UT 2003 Demo Info

There is some new information posted on the Epic Messageboards posted by Mark Rein (thanks Unreality) about plans for the Unreal Tournament 2003 demo:
1) What build version of UT2003 was being displayed at E3?

The latest one compiled just before E3. This was the first build I saw with a working Ion Cannon which is a ton of fun to use! What we showed on the show floor is essentially what we think the demo will be which consists of two DM maps (Antalus and Curse3), one Double Domination map (Suntemple), one CTF map (Chrome) and one Bombing Run map (Endagra). But, be warned, this could change. I don't believe there are any plans for a single player campaign for the demo.

2) What features were missing from the E3 build that will be added to the demo release?

The major ones I can think of would be the final server browser and stats tracking.

3) Approx how long has been allocated for feedback from the demo before finalising the retail code?

There is no particular amount of time being allocated for this. The response we get will determine how much needs to be done and whether or not we need to release another version of the demo before going final or not.

4) Are there any plans to release the server code to admins in advance of the demo release so that there will be some decent servers available to play on ?

No, not that I'm aware of. Once the demo is ready, it's ready and we don't want to be holding it back. I suspect it will take us a few more days after the Windows release to get the Linux server released.
View : : :
76.
 
Re: You guys are all PC fanboys
Jun 2, 2002, 12:54
76.
Re: You guys are all PC fanboys Jun 2, 2002, 12:54
Jun 2, 2002, 12:54
 
Both engines look very nice. I think overall maybe the iD engine will be better as it's got more realworld style lighting. Not to knock the Unreal engine though. I have been making UT maps for about 2 years now and I like the engine and the editor.

I'm looking forward to both games and engines. It's just a pity that the evil software corps are now in league with the evil hware corps and making us upgrade our pc's with ever increasing powerful hardware every darn 6 months. God, some of us aren't rich =)

Well it's nearly bedtime but I'm going to spam the hell out of you guys now hehehe. Been LANning all weekend and we played a lot of UT and Q3A. Personally I prefer UT but Q3A does run so damn fast =)

#54, dude, have you ever made maps for UT? While the AI is pretty good it leaves a lot to be desired. bots in Ut can be VERY stupid. I'm really thankful that they have written entirely new AI code, pity that the netcode is just a rehash though =(

#51, Amen brother. I have had to make a UTCD folder on my Hd to save my CD's getting too damaged from over reinstallation. My 2nd CD has a nasty scratch though and I can no longer copy the Starship.utx compressed textures from it. Bwahhh =(

#44, well I don't know all the facts (I never will) but personally I find the UnrealEditor much more freindly and easy to use (when it's not crashing heheheh). I tried the Q3 editing tools but found them a bit akward. Still, it's all about personal taste eh? =)

#42, you sir are a total moron. I just had to read all the posts here to see your most stupid post. god mate, go and read at least one bloody preview, all of which clearly state that UT2003 uses the Unreal engine =P

#38, sir, have you ever heard of download managers? they can be handy for modem leecherers (like myself) that often get disconnected from servers and must "resume" leechering from where they left off =)

#21, oh no. there's actually the Unreal engine and the Unreal Warfare engine. Warfare doesn't get mentioned much anymore since there was a LOT of confusion when it was announced and there still is today. I think it's not very bright of people to not realize that the Unreal engine is the Unreal engine and the Quake engine is the Quake engine. It would really be cool though to just have them called Epic engine and iD engine as nobody ever seems to be confused with Lithtech's Lithtech engine =P

#19, I agree with you. Get rid of Mark Rein or at least edumacate him in the ways of real PR spin. It's a constant stream of "Well err gosh, I dunno, I'm not a technical guy you know?" well a good PR man is in touch with all the people in the team. It's his job to inform and dazzle the public with his spin. Get with the program Mark =P

#15, I concur. I would have thought Epic/DE would have really picked up on the fact that OpenGL rocks! I guess though it's easy to follow the m$ path tho =(

#11, oh god. People like yourself have no right even owning a computer =P

This comment was edited on Jun 2, 12:58.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
anon@209.133
2.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
3.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
anon@209.133
4.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
anon@213.84
89.
Jun 3, 2002Jun 3 2002
anon@141.156
91.
Jun 3, 2002Jun 3 2002
anon@211.28
5.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
6.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
7.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
9.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
8.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
10.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
11.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
12.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
anon@62.31
13.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
15.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
16.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
     Re: No subject
18.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
     Re: No subject
anon@209.133
19.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
      Re: No subject
anon@208.180
21.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
      Re: No subject
23.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
      Re: No subject
24.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
       Re: No subject
anon@209.133
20.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
anon@194.82
14.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
17.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
anon@213.121
22.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
anon@24.70
25.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
26.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
27.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
anon@24.90
28.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
29.
May 28, 2002May 28 2002
   Well
30.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
    Re: Well
31.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
     Re: Well
38.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
      Re: Well
anon@151.205
39.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
       Re: Well
anon@151.205
40.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
        Re: Well
anon@66.66
41.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
         Re: Well
anon@151.205
44.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
          Re: Well
anon@66.66
45.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
           Re: Well
anon@209.83
42.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
         Re: Well
anon@63.120
43.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
          Re: Well
anon@209.83
58.
May 30, 2002May 30 2002
          Re: Well
78.
Jun 2, 2002Jun 2 2002
          Re: Well
anon@66.185
79.
Jun 2, 2002Jun 2 2002
       Re: Well
anon@66.185
80.
Jun 2, 2002Jun 2 2002
        Re: Well
anon@24.188
34.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
     Re: Well
anon@194.82
32.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
anon@63.120
33.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
    w00t
anon@12.158
35.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
anon@12.8
36.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
anon@209.83
37.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
46.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
anon@62.31
47.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
anon@62.31
48.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
anon@151.205
49.
May 29, 2002May 29 2002
anon@12.158
50.
May 30, 2002May 30 2002
anon@4.46
51.
May 30, 2002May 30 2002
anon@194.7
59.
May 30, 2002May 30 2002
60.
May 30, 2002May 30 2002
61.
May 30, 2002May 30 2002
62.
May 30, 2002May 30 2002
82.
Jun 2, 2002Jun 2 2002
anon@164.38
83.
Jun 2, 2002Jun 2 2002
     Re: No subject
anon@24.196
52.
May 30, 2002May 30 2002
anon@209.205
55.
May 30, 2002May 30 2002
anon@209.98
53.
May 30, 2002May 30 2002
anon@202.3
54.
May 30, 2002May 30 2002
anon@203.135
56.
May 30, 2002May 30 2002
anon@66.68
57.
May 30, 2002May 30 2002
anon@209.98
64.
May 31, 2002May 31 2002
anon@156.56
65.
May 31, 2002May 31 2002
anon@205.174
66.
May 31, 2002May 31 2002
71.
Jun 1, 2002Jun 1 2002
72.
Jun 1, 2002Jun 1 2002
anon@24.188
73.
Jun 2, 2002Jun 2 2002
74.
Jun 2, 2002Jun 2 2002
anon@193.198
75.
Jun 2, 2002Jun 2 2002
anon@217.228
 76.
Jun 2, 2002Jun 2 2002
        Re: You guys are all PC fanboys
84.
Jun 3, 2002Jun 3 2002
77.
Jun 2, 2002Jun 2 2002
anon@66.185
63.
May 30, 2002May 30 2002
anon@24.188
67.
May 31, 2002May 31 2002
anon@24.188
68.
May 31, 2002May 31 2002
69.
Jun 1, 2002Jun 1 2002
anon@24.188
70.
Jun 1, 2002Jun 1 2002
anon@203.96
81.
Jun 2, 2002Jun 2 2002
anon@24.188
85.
Jun 3, 2002Jun 3 2002
anon@64.212
86.
Jun 3, 2002Jun 3 2002
93.
Jun 3, 2002Jun 3 2002
anon@65.66
87.
Jun 3, 2002Jun 3 2002
anon@208.186
88.
Jun 3, 2002Jun 3 2002
anon@24.188
90.
Jun 3, 2002Jun 3 2002
anon@211.28
92.
Jun 3, 2002Jun 3 2002
anon@211.28
94.
Jun 4, 2002Jun 4 2002
95.
Jun 4, 2002Jun 4 2002
anon@66.25
96.
Jun 4, 2002Jun 4 2002
anon@65.66
97.
Jun 4, 2002Jun 4 2002
anon@80.0
99.
Jun 4, 2002Jun 4 2002
     Re: No subject
anon@205.136
100.
Jun 4, 2002Jun 4 2002
      Re: No subject
anon@213.105
101.
Jun 4, 2002Jun 4 2002
       Re: No subject
anon@211.28
102.
Jun 4, 2002Jun 4 2002
        Re: No subject
anon@66.185
98.
Jun 4, 2002Jun 4 2002
anon@205.136
103.
Jun 4, 2002Jun 4 2002
anon@63.231
104.
Jun 4, 2002Jun 4 2002
anon@209.98
105.
Jun 4, 2002Jun 4 2002
anon@63.86
106.
Jun 4, 2002Jun 4 2002
anon@66.95