It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:58 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: New Engine?
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:44 pm
Posts: 3
From what I understand, the graphical engine running Uru Live is significantly less powerful than the original Uru engine.

Does anyone know any details about this?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 700
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
if it is less powerful, i didnt notice it when i was in the cavern last night. seemed pretty much the same as i remembered from the old live beta.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:30 pm
Posts: 935
Location: Denmark
I've read that they changed the graphics engine controlling small(?) objects like cones, rocks and logs because of license issues. Sadly if the current engine is worse!

----------
Edit: With "worse" I didn't mean that the old one is bad 'cause it is (was) increadibly good, fast and realistic about object movements. I only hope the new one is as good.

_________________
Astro, KI# 00147777
Image


Last edited by astro on Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 700
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
really, dont worry about it. you can still kick cones and stuff as well as the old version. :D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Engine?
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:25 am
Posts: 2031
Location: Sadly in Germany
ZeroXOZ wrote:
From what I understand, the graphical engine running Uru Live is significantly less powerful than the original Uru engine.

Does anyone know any details about this?


Fortunately, that is completely false. :)

1) Uru Live's code is based on that of Uru: Complete Chronicles. This is mainly to add some additional support for various graphics chipsets, such as the Intel GMA 900 and 950.

2) 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).

3) Uru Live has some backported graphics additions from Myst V: End of Ages. The graphics therefore can actually be richer than those in the original Uru.

4) Uru Live has a completely replaced physics engine, which affects all sorts of behaviour such as jumping, running against walls, kicking stones, etc. They moved from Havok to PhysX. Myst V: End of Ages, by the way, was on yet a different one altogether, ODE.

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau

(Or something.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:30 pm
Posts: 935
Location: Denmark
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.

_________________
Astro, KI# 00147777
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 700
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
i think the problem here is that people are mistaking "graphics engine" for "physics engine".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:25 am
Posts: 2031
Location: Sadly in Germany
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.

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau

(Or something.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 700
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:43 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 4:41 pm
Posts: 1459
Location: South Georgia
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.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:51 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 10:02 pm
Posts: 2256
Location: Washougal, WA
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.

_________________
Image
MOULa 26838 | Prologue Video Project: On Hold pending Minkata support
Visit rel.to to explore Myst, Uru, and D'ni communities!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:42 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 4:41 pm
Posts: 1459
Location: South Georgia
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.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:25 am
Posts: 2031
Location: Sadly in Germany
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.

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau

(Or something.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:30 am
Posts: 66
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:25 am
Posts: 2031
Location: Sadly in Germany
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.

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau

(Or something.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: denDwaler and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: