Myst Online: URU Live Forums

Re: New Engine?

Alahmnat — Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:10 pm

Author: Alahmnat

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:10 pm

Jinglish wrote:

Based on my experiences, there are currently some physics inconsistencies/oddities that can be seen in the open beta, but these are being worked on.

The old Havok engine was certainly reliable.

They'll get it to the point it is reliable for gameplay...

The Havok engine was also tested for about 3 years to get it tweaked to perfection... PhysX has been a part of the game for about 8 months .

That said, while things generally have been harder to move if they're tiny (like rocks or logs), when they do move, the movement seems more realistic than it did in Havok. In Prologue, everything - from rocks to logs to bones to cones - seemed like it was made out of styrofoam... it was all WAY too light. Seriously, how often do you kick a 12-inch rock and have it roll off a good 10 feet?

I think if the game were more able to let us walk into these small physics-controlled objects without simply walking over them (though how, I'm not sure), things would be better and seem even more realistic than they did last time.

Re: New Engine?

a'moaca' — Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:49 am

Author: a'moaca'

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:49 am

chucker wrote:

You're blowing this way out of proportion in any case.

It was already out of proportion. I was merely backing up AJ.

Marten wrote:

There may yet be a "core" network support structure that wasn't removed in PotS, but I think it's unfair for you to call chucker "wrong" when he isn't.

chucker wrote:

I don't care to check, but before calling me wrong, you should prove such an assertion.

Re: New Engine?

Jinglish — Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:23 am

Author: Jinglish

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:23 am

Based on my experiences, there are currently some physics inconsistencies/oddities that can be seen in the open beta, but these are being worked on.

The old Havok engine was certainly reliable.

They'll get it to the point it is reliable for gameplay...

Re: New Engine?

chucker — Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:23 am

Author: chucker

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:23 am

a'moaca' wrote:

chucker wrote:

I don't know about you, but as far as I can tell, that pretty much speaks in favor of my idea, not AdamJohnso's. You're copying the client from Untìl Uru (which is based on Prologue-generation code, and does explicitly not support either expansion pack) into a tPotS environment.

The page doesn't go into detail on why to copy this client, but as far as I can tell, "because it contains networking code missing in tPotS" is one likely conclusion.

Ah. Generally speaking when people say "the client" they refer to that *big* program, you know, the one with the graphics and the avatar and stuff like that in it. UruSetup.exe starts up the client for you. Okay... so the CC UruSetup.exe doesn't have an option to tell the client to go talk to a server, true.

If this is what you meant, I'm sorry. Trust me, AdamJohnso is referring to the other thing, called UruExplorer.exe, and so was I. I somehow did not think you were going to call the setup program "the client" given that all your other commentary about "the client" isn't about UruSetup either. Whatever. I can be the wrong one if you like.

Does UruSetup.exe open a server connection?
Does it log in with your credentials?
Does it download data?

As far as I know, the answer to all three of those is yes.

You're blowing this way out of proportion in any case.

My original assertion was:

Quote:

Uru CC had most (if not all) networking code stripped

It appears that was I mistaken, and that much less of the code was actually removed than I had thought.

Re: New Engine?

a'moaca' — Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:19 am

Author: a'moaca'

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:19 am

chucker wrote:

I don't know about you, but as far as I can tell, that pretty much speaks in favor of my idea, not AdamJohnso's. You're copying the client from Untìl Uru (which is based on Prologue-generation code, and does explicitly not support either expansion pack) into a tPotS environment.

The page doesn't go into detail on why to copy this client, but as far as I can tell, "because it contains networking code missing in tPotS" is one likely conclusion.

Ah. Generally speaking when people say "the client" they refer to that *big* program, you know, the one with the graphics and the avatar and stuff like that in it. UruSetup.exe starts up the client for you. Okay... so the CC UruSetup.exe doesn't have an option to tell the client to go talk to a server, true.

If this is what you meant, I'm sorry. Trust me, AdamJohnso is referring to the other thing, called UruExplorer.exe, and so was I. I somehow did not think you were going to call the setup program "the client" given that all your other commentary about "the client" isn't about UruSetup either. Whatever. I can be the wrong one if you like.

Re: New Engine?

chucker — Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:00 am

Author: chucker

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:00 am

a'moaca' wrote:

Wow. With a feeble hope that people will calm down and stop arguing over this thing not very relevant to Live:

It's a discussion forum. The thread poses some legitimate questions, and some tried to answer them. I made an assertion that may be wrong, and AdamJohnso made an assertion that runs counter. I don't think there's anything to be upset about.

Quote:

The following may be informative:
http://home.arcor.de/marlokir/uru/ClientInstall.en.html#huru (old way)

Erm.

Quote:

Copy the client from Untìl Uru
Copy the files UruSetup.exe, plClientSetup.cfg, and serverconfig.ini from the Untìl Uru installation into the new copy of TPotS.

I don't know about you, but as far as I can tell, that pretty much speaks in favor of my idea, not AdamJohnso's. You're copying the client from Untìl Uru (which is based on Prologue-generation code, and does explicitly not support either expansion pack) into a tPotS environment.

The page doesn't go into detail on why to copy this client, but as far as I can tell, "because it contains networking code missing in tPotS" is one likely conclusion.

Re: New Engine?

a'moaca' — Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:53 am

Author: a'moaca'

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:53 am

Wow. With a feeble hope that people will calm down and stop arguing over this thing not very relevant to Live:

Marten wrote:

I know that a lot of the "networking" related code is removed from the python component of The Path of the Shell. The Alcugs client project patched this code back in by merging software from Until Uru.

There may yet be a "core" network support structure that wasn't removed in PotS, but I think it's unfair for you to call chucker "wrong" when he isn't.

chucker wrote:

AdamJohnso wrote:
AFAIK nothing from network code/core/whatever was changed from Prologue to PotS.

I don't care to check, but before calling me wrong, you should prove such an assertion.

While I will not claim to know how much things changed between Prologue and PotS, I will say that indeed, AJ is (otherwise) correct. The network code is all in the PotS/CC client. There isn't really any "networking"-related anything in the Python. The patching Marten refers to is done via what is called the KI patcher, because it is exactly that. It is not about putting networking into the client, which is used completely unchanged. I don't know what chucker would consider proof, but I promise you that these pictures are not "photoshopped" and were created using the CC client and its networking.

The following may be informative:
http://home.arcor.de/marlokir/uru/ClientInstall.en.html#huru (old way)
http://www.greattreeshard.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123
http://alcugs.almlys.org/forum/
http://www.greattreeshard.org/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=504

Re: New Engine?

chucker — Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:06 am

Author: chucker

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:06 am

AdamJohnso wrote:

AFAIK nothing from network code/core/whatever was changed from Prologue to PotS.

I don't care to check, but before calling me wrong, you should prove such an assertion.

Re: New Engine?

AdamJohnso — Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:42 pm

Author: AdamJohnso

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:42 pm

Quote:

What's the difference between network code, and netcore? I don't think you two are talking about the same thing.

I know that a lot of the "networking" related code is removed from the python component of The Path of the Shell. The Alcugs client project patched this code back in by merging software from Until Uru.

There may yet be a "core" network support structure that wasn't removed in PotS, but I think it's unfair for you to call chucker "wrong" when he isn't.

In my lingo (nobody learns all of my lingo... don't feel bad ) netcore and network code are the same thing. I suppose you could compare "netcore" to Network Core.

AFAIK nothing from network code/core/whatever was changed from Prologue to PotS.

Re: New Engine?

Marten — Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:51 pm

Author: Marten

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:51 pm

AdamJohnso wrote:

Quote:
Uru CC had most (if not all) networking code stripped, which is irrelevant, since they intended to rewrite this anyway. Uru Live has completely different network code than the original Uru (and, for instance, Until Uru) do (on the server side of things as well).

Wrong. PotS simply has an uber-ancient version of the netcore back from Prologue that didn't include the few updates from Untìl Uru's netcore.

What's the difference between network code, and netcore? I don't think you two are talking about the same thing.

I know that a lot of the "networking" related code is removed from the python component of The Path of the Shell. The Alcugs client project patched this code back in by merging software from Until Uru.

There may yet be a "core" network support structure that wasn't removed in PotS, but I think it's unfair for you to call chucker "wrong" when he isn't.

Re: New Engine?

AdamJohnso — Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:43 pm

Author: AdamJohnso

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:43 pm

Quote:

Uru CC had most (if not all) networking code stripped, which is irrelevant, since they intended to rewrite this anyway. Uru Live has completely different network code than the original Uru (and, for instance, Until Uru) do (on the server side of things as well).

Wrong. PotS simply has an uber-ancient version of the netcore back from Prologue that didn't include the few updates from Untìl Uru's netcore.

Re: New Engine?

Firesign — Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:18 pm

Author: Firesign

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:18 pm

astro,
as i said in a previous post, i was on there last night and i couldnt tell anydiffence between rolling logs or kicking cones than the old uru prime/live version.

Re: New Engine?

chucker — Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:17 pm

Author: chucker

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:17 pm

astro wrote:

Thanks chucker.

Yes it was the physics engine I'd heard off. Then, is the new one as good as the old? Rolling rocks and logs was increadible realistic like when rocks changed direction when it had an uneven structure, and the same for logs.

The looks of the rocks are done with the graphics engine. The behaviour is done by the physics. I.e., rolling them around, standing on top of them, etc.

Whether one engine is better than another is hard to say. I've come to the conclusion that Cyan ultimately found ODE not powerful enough for Uru Live.

The primary two motivations of moving away from Havok were:
1) Cyan's license agreement with them had expired.
2) Havok failed to follow up on a promise of porting their product to Mac OS X within any reasonable timefrime. By now, they have, but only due to massive investments on Blizzard's part.

Re: New Engine?

Firesign — Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:16 pm

Author: Firesign

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:16 pm

i think the problem here is that people are mistaking "graphics engine" for "physics engine".

Re: New Engine?

astro — Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:14 pm

Author: astro

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:14 pm

Thanks chucker.

Yes it was the physics engine I'd heard off. Then, is the new one as good as the old? Rolling rocks and logs was increadible realistic like when rocks changed direction when it had an uneven structure, and the same for logs.