PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Coming Soon! (Or Possibly Never...)
July 18th 2000, 06:28 CEST by andy

One of the common complaints thrown at developers is that features 'promised' during development don't make it into the final game. These complaints, I feel, are generally without merit, because the promises are usually nothing more than excited developers being enthusiastic about what they're working on. But sometimes, people do have a right to feel let-down...



When Unreal was released about three years ago, it included a beta version of the game's editor, UnrealEd. The editor had been a major part of the game's marketing for several years. Some magazine previews gave as much attention to the editor as they gave to the game. There were editing web sites being actively maintained before the game had even been released, and anyone who was involved in the pre-release community will tell you that a lot of the game's eventual sales were doubtless due to the much-hyped editor.

The editor was not marketed as an 'extra'. It was marketed as part of the game.

When Unreal came out, the editor fell short of many people's expectations, due mainly to it being very unstable. Several fixes were released, but as Epic was busy trying to get the Unreal net code up to scratch, the editor was put on a back burner. For some people, the editor was never stable, and would either not run at all or would crash after a few minutes of use. The same is true to this day.

Epic's plan had always been that Unreal would include the 'full' version of the editor, and then a 'fuller' commercial version would later be released as a separate product, complete with a manual. In the build-up to Unreal's release, Epic placed online adverts for a technical writer to work on the editor's manual.

Shortly before Unreal's release it was announced that the included version of the editor would be classed as an unsupported beta. The blurb on the game box stated that "a full featured, fully supported level editor will be available soon". When you install Unreal, the license agreement states that it includes "a beta version of the upcoming Unreal level editor", and that "this beta version of the editor has been included to show the potential of the final version".

In an interview, about a year after Unreal's release when the net code had been vastly improved and the game was still selling, Epic's Tim Sweeney was asked if he still planned to go ahead with the new editor. He replied: "Absolutely! The new UnrealEd rewrite isn't a dead-end." He also commented on the commercial release: "GT wants the full version to be sold in retail stores, and they have the final decision. However, we can and will go through free public betas during development."

There has never been any confusion or lack of clarity about the full version of the editor. For over four years, it was talked about by Epic as a definite future release. There was never any suggestion from Epic that it might not happen.

As most people in the Unreal community have no doubt realised by now, this long-promised final version of the editor will never arrive.

Worse, though, is the fact that it has arrived for Unreal Tournament, and although that rewritten and much more stable version is compatible with Unreal, Epic has decided not to release it for the original game.

According to Tomasz Jachimczak of editing site UnrealEd.exe, Unreal Tournament owners can get the editor to work with Unreal "without too much hassle". However, for anyone who doesn't own Unreal Tournament, he summarised that "it's going to be pretty tricky", as the editor is only available in UT patches.

We asked Tim Sweeney to confirm whether or not it will be possible for Unreal owners to get updated versions of the editor. He explained: "No; the UnrealEd that results from applying the Final Unreal1 Patch to an installation of Unreal1 is indeed the final version of UnrealEd for Unreal1."

It could be argued that the commercial release of UnrealEd would have cost roughly the same as Unreal Tournament, so Epic's customers should not feel betrayed or ripped off. But when people bought Unreal, complete with an on-the-box guarantee that a "a full featured, fully supported level editor will be available soon", I don't think they were expecting to wait two years and then be forced to buy Epic's next game -- still only to get an unsupported version.

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Coming Soon! (Or Possibly Never...)

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Baytor"
2000-07-18 06:35:14
baytor@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/baytor
Of course, UnrealEd was the only reason I bought Unreal :)

After so long a wait, I can't imagine this being a big deal anymore.

errrr.... better yet, to those lying, evil bastards at Epic, I want my money back... NOW!!!!  :

I... AM BAYTOR!!!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#2 by "Baytor"
2000-07-18 06:37:26
baytor@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/baytor
Damn, I forgot to add, "first" to that last post.

All freakin' right, I finally did it.  Time to check that off of my to do list.

 *  Know somebody who went on the Jerry Springer Show
 *  Touch a boobie
 *  First post on PlanetCrap

I... AM BAYTOR!!!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#3 by "Paul"
2000-07-18 06:50:51
pab05f@mizzou.edu http://www.planethalflife.com/aerotic
I've always wanted to be a first post Baytor, but you beat me to it;-)

So I'm third post!
#4 by ""
2000-07-18 06:54:22
Hmm. Get your Unreal box. Turn it over on the back. Look at the small print towards the bottom. It says right on the box that UnrealEd is unsupported.
#5 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-07-18 06:54:26
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
Cool.  A topic I can relate to.  ;)
#6 by "Russ"
2000-07-18 06:55:26
rthcowboy@mindspring.com
<b>#2</b> "Baytor" wrote...
<QUOTE>Know somebody who went on the Jerry Springer Show
</QUOTE>
Is that the biblical <i>know</i> or do you just mean you want to meet them?
Heh<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#7 by "Apache"
2000-07-18 06:57:12
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
<quote>...The editor had been a major part of the game's marketing for several years...</quote>

Yup, the reason I rushed out to buy Unreal was the Editor! hehe
#8 by "Baytor"
2000-07-18 06:57:52
baytor@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/baytor
<b>#6</b> "Russ" wrote...
<QUOTE>

<B>#2</B> "Baytor" wrote...

<quote>Know somebody who went on the Jerry Springer Show
</quote>
Is that the biblical <I>know</I> or do you just mean you want to meet them?
Heh</QUOTE>

Nope, chick I know at work went on the Springer Show to reveal to her boyfriend that she was a prostitute.

I... AM BAYTOR!!!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#9 by "Baytor"
2000-07-18 06:59:29
baytor@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/baytor
<b>#7</b> "Apache" wrote...
<QUOTE>


<quote>...The editor had been a major part of the game's marketing for several years...</quote>

Yup, the reason I rushed out to buy Unreal was the Editor! hehe


</QUOTE>

Just imagine all the disappointed little kids on Christmas morning... "but Mo-om, I wa-anted a ga-ame with an editor."

I... AM BAYTOR!!!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#10 by "Russ"
2000-07-18 07:03:22
rthcowboy@mindspring.com
<b>#8</b> "Baytor" wrote...
<QUOTE>Nope, chick I know at work went on the Springer Show to reveal to her boyfriend
that she was a prostitute.

</QUOTE>
You work with a prostitute? So, what's your job at work? I'm not sure I really want to know.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#11 by "Paul"
2000-07-18 07:05:52
pab05f@mizzou.edu http://www.planethalflife.com/aerotic
Now that I said third post..

It's in a developers best interest to have a media blackout like Max Payne, and Duke Forever.. Then when we first see the game we will be like "oh cool, wow" or "well i didn't hear much about the game, I guess this is why"

- Paul
#12 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-07-18 07:06:57
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
<quote>Just imagine all the disappointed little kids on Christmas morning... "but Mo-om, I wa-anted a ga-ame with an editor."</quote>

Before this gets too out of hand ... Unreal DID ship with an editor (like the story above says).  And it was more than capable.  Hell, Epic built Unreal with it, it couldn't have been TOO bad.  :)
#13 by "Baytor"
2000-07-18 07:10:00
baytor@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/baytor
<b>#10</b> "Russ" wrote...
<QUOTE>You work with a prostitute? So, what's your job at work? I'm not sure I really
want to know.</QUOTE>

I pimp crack ho's.

Of course, now that she's pregnant, she's more of a snack ho.

Sadly, the Springer Show is a complete sham, which should be obvious with all those people who are completely floored by their lover's admission... ON THE SPRINGER SHOW.  It's not like they ever do good stuff.

I... AM BAYTOR!!!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#14 by "shaithis"
2000-07-18 07:14:06
chrisb@gamespy.com http://www.gamespy.com
<B>#0</B>, Andy -

<quote>anyone who was involved in the pre-release community will tell you that a lot of the game's eventual sales were doubtless due to the much-hyped editor.</quote>

Err... could you clarify what you mean by "a lot"? Last I heard, the game sold over 1 million copies. Of those, I'd be surprised if more than 20k (1/50th) of those who bought it even knew it had an editor, let alone cared. Actually, I'd be surprised if more than 5k people cared.

Not trying to be a jerk, just going by what I know about the world of PC gaming sales, which is to say that the user modification community is a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall game-buying populace. The percentage of users who actually _build_ the modifications/levels/etc, as opposed to just using them, is a far tinier fraction even than that.



-shaithis
#15 by "Rambar"
2000-07-18 07:14:36
<QUOTE>Hell, Epic built Unreal with it, it couldn't have been TOO bad. :)</QUOTE>

Heh, is this an argument for or against the editor?  It must be the latter.
#16 by "Desiato"
2000-07-18 07:17:36
desiato_hotblack@hotmail.com http://www.spew2.com/
I never had problems with the editor like you describe, but then again -- you probably switched your supply power to 115 to maintain compatibility with an american release.

Joking.

Really though -- you ever use it?

I don't see that opinion in your article, just a vocal minority of (how many?) people that you vaguely quote.

Oh well...the professional and dedicated mappers know their way around UED and UED 2.0 to knock out some outstanding maps, instead of merely bitching about the process. ;-)

Desiato
#17 by "Russ"
2000-07-18 07:18:15
rthcowboy@mindspring.com
<b>#12</b> "Warren Marshall" wrote...
<QUOTE>Before this gets too out of hand ... Unreal DID ship with an editor (like the
story above says). And it was more than capable. Hell, Epic built Unreal with
it, it couldn't have been TOO bad. :) </QUOTE>

Agreed. I never felt ripped off over this. Sure, UnrealEd locked up on me a few times, but never enough to really bother me. I'm just glad they included it at all. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#18 by "Baytor"
2000-07-18 07:24:06
baytor@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/baytor
<b>#12</b> "Warren Marshall" wrote...
<QUOTE>Before this gets too out of hand ... Unreal DID ship with an editor (like the
story above says). And it was more than capable. Hell, Epic built Unreal with
it, it couldn't have been TOO bad. :) </QUOTE>

You're just a corporate shill who's repressing us for The Man. When the Revolution comes, you'll be first against the wall.

Okay, enough silliness for now.

I... AM BAYTOR!!!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#19 by "Apache"
2000-07-18 07:25:21
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
Originally GT had plans to sell and market the Unreal Editor as a stand alone product, in case anyone remembers that.
#20 by "Baytor"
2000-07-18 07:32:09
baytor@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/baytor
<b>#19</b> "Apache" wrote...
<QUOTE>

Originally GT had plans to sell and market the Unreal Editor as a stand alone product, in case anyone remembers that. </QUOTE>

That IS what this whole thread is about.  Just no body mad about it not being released has posted yet.

I don't think releasing a Commercial Editor for a two year old game would be smart business.

I... AM BAYTOR!!!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#21 by "Apache"
2000-07-18 07:36:34
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
yeah, I think maybe three or four dozen whole people would buy the editor as a stand alone product.
#22 by "Paul"
2000-07-18 07:37:08
pab05f@mizzou.edu http://www.planethalflife.com/aerotic
Is there any money in selling editors? Worldcraft Pro was put on the back burner too..

I can't imagine too many people purchasing editors, when there has been a long standing tradition to edit for free(or shareware). BUILD, then all the Quake Editors..

I for one would edit for another game if someone was going to charge me $30 to make additions to their game. I'm also not going to edit with a sub par editor, when others who might have purchased the more advanced editor are able to do things I could only dream to create.

- Paul
#23 by "Baytor"
2000-07-18 07:42:32
baytor@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/baytor
<b>#22</b> "Paul A. Bullman" wrote...
<QUOTE>

Is there any money in selling editors? </QUOTE>

The only thing Epic would be selling is the manual, and numerous people have already written their own and posted them on web-sites.

I... AM BAYTOR!!!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#24 by "Baytor"
2000-07-18 07:44:00
baytor@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/baytor
<b>#23</b> "Baytor" wrote...
<QUOTE>The only thing Epic would be selling is the manual, and numerous people have
already written their own and posted them on web-sites.

</QUOTE>

Let's add, "Essentially, all they would be selling is a manual," since I believe there was supposed to be an editor update in the final Unreal patch.

I... AM BAYTOR!!!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#25 by "Mad_Dog"
2000-07-18 08:28:51
markyork@cox-internet.com
Hmmmff. Can someone PLEASE tell me why we are talking about something that is THREE years in the past?

Oh wheee. The game shipped with a dodgy editor.
Oh wheee. "I sure bought that game with the promise it would have a ass-kickin' editor, and it didn't! Damn them!"

Yea, right.

Andy, you gotta be reachin' to the bottom of your bag for this thread. I appreciate the effort, <B>#0</B> was nicely written, you had to do at least a bit of research... But you're really streaching it.

All hands up who really give a damn if Unreal had had a commercial quality editor shipped and sold by Epic.

ZZZZZT! Zero respondants. Zero crates!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#26 by "shaithis"
2000-07-18 08:29:10
chrisb@gamespy.com http://www.gamespy.com
For some reason the image of Warren as a corporate shill just cracks me up. :)

FIRST AGAINST THE WALL!

hehehahaha.

I need to go down to North Carolina or wherever the christ it is Epic's located at now and get some of the guys to teach me how to unlock the power of UnrealED. I love it for previewing textures, but I haven't been able to make levels in it like I can in QERadiant (which is to say, ones that I'm still too ashamed to release, even after radium told me I should).

Then maybe I can justify being angry at them for not releasing UnrealED 2 for Unreal. :)

-shai
#27 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-07-18 08:31:37
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
<quote>The only thing Epic would be selling is the manual, and numerous people have already written their own and posted them on web-sites. </quote>

Well ... if you charge money for an editor as a stand-alone product, there's also a support issue there.  Unless you sold it for money as a beta, unsupported product ... which doesn't seem like a good idea.  :)

Which I assume it why Epic just included it with the game in the first place ... it's an extra, a freebie ... no support?  Oh well.  :)
#28 by "Baytor"
2000-07-18 08:39:01
baytor@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/baytor
<b>#27</b> "Warren Marshall" wrote...
<QUOTE>
Well ... if you charge money for an editor as a stand-alone product, there's also a support issue there. Unless you sold it for money as a beta, unsupported product ... which doesn't seem like a good idea. :)

Which I assume it why Epic just included it with the game in the first place ... it's an extra, a freebie ... no support? Oh well. :)


</QUOTE>
Who asked you, shill... UP AGAINST THE WALL!!!!

Come on, selling unsupported betas was good enough for Monolith, it should be good enough you :)

Okay, now I'm just being mean.

I... AM BAYTOR!!!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#29 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-07-18 09:03:03
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
Looks like I have a new email sig ...


---

Warren Marshall
Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill
Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)


Hehehehe...
#30 by "Apache"
2000-07-18 09:06:29
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
Warren, as you already should know is the monkey behind UnrealEd2. BOW TO WARREN!
#31 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-07-18 09:11:07
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
And here's some info for those who wonder why we don't just release the editor seperate from the engine updates ...

UnrealEd uses the Unreal engine to render it's viewports (2D, 3D, texture browser, etc).  It's connected to the engine in a very serious way.  :)  Siamese twins, attached at the brain.

When you're looking into the 3D window checking out your lighting or texture alignment, it's UT/Unreal showing you the level (the engine is put into "editor mode" so monsters don't start running around and such).

This is very different from editors like QE4 which work completely independently of the game engine.  But the advantage is that you can see your lighting right in the editor, turn on "realtime mode" and see textures animate and see lighting effects, etc ...

Anyway ... that was for those who might be interested.  ;)
#32 by "Paul"
2000-07-18 10:01:24
pab05f@mizzou.edu http://www.planethalflife.com/aerotic
Warren:

Wildtangent's engine is also directly in their editor.. and it does the real lighting and everything else mentioned. I have worked with both, and I think you get to the point where you can light the entire level in your head just by knowing the variables. The same goes for all the other bells and whistles.

- Paul
#33 by "dukope"
2000-07-18 10:22:22
i remember carmack voicing his opinion that editors and engines are two separate things and never the twixt shall meet.

programmers pay a big price for wysiwyg editors. possibly more than the designers gain from such a setup.
#34 by "[KAG]formerly known as Seth"
2000-07-18 10:44:00
d_k_denz@hotmail.com http://www.aelk.org
<b>#33</b> "dukope" wrote...
<QUOTE>i remember carmack voicing his opinion that editors and engines are two separate
things and never the twixt shall meet</QUOTE>
Could it be that he made that statement because he hasn't written an editor/game combination like UT/Ued2?

If your engine is modular enough, it shouldn't be a problem to use it for wysiwyg editors. After all, the editor doesn't run during gameplay, where performance might be the issue.

"Thou shalt make an editor that compiles faster"<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#35 by "runab0ut"
2000-07-18 11:10:46
runabout@crosswinds.net http://digisign.virtualave.net
warren wrote:
<quote>This is very different from editors like QE4 which work completely independently of the game engine. But the advantage is that you can see your lighting right in the editor, turn on "realtime mode" and see textures animate and see lighting effects, etc ...
</quote>

maybe there are someone outthere might plug-in, QERadiant and worldcraft to support that kinda editing feature... realtime shindig... its easy for level designers to see their level quickly and make the changes appropriately.

what did happen to UnrealEd2 as they suppose to release it months ago!??
#36 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-07-18 11:58:19
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
runab0ut :

UnrealEd2?  It was included in the last UT patch ... 420.  A newer version is coming in the next patch ... which should be out really soon ...

dukope :
<quote>i remember carmack voicing his opinion that editors and engines are two separate things and never the twixt shall meet.

programmers pay a big price for wysiwyg editors. possibly more than the designers gain from such a setup.</quote>
I disagree.  I'm many time more productive in UnrealEd than I ever was in any of the Quake editors ... and I was DAMN productive in QER back in the day.  :)

Being able to see things as the engine sees them, right in the editor, saves me from having to constantly run the game to check things out.

And of course, the fact that Unreal compiles maps in minutes instead of days.  ;)
#37 by "godZero"
2000-07-18 12:52:45
godzero@gmx.de
Yet another thread about "evil developers makin fool out of poor gamers"...

Unreal was/is the best game out there since Doom2, so wth? They shouldn't have released ANY editor at all, I suppose everyone would be happier. Disappointed by Epic? Never was.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#38 by "Dethstryk"
2000-07-18 12:56:46
dethstryk@damagegaming.com http://www.damagegaming.com/
<b>godZero wrote in post #37:</b>
<quote>Unreal was/is the best game out there since Doom2, so wth? They shouldn't have released ANY editor at all, I suppose everyone would be happier. Disappointed by Epic? Never was.</quote>
At least DOOM was pretty much functioning how it was supposed to be when it came out, and the multiplayer was great out of the box. You didn't see anyone waiting on patches for DOOM to try and fix the bad multiplayer code, now did you?


--
Dethstryk
Damage Gaming
#39 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-07-18 13:00:31
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
<quote>At least DOOM was pretty much functioning how it was supposed to be when it came out, and the multiplayer was great out of the box. You didn't see anyone waiting on patches for DOOM to try and fix the bad multiplayer code, now did you? </quote>

Actually ... wasn't there a patch to the original Doom to fix up the networking?  I could swear that's why John Cash was originally hired ... he emailed Carmack with a fix or something ... or maybe I'm remembering things wrong ...
#40 by "Dethstryk"
2000-07-18 13:12:54
dethstryk@damagegaming.com http://www.damagegaming.com/
<b>Warren Marshall wrote in post #39:</b>
<quote>Actually ... wasn't there a patch to the original Doom to fix up the networking? I could swear that's why John Cash was originally hired ... he emailed Carmack with a fix or something ... or maybe I'm remembering things wrong ... </quote>
I can't recall anything about it, but of course I could be wrong. All I remember is having fun with the original shareware version of DOOM's multiplayer whenever that thing started floating around the BBS's, so I'm not sure what exactly it was they could have fixed. I can't really recall anything that was broken back then.

Speaking of Unreal though, I participated in the first real recorded "cult" match. It wasn't horrible play wise, but it was still pretty bad. Good thing Epic got themselves together and made some awesome netcode, like that we have seen in Unreal Tournament. (I may not like the game, but it's multiplayer code does rock.)


--
Dethstryk
Damage Gaming
#41 by "godZero"
2000-07-18 13:13:39
godzero@gmx.de
Man, I had Riva128 at the time Unreal came out. I played it in software mode and still had a wonderful gaming experience. Yes, it was buggy. Yes, D3D still doesn't work the way it should. OpenGL not at all in my case(crashes all the time).

This game is one special case where you can forgive for all the bugs and other problems. It was such a huge leap forward in graphics and AI (AI back then, of course).

It was ahead of hardware. Doom2 also didn't work well on my old 386SX with 4 MB RAM.

Voodoo cards were the only "good" 3D hardware back then, so Glide was a logical choice. There was no DirectX at all when they began developing the game. Even when Unreal was near release, there were no chips out there which could resonably handle the game except Voodoo and PowerVR, which were both supported.

I remember an interview with Tim Sweeney back then, saying Unreal was initially supposed to be _software only_. They added Glide much later.

When D3D became an issue, the whole engine would have to be rewritten in order to make it work "as it should". That would probably cause some other major problems. I can imagine that they would have had to change almost all of the content. Don't know for sure, though. Maybe warren could correct me?

And as someone said above, UnrealED was a freebee, so why complain at all? Noone payed for it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#42 by "godZero"
2000-07-18 13:15:32
godzero@gmx.de
Sorry about missing caps, <b>W</b>arren :-)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#43 by "Dethstryk"
2000-07-18 13:21:16
dethstryk@damagegaming.com http://www.damagegaming.com/
<b>godZero wrote in post #41:</b>
<quote>Yes, D3D still doesn't work the way it should.</quote>
Wasn't this fixed in the "Hell Freezes Over" final Unreal patch that came out the other day? I haven't checked it out, but could have swore I saw that one in there.


--
Dethstryk
Damage Gaming
#44 by "godZero"
2000-07-18 13:23:35
godzero@gmx.de
It works, but it's still slow as hell.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#45 by "Dethstryk"
2000-07-18 13:27:55
dethstryk@damagegaming.com http://www.damagegaming.com/
<b>godZero wrote in post #44:</b>
<quote>It works, but it's still slow as hell.</quote>
Go figure. About two months ago, I reinstalled Unreal to play through and go through some of the awesome single player experiences again, but when I found out I had to run the game in software mode I just kind of quit. My card uses Direct3D for the best performance, and I'm not letting a game "bring me down" or some other equally stupid saying.


--
Dethstryk
Damage Gaming
#46 by "[KAG]formerly known as Seth"
2000-07-18 13:28:50
d_k_denz@hotmail.com http://www.aelk.org
godZero: www.3d-center.de
benchmarcks with the new(final) U1-patch... +tuning tips for better D3D-performance with the latest patch
...german only... sorry guys<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#47 by "godZero"
2000-07-18 13:30:47
godzero@gmx.de
BTW, I truly don't believe it's possible to solve D3D problems with Unreal engine. There is another question for the developers out there:

I always thought Glide was very much like OpenGL. From what I've heard, it is actually a stripped-down version of OGL with a bit different syntax, so where was the problem in writing OGL driver for Unr engine? I don't know much about Glide or OGL, so a little explanation would be nice...<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#48 by "godZero"
2000-07-18 13:33:36
godzero@gmx.de
Deathstryk: The 225f patch works much better for me...why software mode? There are also some nice Glide emulators out there, I even found one that actually works well.

KAG: TY<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#49 by "Dethstryk"
2000-07-18 13:38:45
dethstryk@damagegaming.com http://www.damagegaming.com/
<b>godZero wrote in post #48:</b>
<quote>The 225f patch works much better for me...why software mode? There are also some nice Glide emulators out there, I even found one that actually works well. </quote>
If a game isn't going to work with my hardware out of the box and with the patches, then it's not really worth playing at this point. I could understand if it was a new, hot game, but it's not.


--
Dethstryk
Damage Gaming
#50 by "godZero"
2000-07-18 13:42:51
godzero@gmx.de
http://www.3d-center.de/userbench/unreal.php3

Wow! 226 is indeed much slower than 225f. Go there and see for yourself. Exactly my results.

btw: no need to know german, just look at the graphs :-)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Coming Soon! (Or Possibly Never...)

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]