UT3 Patch 1.3 Is Out!

  • 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.

T2A`

I'm dead.
Jan 10, 2004
8,752
0
36
Richmond, VA
As far as the rest of your rambling, that is no different than what every game does for shot prediction. Even the Unreal Engine does that.
Except it doesn't. Because it doesn't do compensation. If it did you could shoot what you see and there'd be no delay upon client-side weapon firing. Except there is. Because it doesn't do compensation.

Unreal Engine does client-side interpolation. Interpolation makes things appear smoother overall but also increases the chance of the client and server being out of sync as far as what they "see." Hence Unreal Engine being full of dud projectiles instead of warping player models. I dunno about TF2, but CoD4 and CPMA don't do interpolation.

Sounds like you got your long words that end in "ation" mixed up, but feel free to explain why I'm wrong. :D
 

Grobut

Комиссар Гробут
Oct 27, 2004
1,822
0
0
Soviet Denmark
I guess you weren't around for UT2003, given your response.

By the time the game had been out 6 months, all the whiners had abandoned the game forums for other places that interested them more. The amount of whining that goes on with UT3 is at least ten times, if not hundreds of time, more than it ever was in UT2003. And UT2003 had a far shoddier release than UT3 did.

Additionally, UT2003's final patch came out 7 months after the game was released. Another patch was promised, but never arrived before UT2004 came out.

I didn't ask you if the situation here was identical then and now, i asked you where people by and large thrilled with how it was going?

People where around, and talking/whining about UT2003, maybe not here, but on other forums, i certainly remember having participated in numerous such threads on the forums for mods and games i was also playing at that time, and i'd say most people did not seem all that happy with it.

But time washes such things away, and most people will not rember how frustrated they where with the patching of the game, they will remember its bad launch, and that it saw several patches to iron out the problems.

But yes, there are more complaints this time around, no question about it, but i think thats down to 2 things:

1) The clouser a game is to beeing really good, the more glaring its flaws will seem by contrast, thus making it rather frustrating to see flaws that seem very simple to fix go unpatched.

2) There's not much of an alternative to UT3, if you want this kind of gameplay, what else is there really right now? i guess TF2 could be said to be UT3's clousest rival, but its hardly the same.
Back in 2003 this sort of game was more popular, and the classics like UT and Q3 for instance where not as dated, so they where easier to go back to for people.
So it's not really hard to see why people have an added intrest in UT3 becoming the kind of game they hoped for, and are quite frustrated that it doesen't perform as expected.

However, i do disagree that UT2003 was a shoddier launch than UT3.

I'm not saying there is no benefit to Epic continuing to support UT3, but they certainly don't need to by any means. I don't know what you whiners want from them. Patching costs money, it's not going to get their full development time and budget. Each patch has had plenty of really good fixes, and frankly, if they fixed things that one person is whining about, then people will whine about something else. There is no way for them to stop it.

Chances are many of the fixes Epic implements will be for online play and mod support because that is what they need for MSUC to be successful.

What i want is very simple really, give IA back its bot/team setup options, and fix the menu's forgetting our settings, i don't think that's asking for the moon, or would you disagree? i'd say Epic should be well capable of patching that if they only wanted to, and it would bring a smile to the face of countless offliners all over the world.

Thats really all it would take to put most of UT3's offline community back into their seats, and start enjoying the game for once, there would still be flaws, certainly, but if we just had that, then we could probably get around the rest with mutators and ini tweaks, much like the online community is doing, is that really so much to ask?, that they throw us this bone? considdering we are probably talking about a monstrous amount of players here (atleast 50% remember? its not some fringe of 20 some people, there's alot of us).
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
1) The clouser a game is to beeing really good, the more glaring its flaws will seem by contrast, thus making it rather frustrating to see flaws that seem very simple to fix go unpatched.
Seem simple is exactly the point when you consider the small amount of programming resources that are surely going into each patch.
2) There's not much of an alternative to UT3, if you want this kind of gameplay, what else is there really right now? i guess TF2 could be said to be UT3's clousest rival, but its hardly the same.
Back in 2003 this sort of game was more popular, and the classics like UT and Q3 for instance where not as dated, so they where easier to go back to for people.
So it's not really hard to see why people have an added intrest in UT3 becoming the kind of game they hoped for, and are quite frustrated that it doesen't perform as expected.
Maybe UT fans, but I think most people just don't want games like UT in general. The gameplay is too fast and it is too difficult to feel like you are making a contribution to your team in team games compared to other more popular games. That's the nature of this style of game.

I would love for UT to become popular, period. However, I think the days are gone that those of us who began serious FPS gaming in the latter half of the 90s. The majority of gamers out there right now want things like Halo and Gears of War and World of Warcrap.
However, i do disagree that UT2003 was a shoddier launch than UT3.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but UT2003 was missing about 95% of the features that UT3 was missing at launch, had a much more console-like UI (but better, IMO), and had terrible gameplay. At least UT3 had the gameplay right, in general.
What i want is very simple really, give IA back its bot/team setup options, and fix the menu's forgetting our settings, i don't think that's asking for the moon, or would you disagree? i'd say Epic should be well capable of patching that if they only wanted to, and it would bring a smile to the face of countless offliners all over the world.
I don't see any reason for that not to be patched in, but I also don't fully understand the ramifications of how the UI is written (or why it is written that way instead of the way it's done in Gears of War).

The problem is, you and others seem to think this feature is a five minute fix when chances are it's probably a bit more involved in that.

Even if it's not, I can understand them putting it on the backburner for things like fixing custom content online. That was a pretty bad problem with the retail game that, sadly, is only just now actually working reliably.

We already know that a 1.4 patch is on it's way, and since most of the really bad issues with the game are now fixed, they can focus on adding missing features like gametype map voting and client side demorec (which we've already been told about). So I wouldn't just assume that the feature you want won't make it in that patch either.
 

xMurphyx

New Member
Jun 2, 2008
1,502
0
0
liandri.darkbb.com
Some people have said that the game stopped crashing after installing this patch and the nvidia driver released this week.
Hm. I reinstalled it and played a few rounds without crashing. I was able to play longer than ever. I don't think the new nvidia drivers did it because I don't have them and my gfx card is too old to have a physics unit built into it anyway.
I don't know if it was the patch that fixed the crashes or something else, but it works now, so who cares? :)
 

Grobut

Комиссар Гробут
Oct 27, 2004
1,822
0
0
Soviet Denmark
Seem simple is exactly the point when you consider the small amount of programming resources that are surely going into each patch.

Maybe UT fans, but I think most people just don't want games like UT in general. The gameplay is too fast and it is too difficult to feel like you are making a contribution to your team in team games compared to other more popular games. That's the nature of this style of game.

I would love for UT to become popular, period. However, I think the days are gone that those of us who began serious FPS gaming in the latter half of the 90s. The majority of gamers out there right now want things like Halo and Gears of War and World of Warcrap.

No argument there, most people have horrible taste thease days, but sadly, thats probably not going to change.

But that only makes it more important for a niche game for a nieche market to do well, and be good, well.. atleast for the fanbase.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but UT2003 was missing about 95% of the features that UT3 was missing at launch, had a much more console-like UI (but better, IMO), and had terrible gameplay. At least UT3 had the gameplay right, in general.

Its all about perspective, for me it was a better game launch because it worked better for me offline, the bad gameplay i quickly fixed by using mutators that made it good (thats probably the biggest benifit to offline play, we are not so reliant on the vanilla gameplay beeing good, we just apply whatever mods we want, and needen't worry about how popular thouse mods are, the bots will allways play).

I don't see any reason for that not to be patched in, but I also don't fully understand the ramifications of how the UI is written (or why it is written that way instead of the way it's done in Gears of War).

The problem is, you and others seem to think this feature is a five minute fix when chances are it's probably a bit more involved in that.

Far from it, my guestimate is one dev could probaly spend 1½ months developing it, i'd think thats about right, but patches take longer than that, and considdering how many people it would help, i think its well worth that now the game is in a good state for Online players.

Even if it's not, I can understand them putting it on the backburner for things like fixing custom content online. That was a pretty bad problem with the retail game that, sadly, is only just now actually working reliably.

We already know that a 1.4 patch is on it's way, and since most of the really bad issues with the game are now fixed, they can focus on adding missing features like gametype map voting and client side demorec (which we've already been told about). So I wouldn't just assume that the feature you want won't make it in that patch either.

I base it on Wartourists comments on the matter, the guy is project lead on UT3 if im not mistaken, so when he says that they dont considder it worth their time and have no plans of fixing it, thats a bit of a kick in the groin for us offliners.. basically all we can hope is that they change their mind about that.

But i allready said i do understand why they would scramble to atleast make the game solid Online, it makes sense, and as an offliner it is also in my intrest, i know full well that if UT3 is going to get the kind of mods i want to play, that requires there is some semblance of an online community, they are very much joined at the hip, and for that i am happy about this patch, what i don't really understand is that they have expressed no intrest in adressing the needs of the offline community, WT said that the only thing they where considdering was, maybe, fixing the menu's forgetting our settings, nothing else.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
Well, just don't forget they've had a reversal on the client side demorec as well, which earlier this year they said would get no more love, and now they are fixing it up in the next patch. So you never know :)

In regards to UT2003, I really enjoyed the game, but it was riddled with problems at release. I guess if all you care about is it saving your offline settings, then it was great... ;)
 

Anuban

Your reward is that you are still alive
Apr 4, 2005
1,094
0
0
I find it funny how people keep saying how lousy UT2K3 was and yet as far I know Insite, Nalicity, Planet Unreal, UP, Polycount, and many many other sites were filled to the brim with tons of skins, mutators, levels, TCs, gametypes, etc. and people were definitely still playing the game. It didn't cause the community to dry up and almost blow away and as bad as it was people were still keeping it on their hard drive and checking out all the mod content. And as bad as the UI and many other things were UT3 makes it look like a great product in so many ways. And both had a MSUC going on so there is no reason UT3 should have done so poorly. After three patches of UT2K3 I do know that for offline players most things were just fine. Your character did not change into some annoying demo guy, settings were saved, the UI had plenty of options, ALL the retail maps had the correct preview screens, and setting up teams for team gametypes was easy as pie. And developing decent content was not nearly as complex ... the editor was brand new at that time but having the Upaint tool was fantastic and it was amazing how much content was constantly being pumped out.

If UT3 was just half as good as UT2K3 perhaps sites like Insite, Nalicity, UP, and Polycount would still be fully operational with plenty of content always flowing. And I do remember that 9 months after it release the amount of good solid content available was staggering ... also the fact that CliffyB's Ownage awards were around there was a lot of energy driving the community despite the negative aspects of online play for the game. Also visually it was really a huge step up from UT1, much more so that the current incarnation ... and the artistic style really captivated a lot of people.

And really folks are you people really just into letting companies off the hook for sloppy mistakes and when they don't live up to their word? I really don't that ... we all know as gamers that what makes a game really great is the amount of care and polish even the small things get. And especially when it is something that exists on another platform and really should have never existed in the first place. And then combine that with the fact it is said to be fixed and yet it isn't I think people have a legitimate beef and have the right to ask what happened and why isn't the issue addressed. And people need to stop making light of the offline, Instant Action functionality that is missing that is making a lot of players really annoyed with playing the game. We are not talking about something that was never there before ... it has always been a part of the game and there is no good reason these type of features should have been left out (especially on the PC Platform) when you know so many of your customer base play the game offline. To ask for a premium price (as they did when the game first came out) and yet not deliver on such key elements is disconcerting for a great many players so just because you may not have the same feelings its no reason to talk trash about those of us who do.

Of course this patch has some good stuff ... that has already been stated and recognized. Again the thread is about discussing the patch ... its not just about discussing the positive aspects only, but about what would have been nice to see fixed (demo guy bug for issue, after three patches for a supposedly AAA game it is just unbelievable imo that this issue still exists in any form). I don't know how that is seen as whining but people need to stop rolling over and just accepting everything without question. These are free products and these are not a group of 10-20 guys working on some game in a garage. So no I am not going to cut a group of highly paid professionals with years of industry experience and experience with this game any slack for such sophomoric errors. If you want to expect less and tolerate it then fine but please don't expect me too. And as you have seen I am not the only person who feels this way ... if I was then we'd still have plenty of places to get info about content and a thriving online community. It appears a lot of folks were expecting Epic to deliver a much more polished and refined product and we've seen the results of that not being the case. But perhaps with this patch, the patch for the PS3 version and the patch for the 360 people will come back since they can see the game has not been totally abandoned yet. Its not like Sega and their titles for example (Iron Man and the Hulk ... two horrible games that have seen a patch yet and they need it) so that is something to build on in positive fashion. And Epic did listen when we asked for Motion blur on the PC and for the custom faction support I will give them points for that as well.
 

Noobnugget

New Member
Jan 10, 2006
121
0
0
I don't know if T2A meant this or not but ping compensation is almost expected on most console games now days and on many PC games. It makes the game more user friendly and makes the experience better for your average person who doesn't know about or doesn't want to lead targets and all of the stuff that comes with the "ping" territory. Most average people don't really care about "getting hit behind a wall" if they don't have to worry about ping.
Oh yea, that's one thing i keep forgetting. Nowadays things have to be "user friendly", or to term it more correctly "made easy", for the masses of near clueless players.

Ohio to Chicago is not very far. For the majority of servers, you are looking at at least 250ms.

From where I am, 56k dialup MIGHT get you 300 or 350 if you're lucky to the major server hosting hubs in the midwest.
Not far, no. But it still didn't go above 200 in the usa for me.
 
Last edited:

elmuerte

Master of Science
Jan 25, 2000
1,936
0
36
42
the Netherlands
elmuerte.com
Deconstructing Cache Coherence.

Recent advances in mobile epistemologies and peer-to-peer archetypes do not necessarily obviate the need for the Internet. Of course, this is not always the case. The usual methods for the improvement of object-oriented languages do not apply in this area. Given the current status of mobile algorithms, cyberinformaticians compellingly desire the study of context-free grammar. Contrarily, the partition table alone cannot fulfill the need for peer-to-peer modalities.

In order to achieve this purpose, we argue not only that the much-touted low-energy algorithm for the analysis of congestion control by Zheng et al. [8] is recursively enumerable, but that the same is true for the transistor. In addition, despite the fact that conventional wisdom states that this challenge is rarely addressed by the investigation of the World Wide Web, we believe that a different approach is necessary. For example, many systems develop RPCs. Combined with Boolean logic, such a hypothesis visualizes a relational tool for deploying interrupts.

The contributions of this work are as follows. We demonstrate that voice-over-IP can be made modular, efficient, and low-energy [3]. We use ubiquitous theory to disprove that systems can be made multimodal, electronic, and efficient.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. We motivate the need for model checking. Further, to surmount this obstacle, we use flexible methodologies to argue that massive multiplayer online role-playing games and Byzantine fault tolerance can connect to realize this intent. Next, to realize this ambition, we demonstrate that despite the fact that web browsers and systems are always incompatible, the location-identity split and gigabit switches are often incompatible. As a result, we conclude.

Our research is principled. We postulate that SMPs and telephony are entirely incompatible. Despite the fact that computational biologists entirely hypothesize the exact opposite, Toat depends on this property for correct behavior. On a similar note, despite the results by Johnson, we can prove that DHTs and evolutionary programming are usually incompatible. As a result, the architecture that Toat uses is solidly grounded in reality [8].

Reality aside, we would like to refine a methodology for how Toat might behave in theory. The methodology for Toat consists of four independent components: SCSI disks, voice-over-IP, information retrieval systems, and the World Wide Web. Further, we believe that each component of our application controls the refinement of suffix trees, independent of all other components. Despite the fact that experts often assume the exact opposite, Toat depends on this property for correct behavior. The question is, will Toat satisfy all of these assumptions? No.

The hacked operating system and the collection of shell scripts must run in the same JVM. Along these same lines, security experts have complete control over the hacked operating system, which of course is necessary so that voice-over-IP can be made real-time, unstable, and encrypted. The hacked operating system contains about 52 semi-colons of C.

As we will soon see, the goals of this section are manifold. Our overall evaluation approach seeks to prove three hypotheses: (1) that wide-area networks have actually shown amplified complexity over time; (2) that we can do little to adjust an application's hard disk throughput; and finally (3) that clock speed stayed constant across successive generations of Atari 2600s. the reason for this is that studies have shown that interrupt rate is roughly 60% higher than we might expect [7]. Next, our logic follows a new model: performance really matters only as long as performance takes a back seat to popularity of IPv4. Our evaluation method holds suprising results for patient reader.

We modified our standard hardware as follows: we executed an emulation on our flexible overlay network to prove the independently encrypted behavior of disjoint epistemologies. We halved the effective floppy disk space of our desktop machines. On a similar note, we removed 150Gb/s of Internet access from our millenium cluster. We added 10kB/s of Ethernet access to our mobile telephones. Had we deployed our system, as opposed to deploying it in a chaotic spatio-temporal environment, we would have seen weakened results. Lastly, we removed some RAM from our planetary-scale cluster. This step flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but is essential to our results.

When M. Frans Kaashoek autogenerated EthOS's historical software architecture in 1935, he could not have anticipated the impact; our work here follows suit. We added support for Toat as a kernel module [13]. Our experiments soon proved that instrumenting our discrete robots was more effective than exokernelizing them, as previous work suggested. Next, we added support for Toat as a wired embedded application. All of these techniques are of interesting historical significance; Q. Qian and Ivan Sutherland investigated an entirely different system in 1967.

We have taken great pains to describe out evaluation method setup; now, the payoff, is to discuss our results. With these considerations in mind, we ran four novel experiments: (1) we measured DHCP and WHOIS latency on our system; (2) we ran Lamport clocks on 93 nodes spread throughout the Planetlab network, and compared them against Byzantine fault tolerance running locally; (3) we measured Web server and DHCP latency on our planetary-scale testbed; and (4) we compared block size on the OpenBSD, Microsoft Windows 2000 and Microsoft DOS operating systems.

We first explain experiments (1) and (3) enumerated above. We scarcely anticipated how wildly inaccurate our results were in this phase of the performance analysis. Second, we scarcely anticipated how inaccurate our results were in this phase of the evaluation approach. Further, operator error alone cannot account for these results [5,1].

Shown in Figure 2, experiments (1) and (3) enumerated above call attention to Toat's effective hit ratio. The key to Figure 2 is closing the feedback loop; Figure 3 shows how Toat's popularity of red-black trees does not converge otherwise. Second, these bandwidth observations contrast to those seen in earlier work [4], such as U. Kobayashi's seminal treatise on local-area networks and observed effective floppy disk throughput. Continuing with this rationale, operator error alone cannot account for these results.

Lastly, we discuss the first two experiments. Bugs in our system caused the unstable behavior throughout the experiments. Second, error bars have been elided, since most of our data points fell outside of 21 standard deviations from observed means. On a similar note, we scarcely anticipated how accurate our results were in this phase of the evaluation method.

In designing Toat, we drew on existing work from a number of distinct areas. S. Abiteboul et al. [14] suggested a scheme for constructing Web services, but did not fully realize the implications of 128 bit architectures at the time [2]. Instead of simulating "smart" epistemologies [7,13,6], we surmount this question simply by improving pervasive modalities. Without using knowledge-based epistemologies, it is hard to imagine that virtual machines and the transistor can collaborate to accomplish this aim.

The concept of "smart" communication has been visualized before in the literature. Instead of exploring the emulation of I/O automata, we answer this riddle simply by emulating the Turing machine. An analysis of cache coherence proposed by Martin et al. fails to address several key issues that Toat does surmount [9,12,11]. We plan to adopt many of the ideas from this previous work in future versions of our heuristic.

Our experiences with Toat and scatter/gather I/O validate that robots and 8 bit architectures can interfere to address this riddle. We verified that security in our framework is not a quagmire. Further, to achieve this ambition for the simulation of DNS, we motivated new introspective archetypes. Furthermore, our methodology cannot successfully visualize many SMPs at once. We expect to see many computational biologists move to enabling Toat in the very near future.

-----

I thought I might as well add some more nonsense to this thread.

It's humor, laugh ffs!
 

Thanatos

New Member
Oct 21, 2005
277
0
0
Napali Meditation Room
Well I appreciate Epics effort to offer support in improving the quality of UT3 I still wonder what exactly is next for the Unreal series looking back at the history of Unreal Tournament on the extra DVD they emphasized how they don't release a product until it is finished.

But yet in two cases this has not been the case both UT2003 (which wasn't in the history of Unreal Tournament according to Epic, funny considering UT2004 was) and UT3 were released when the product was clearly not finished/tested to a level that you would expect a game to be.
 

Dark Pulse

Dolla, Dolla. Holla, Holla.
Sep 12, 2004
6,186
0
0
38
Buffalo, NY, USA
darkpulse.project2612.org
But yet in two cases this has not been the case both UT2003 (which wasn't in the history of Unreal Tournament according to Epic, funny considering UT2004 was)
UT2003's storyline as a whole was retconned by UT2004. The only part that held true was Gorge defeating (and injuring) Malcolm.

But then again, UT2003 also retconned the whole TIMELINE, considering it said Malcolm's reigns began in 2291, not 2341.
 

Grasshopper

New Member
Jan 21, 2008
121
0
0
Upstate NY
From what I remember of what some people said from testing beta 3 or 4 (forget which) the UI doesn't save settings.tbh I donno why this was taken out in the first place.Maybe to try to "force" UT3 players to play online instead of Instant Action.But since this is the final version of 1.3 I'm not sure try it out and see.

It doesn't say settings for a "listen" server either, which is indeed on line play. Whenever I play with buddies, I have to start from scratch. Makes no sense.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
If UT3 was just half as good as UT2K3 perhaps sites like Insite, Nalicity, UP, and Polycount would still be fully operational with plenty of content always flowing. And I do remember that 9 months after it release the amount of good solid content available was staggering ... also the fact that CliffyB's Ownage awards were around there was a lot of energy driving the community despite the negative aspects of online play for the game. Also visually it was really a huge step up from UT1, much more so that the current incarnation ... and the artistic style really captivated a lot of people.
It's doubtful, NaliCity has been marred by technical problems for over two years, and Insite has been on a downhill slope for years as well. The people who started those sites lost interest in UT2003/4 and their interest was obviously not rekindled with UT3 (or they just don't game like they used to).

The fact of the matter is, things are not the way they were 8 years ago, and people doing volunteer work for the Unreal series has dropped exponentially since 2000. You can try to ignore this all you want, but consider that 90% of BU's news is posted by one person, the majority of the forum administration is done by two people and all of the server administration is done by two people from the same group as above. We've been watching this trend since 2004. BU is one of the last community run fansites for Unreal that is based around the community.

That said, we still have hopes to get NaliCity back up and possibly merge Insite with it. In my case, I have a family to take care of and that means that paid work is going to take precedence over something I do on the side for free as a hobby.
 

Lethargy

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Feb 24, 2006
277
0
0
Patch 1.3 does not fix the debilitating duel server incapacitation bug that occurs every time someone leaves the game mid duel. Every time I try to duel the server just ends up broken and I go play something else.
 

Leo(T.C.K.)

I did something m0tarded and now I have read only access! :(
May 14, 2006
4,794
36
48
I forgot to say anothet bug: When map loads and you have to click on ready button, there is not accessible options until you click on ready and then hit esc.

Auto taunts plying only when killing spree? Why not always? Why can't I hear them?
I am kinda disapointed, I expected more of this patch, not gameplay wise or anything, but these bugs i mentioned were the ones i had problem with always i didn't care about other fixed things that much.