

What? Highest details? Oh right, I forgot to mention, I could care less how the game looks. I played the Demo on all lowest settings and 640x480 resolution and had more fun in 5 minutes on just those three maps than I would have had in 20 minutes playing UT2004. Heck, the game could look like Unreal 1 and I would still play it extensively (plus the fact that I could be able to, as in my computer would be able to run it)

So, how fast do you think the game would run if the all details were on 1, with screen percentage to 100% and resolution to 1024x768 or even lower? I guarantee, even with almost no knowledge of this stuff, that it will run fine.

Maybe I should've mentioned the fact that I don't want it to look good, I just want it to be able to play it, period.

Oh yeah, and slightly more expensive C2D? Right, if you count twice as much as $70 plus $40 as slightly. And 512 KB to 2 MB is a huge difference, at least to me. Back before I got the full game, I was able to play the demo with literally no lag on my current setup with everything set to lowest. Now imagine that same scenario, but with a Dual-core. I believe that the game will run without any threat of crashes, unlike now, where I always crash.

Anways, I'm on a budget here and I have to buy a new PSU for the video card plus a new, er, "mobo" for the CPU. And you want me to buy a $180 Core 2 Duo when I could get something cheaper and still be able to run UT3. Yeah, no.
 
Last edited:

MonsOlympus

Active Member
May 27, 2004
2,225
0
36
43
I dont think its dead! I did alittle work but didnt show any of it publicly yet

rikers-asteroids-6S.jpg


oops! Anyways, yeah I'll be here getting the beasties done...

**** just takes time ya know :cool:

P.S excuse the crapness of the engines, it was kinda a ruff concept :p
 

tolas

New Member
Feb 9, 2009
3
0
0
Poland
www.tolas.wordpress.com
@MonsOlympus

It's Rikers, isn't it? Looks cool anyway. Can't wait to see more. I'll read more about baking normal maps in modo and maybe try to make a dispersion pistol with powerups, or any other. It could be used in future to make sort of Oldschool weapons mutator for ut3 too :D I just have to finish up all the commercial stuff I'm doing now.
 

KillerSkaarj

Art for swans is dope!
Jan 24, 2008
486
0
0
Mons, that is the BEST LOOKING remake of the Vortex Rikers I have EVER. SEEN. Let's just hope it doesn't go to waste.
 

jackrabbit

New Member
May 9, 2008
42
0
0
its a roughly accurate remake... I would probably give it some more dynamic lighting on the ship (lights escaping from the windows) and some nice particle effects for the exaust. You might want to decrease the number of windows on the side to create this effect i'm talking about. The geometry of this ship is definitly more sleek than the original and overall better quality. If you haven't taken a look at the way Legend made their ships in U2, I would consider going back and taking some of those concepts and applying them ere.


I'm now thinking what it would be like to explore NaPali on the PS3..... Keep the screenies comming and your bound to attract healthy attention from diehard classic unreal gamers like myself :)
 
Last edited:

FuLLBLeeD

fart
Jan 23, 2008
946
1
18
Kansas
awwsmack.org
What? Highest details? Oh right, I forgot to mention, I could care less how the game looks. I played the Demo on all lowest settings and 640x480 resolution and had more fun in 5 minutes on just those three maps than I would have had in 20 minutes playing UT2004. Heck, the game could look like Unreal 1 and I would still play it extensively (plus the fact that I could be able to, as in my computer would be able to run it)

So, how fast do you think the game would run if the all details were on 1, with screen percentage to 100% and resolution to 1024x768 or even lower? I guarantee, even with almost no knowledge of this stuff, that it will run fine.

Maybe I should've mentioned the fact that I don't want it to look good, I just want it to be able to play it, period.

Oh yeah, and slightly more expensive C2D? Right, if you count twice as much as $70 plus $40 as slightly. And 512 KB to 2 MB is a huge difference, at least to me. Back before I got the full game, I was able to play the demo with literally no lag on my current setup with everything set to lowest. Now imagine that same scenario, but with a Dual-core. I believe that the game will run without any threat of crashes, unlike now, where I always crash.

Anways, I'm on a budget here and I have to buy a new PSU for the video card plus a new, er, "mobo" for the CPU. And you want me to buy a $180 Core 2 Duo when I could get something cheaper and still be able to run UT3. Yeah, no.



The PC you're building is very underpowered and is going to struggle with most games, as well as any game released in the future. You're much better off saving your money, waiting for price drops or a Newegg deal, and grabbing it there. If you want some help picking out parts email me or add me on messenger or something, I'd be glad to help.
 

KillerSkaarj

Art for swans is dope!
Jan 24, 2008
486
0
0
*sigh* Read this: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=2290267&enterthread=y

Oh yeah, and I could really care less about any other games. The only games that I care about are the ones that were released recently that I can't play because of my low specs especially UT3.

Playing games doesn't necessarily mean paying craploads of money just to play games. It sounds like you want me to go higher and spend well over $500 just to play a game. And instead of saying "Oh, it's gonna run crap", at least give me an estimate for the kind of FPS I'll get instead of being vague. If this setup will get me 30 FPS, then it's good enough for me.
 
Last edited: