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.

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.

Quote:

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

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau; KI number: 196082
MYSTcommunity & MYSTlore
I write soeren says. You don't.

_________________
"Oh, Rabbit," Pooh said, "is that you?"

"Let's pretend it's not," said Rabbit, "and let's see what happens."

chucker wrote:

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

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.

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.

_________________
Grand Master
Guild of Archivists