UT99 to Ut2003--Modders, start the Engine

[SPoT]

i'm sure with the right people we could make a nice fast uwindows system.

as u said it's personal prefrence/opinion.

10-4.

Im always thinking speed.
Wait time sucks.

Im using a quickstart file to start up UT2k3. Click button and direct to menus with no intro. Lemme know if you want the file. My menu interface looks like ass, but Im in the game from button to play in less than a minute.

THe Uwindows system is very cool with its interface, its just not very fast.

Id like to see it, but in the end Id probibly turn it off if I could. The current system is faster with a few tweaks to the interface.

I dont want my opinion to assume its the only way to go. A good scripter could make great things happen on the interface. Methinks Epic is including better scripting for it in UT2k4.....

 

[Swedix]

Started basic BSP subtraction for CTF-Hydro16

 

[SPoT]

we arent just going to end up with UT within the 2k3 engine?

I hope what we end up with in the end is a UT mod, with UT2kX content enabled. The mod community will be able to add UT2k3 content with the feel of UT. If you notice how the mods such as Operation NaPali, TacticalOps, UT2k3s Chaos2 and the like run, they have a stand alone launcher, and a few with UT2k3 mutators. Id personaly like to see a stand alone launcher with a mute ingame. The problem with a mute is the maps. UT2k3s game play will clash with UTs physics.

Thats why Im hoping mappers will dig the mod and map for it.

 

[FizzyB]

I disagree with spot, i think we should upgrade the graphics and make the maps pretty, otherwise whats the point of porting to ut2003 at all? we might as well just play UT, its silly to recreate the game totally, we already have that game

and i agree that the scale should be left as it is in the maps, and its up to the coders to make that right

 

[The Trasher]

Hmm, maybe have custom menu graphics (like Face Off) using the old uWindows graphics? It'd be the best of both worlds.

 

[SPoT]

I disagree with spot, i think we should upgrade the graphics and make the maps pretty, otherwise whats the point of porting to ut2003 at all?

Once again three main reasons..
System requirements
Game physics
Security checks

As I said before, I dont plan on using the mod. I like UT2k3 and all it offers. That doesnt mean I dont want to see it done right. IMO.

Ive got a combination of past and future thinking going. There is no reason that the UT mod cant incorperate UT2kX's current tech. But the best way to attract UT players to the UT2kX engine is to make it exactly like UT. My current thinking is get the mod out with what the UT players enjoy now. If you change it too much it will not be the same, and no one will use it. If you can port UT into UT2k3, then the players will jump over cuz the engine and netcode is better, and the mod will run faster than both UT and UT2k3.

Im all for this mod to have UT2k3s eyecandy. But it isnt made yet.
You have to have a simple base, and the base that will attract UT players is lighting up UT2k3 and being able to play UT just as if you started UT, with the added benifets of a better engine and netcode.

Changes can, should and will be made.
Im pushing for the base, which is an exact UT port.
If it can be done, I dont see why anyone would play UT anymore, except for price

Good to see you looking at it FizzyB.
But remember, people play UT for UT, not UT2k3s content.

 

[atropos]

Can you ppl say wich map you are converting, because i don't wanna make a map and later on find out someone els has alleady done it.

 

[SPoT]

Can you ppl say wich map you are converting, because i don't wanna make a map and later on find out someone els has alleady done it.

When we decide on a plce to go to coordinate, itll be alot easier.
Im doing DM's Oblivion, Arcane Temple, and Koos Galleon.

Looks like Hunter is doing Orbital.

Any others?

 

[FizzyB]

so err, i need a decision on map size as im building nirven? we keeping them the same as ut and letting coders do it? or scaling them up?

 

[SPoT]

so err, i need a decision on map size as im building nirven? we keeping them the same as ut and letting coders do it? or scaling them up?

At this point, Id suggest doing the brushes in UT for scale, and then eveything else in UT2k3, if its a rebuild. If its a port, then just copy it over and then add textures, lighting, sprites n such. The mod will set the scale on its own after creation. But if you use UT2k3 pawns to build for size and movement, its going to be off. When porting a UT map to UT2k3's gameply, you need to resize up or the map will be too small due to movement. Without a current base in UT2k3, there is no way to tell how the map will play with the UT mod, even more so cuz the perspectives are different.

My 2k3 ports are direct copies of the original, scaled up to 1.25. My UT ports for the mod are direct copies with no size changes. The perspective and movment changes of the mod should do the rest...

 

[SylverFyre]

I'll revisit Coret for this

Ive done it before as my first ever map - and I made that learning all the while and trying to make it run well on low end 2k3 systems but work with new moves/speed etc

I'd like to have a crack at getting Coret going in this mod

Also, I appreciate what everyone is saying - most of my UT clan hate 2k3, it would be nice for people like them to be able to take the gameplay they love with 2k3's advances in engine etc.

 

[FizzyB]

Ok so same scale it is

guys we need an irc channel for this so we can work more closely dont you agree?

#UTCLASSIC on quakenet

 

[Hunter]

Ok so same scale it is

guys we need an irc channel for this so we can work more closely dont you agree?

#UTCLASSIC on quakenet

i was bout to say somewhere on ETG as thats were most unreal channels are like #unrealed etc.

 

[FizzyB]

i was bout to say somewhere on ETG as thats were most unreal channels are like #unrealed etc.

a few of us are already there, do come

 

[KarlMarx]

I disagree with spot, i think we should upgrade the graphics and make the maps pretty, otherwise whats the point of porting to ut2003 at all? we might as well just play UT, its silly to recreate the game totally, we already have that game

and i agree that the scale should be left as it is in the maps, and its up to the coders to make that right

I think Fizzy and Spot both have good points about graphics. You don't want to be limited to 1999 eye candy. But it may also make sense to port the classic maps over as closely to the original as possible, for the sake of authenticity and frame rates. Of course, there's nothing wrong with releasing more than one version of a classic map as well: lite and deluxe. And new maps created for the mod don't need to be limited at all IMO.

Great to see more people getting interested. As more people get involved the #UTCLASSIC channel idea may really come in handy.

 

[Hunter]

for now i think we should just work on getting it to look like UT for now, and texture changes etc should happen at a later stage.

 

[FizzyB]

about the gfx, static meshes should be disabled in low or medium detail, everybodies happy either that or we have our own "deluxe setting" which is like a detail setting but changes the map from UT mode to UT2003 mode

 

[Hunter]

a few of us are already there, do come

ur lucky i come on quakenet every so often then arent ya

 

[TossMonkey]

I have but one thing to say about this project "delusions of grandeur".

 

[KarlMarx]

I have but one thing to say about this project "delusions of grandeur".

Who said anything about grandeur? Thanks for your contribution.