UnrealTournament Extension Pack

[FXD|Shadow]

Currently I would say 65 % (yes first post says something different, but over the time I was adding so much more and I have still some unfullfilled ideas in mind)

Regarding the hardware shaders: I'll try to make them runable by OpenGL AND DirectX, the same goes for all the other hardcoded new features. For some OpenGL is the best for others DirectX...

The software "shaders" / combiners will work on any machine using OpenGL OR DirectX, no matter what you prefer.

Personally I don't believe in true love, my current girlfriend might give me a punch in my balls right now, but I prefer to call good/long year relationships "true" or "great" love after knowing what it was all about, when it's over (again). But yeah, I wish everyone good look on finding the right partner by time. Oh and there's no such "true love" for young people, there'll never be any for them.

Babby ?


Ohhh.. and geeeez you're all going to love the new sprites (all new features of the new sprites also go for all sprite particle based particle systems).. *throws a small update hint onto the table*

 

[BlackCheetah]

I don't believe in true love*

UT is everyone's true love, its all lies!

 

[Elite6]

I have a question regarding your new RenderDevice. Will you release the source code with SDK for it? I'm really interested because I want to port UT to a CAVE environment without having to change the game content (the CAVEUT solution).

 

[FXD|Shadow]

The Unreal Tournament SDK stands under Open Source Copyright "Artistic License 2.0". t's explicitly written, that a Project which stands under this Copyright has to be 100 % open source. This License suited my needs for Copyright in the best way allowing it to be fully open source but still having the control what can be changed.

Permissions for Redistribution of the Standard Version

(2) You may Distribute verbatim copies of the Source form of the Standard Version of this Package in any medium without restriction, either gratis or for a Distributor Fee, provided that you duplicate all of the original copyright notices and associated disclaimers. At your discretion, such verbatim copies may or may not include a Compiled form of the Package.

(3) You may apply any bug fixes, portability changes, and other modifications made available from the Copyright Holder. The resulting Package will still be considered the Standard Version, and as such will be subject to the Original License.

Source: Artistic License 2.0 (c) 2000-2006, The Perl Foundation

In short: Everyone gets everything, all files, all sources. What is not allowed: Changing, extending or (especially) distributing the pack by your own without my permission. Changed (modified) versions still count as my (basic) work and are only legal if I grant them, but for private purpose it's absolutely ok.

If you still want to release or change something on top of the SDK or the SDK itself (as Patch, as Update, as Fix) you have to inform me first !


Well.. I'm curious about your project. Tell me something about it !

 

[Raven]

I have a question regarding your new RenderDevice. Will you release the source code with SDK for it? I'm really interested because I want to port UT to a CAVE environment without having to change the game content (the CAVEUT solution).

If you want to get URenderBase subclass just copy whole class URenderBase eg class MYPKG_API UNewRender : public URenderBase. Normally you'd have to call Super:: but in this case you have to borrow code from ucc (or was it setup?), anyway you have to call base render code so just load static class NewClass = UObject::StaticLoadClass( UNewRender ::StaticClass() ...blablabla) and the construct object RenderBase = ConstructObject<UNewRender >( NewClass );. You have to do it in init only. Then override all functions and call 'em on base render you've just created.

Of course there's easier way, just override some renderer (OGL/D3D) and iterate through all actors in DrawComplexSurface as follows:

	for(int i=0; i<Frame->Level->Actors.Num(); i++)
	{
		if(Frame->Level->Actors(i))
		{
			do something on actor...
		}
	}

You can check for brush/mesh and draw/do something on them.

The license is fair Shadow, but what if I want to write extension to SDK (in separate package) as part of some mod or smth ? Do I still need permission ?

 

[GreatEmerald]

...so, any news on the progress?

 

[FXD|Shadow]

The license is fair Shadow, but what if I want to write extension to SDK (in separate package) as part of some mod or smth ? Do I still need permission ?

Yes, you''ll still need my permission. It's explicitly written in the Copyright. It IS indeed open source, it is freely changeable, but as soon as you go public with it you'll need to inform me. The main reason for this: Since many will use the SDK as base I simply want to keep up certain standards preventing version mismatches and stuff.

oh and Emerald, yes there're several news and updates, but I do bet you don't want to here any cold words and stats anymore. I really really hope to show some new pictures and maybe a video very soon. I just say: the "new" Projectors alone would be forth it. Uhm andDecals that fade !? Sprites and Particles via Software Shaders to get the ability of Dynamic Colors and X/Y Size of Textures, Particle Engines nearing 90 % (!) .. yeeehhaaaawwww.. That's just a very little bit of current progress...

I really understand everybody who's curious but until I can show any new pics/vids I have to test, test and again test everything. It's not a Mod, but an SDK, remember that please. There're currently ~ 400 Classes, 8 Packages.. (without the Resource Packages like Textures). The present development goes really smooth. What I mostly "fear" are: Replication and Documentation. Yes, Documentation, because this will be one of the most ambitious and extensive tasks to be fullfilled. The Docu will be shipped as big PDF-Archive, richly illustrated, easy understandable and neatly arranged. Then I hope to go in full Beta Testing during (early) Summer '09 (maybe Spring) reaching 90-95 % of full progress ! Going Gold during late Summer/Fall '09.

Oh one annotation regarding Beta Testing and Testers: I'm going to make higher demands than that of a simple Tester to these ones. Every Beta Tester should be familiar with either (good!) Mapping and/or Coding using the Unreal Engine. This will make things easier since these kind of Testers probably find and fix errors easier than someone more inexperienced, AND they WILL belong to some kind of team organized around the SDK ! ...

I hope that are enough infos for the time, if there're still any questions don't hesitate to ask !

 

[BlackCheetah]

freely changeable

but as soon as you go public with it you'll need to inform me

...

 

[Zur]

How about documenting this on UnrealWiki ? That way you can share the work of writing stuff with users who are familiar with this pack.

 

[FXD|Shadow]

How about documenting this on UnrealWiki ? That way you can share the work of writing stuff with users who are familiar with this pack.

I was already doing that, there're a couple of sites on UWiki regarding the SDK. But for me... I don't like documentating it that way.

 

[Zur]

Well, it's your choice. You know exactly what will happen to the project if you suddenly disappear. I can understand you wanting to do things your way but many hands make light work.

It doesn't have to be documentation is the proper sense of the term and it'd be nice to see some tutorials from people who have found different ways to use the extensions. Not everyone is going to have the patience to sit down and explore what's possible and your work might risk going to waste.

 

[GreatEmerald]

Huh? But if you just make a mod that extends your package, that is, doesn't use any part of the pack itself, but refers to it (requires it), then possibly you don't need to ask for permission?

And yes, don't worry about the docs too much. They can be released separately, I'm sure that anyone who wants to get the pack and documentation will be able to figure out that they have to press two links. Documentation isn't needed by everyone, as we can quite figure out pretty much everything on our own.

 

[FXD|Shadow]

Well, it's your choice. You know exactly what will happen to the project if you suddenly disappear. I can understand you wanting to do things your way but many hands make light work.

It doesn't have to be documentation is the proper sense of the term and it'd be nice to see some tutorials from people who have found different ways to use the extensions. Not everyone is going to have the patience to sit down and explore what's possible and your work might risk going to waste.

well I said for ME ^^ That doesn't exclude the possibility that someone or maybe some are going to make their own custom documentation @ UWiki.

I just prefer to give a complete Documentation shipped with the whole pack. That's it ^^

Huh? But if you just make a mod that extends your package, that is, doesn't use any part of the pack itself, but refers to it (requires it), then possibly you don't need to ask for permission?

And yes, don't worry about the docs too much. They can be released separately, I'm sure that anyone who wants to get the pack and documentation will be able to figure out that they have to press two links. Documentation isn't needed by everyone, as we can quite figure out pretty much everything on our own.

No, you missunderstood me. If you're going to build a new own mod on top of the SDK no permission is required, since it is free I cannot deny you OWN work ! The license says that you are not allowed to change the SDK without my permission, that doesn't change the fact that everyone may use it as he wants for it's own project, keeping it as unmodified base. The modifications are up on you and your mod, what you do on top of the SDK.

And.. Documentation will be needed explicitly. I cannot expect that everyone using the SDK is better than average. That's impossible. Thus everyone gets a complete fine Documentation shipped with the Pack. But there could be an option for the download files: One download with and one w/o docu.

 

[GreatEmerald]

Ah, that's OK then. Who would want to modify the base SDK though? It's kinda like modifying Botpack.u.

I'm not saying that everyone are above average, but, if you want to mess with the SDK, then probably you do know something. I'm not sure how much usable content you'll add here anyway, so can't say too much, but I'm just saying that if you can release it, docs aren't the most important part and can be released later. No need to delay the release even more. And yes, your system sounds good enough, though that way you could also give an option of downloading the standalone doc pack, in case the user thinks that he doesn't need it and then realises he actually could use one.

 

[FXD|Shadow]

Oh yeah you're right indeed ! Didn't think about the fact of a possible release delay.. omd xD
Yes, a good suggestion though

Today I'm going to test and finish the Software Shader Particles.. what an exciting minute. Finally particles superior to standard methods.

 

[Zur]

Go for incremental releases if you can. That way you'll get new work out faster and get the buzz of having achieved something worthwhile more often .

 

[FXD|Shadow]

Yeah that's a good idea. There'll be indeed official Bugfixes and such, you can't excpect that everything's 100 % working out from initial release

In the mean time... I'm hardly working on the next major update ! Featuring the Particle Systems going 90 % soon. The Update contains new Infos, Pics and probably a Vid.
Just to keep you informed

 

[Zur]

Hmm, I just tried the test map and it's impressive what you've achieved with only unrealscript. It's a shame you can't distort the image of projectors like you can on ut2004. That would have been nice to recreate realistic shadows.

 

[FXD|Shadow]

geez.. the ol' testmap gives me the shivers ! a bunch of new things thrown into some ugly rooms.. well and you'll be surprised that the SDK stil is 80-90 % uscript too.. ^^

to the projectors: since my uscript projectors only use decals there's no way of projective-texture-distortion, because the U/V channels of the textures aren't accessable in realtime, expect canvas textures (which are 2D, and not transformed to work 3D space) - but as times come I may even code a c++ counterpart doing even more magick xD

but.. there're so many other ways implementing realtime shadows, texture projection is only one of many

well.. now I gotta go continuing my work..

 

[UBerserker]

well.. now I gotta go continuing my work..

HBD too!