- Will the folder location of the for UrT textures be the same in ETUT as they currently are?
- Will we be allowed to use ET textures and models?
- Will the spawnpoint entities be the same as they are now or will it change to an ET type spawnpoint?
- Will stationary bunkers (machinegun nests) be available in ETUT?
- Will items like rideable tanks (with MG) and trains be available in ETUT?
perhaps a ETUT mapping faq would help to give mappers an idea on how to approach the conversion.
thx
Advertisement
ETUT questions
Rate Topic:
MultiQuote
#2
tub (old) 
- Joined: 07-February 04
- Posts: 464
- Locationut_abbey
Posted 29 August 2004 - 04:53 AM
Here's what I know of the situation, 27 would know exactly whats going on. If I get anything wrong, tough tities.
- Will the folder location of the for UrT textures be the same in ETUT as they currently are?
Not sure at this stage, but I wouldn't plan on it. Textrues not being used in the ET port will not be included so you can't make the assumption that the texture your using will be there.
- Will we be allowed to use ET textures and models?
You mean from the etmain folder? Yeah most likley. Since the etmain folder gets loaded by default we would have to go out of our way to stop you.
- Will the spawnpoint entities be the same as they are now or will it change to an ET type spawnpoint?
At this stage I believe we're keeping all the same Urt entities.
- Will stationary bunkers (machinegun nests) be available in ETUT?
- Will items like rideable tanks (with MG) and trains be available in ETUT?
There is no plan for us to include ET entities at this stage. They would have to be refactored into the current ut codebase if we were to add them. They don't really have a place in Urt in any case.
As for trains I can only asume the standard urt train is working in ET.
- Will the folder location of the for UrT textures be the same in ETUT as they currently are?
Not sure at this stage, but I wouldn't plan on it. Textrues not being used in the ET port will not be included so you can't make the assumption that the texture your using will be there.
- Will we be allowed to use ET textures and models?
You mean from the etmain folder? Yeah most likley. Since the etmain folder gets loaded by default we would have to go out of our way to stop you.
- Will the spawnpoint entities be the same as they are now or will it change to an ET type spawnpoint?
At this stage I believe we're keeping all the same Urt entities.
- Will stationary bunkers (machinegun nests) be available in ETUT?
- Will items like rideable tanks (with MG) and trains be available in ETUT?
There is no plan for us to include ET entities at this stage. They would have to be refactored into the current ut codebase if we were to add them. They don't really have a place in Urt in any case.
As for trains I can only asume the standard urt train is working in ET.
#3
F for Fragging (old)
- Joined: 19-July 04
- Posts: 290
- LocationThe Netherlands
Posted 29 August 2004 - 11:53 AM
And what about multiple func_ut_train (or whatever the name is) entities in one map? In UrT it's limited to one entity in a map, so that it is not possible to create two elevators in a map. Will this be possible in ETUT?
#4 Guest_Map4Fun
Posted 03 September 2004 - 09:45 PM
[quote name='"F for Fragging"]And what about multiple func_ut_train (or whatever the name is) entities in one map? In UrT it's limited to one entity in a map' date=' so that it is not possible to create two elevators in a map. Will this be possible in ETUT?[/quote']
Someone already asked that in the ETUT part of the forum.
Oswalds statement at that time was if it aint in Q3 it wont be in ETUT.
ET does support multiple func_trains, but i guess SID will fuxor that so it's stays the same _broken_ as it is in Q3UT coz it's a 1:1 port.
Meaning Break things that work in ETUT but didnt work in Q3UT
Tub : for the extra entities in ET like mountable turrets etc, you can say they doesnt serve a purpose in Q3UT. But why dont implement them so the mappers can use em. Imo the community will decide then if they like maps using them extra stuff or not.
M4F
Someone already asked that in the ETUT part of the forum.
Oswalds statement at that time was if it aint in Q3 it wont be in ETUT.
ET does support multiple func_trains, but i guess SID will fuxor that so it's stays the same _broken_ as it is in Q3UT coz it's a 1:1 port.
Meaning Break things that work in ETUT but didnt work in Q3UT
Tub : for the extra entities in ET like mountable turrets etc, you can say they doesnt serve a purpose in Q3UT. But why dont implement them so the mappers can use em. Imo the community will decide then if they like maps using them extra stuff or not.
M4F
#5
tub (old)
- Joined: 07-February 04
- Posts: 464
- Locationut_abbey
Posted 06 September 2004 - 02:45 PM
Quote
Tub : for the extra entities in ET like mountable turrets etc, you can say they doesnt serve a purpose in Q3UT. But why dont implement them so the mappers can use em. Imo the community will decide then if they like maps using them extra stuff or not.
Hey, it's not like SID has a meeting and decides what features we can purposely leave out too piss off mappers and players. We make the mod as good as we can but we're all pretty busy people right now, and thus ET entities aren't really high on our priorities.
Trust me, turrents will not add anything to the mod as it stands. They're almost as bad as mr sentries. Ditto for trains.
Advertisement#6 Guest_Map4Fun
Posted 06 September 2004 - 04:39 PM
Quote
Quote
Tub : for the extra entities in ET like mountable turrets etc, you can say they doesnt serve a purpose in Q3UT. But why dont implement them so the mappers can use em. Imo the community will decide then if they like maps using them extra stuff or not.
Hey, it's not like SID has a meeting and decides what features we can purposely leave out too piss off mappers and players. We make the mod as good as we can but we're all pretty busy people right now, and thus ET entities aren't really high on our priorities.
Trust me, turrents will not add anything to the mod as it stands. They're almost as bad as mr sentries. Ditto for trains.
Tub : and again its a SID point of view. I'm not trying to be harsh towards SID or anything. I love the mod but the multiple trains question dates from the early days or UrT so to me it looks like the PLAYERS wanna have it. And the mappers want to be able to use more then one funct train as well.
And i think that it would be a missed opportunity due to the fact that ET does support multiple func trains.
But more and more the whole mod feels like its a SID toy and they've stopped listning to the ones that play the mod and are trying to keep the community going.
How often do i see comments like 'we (sid) want it that way and if you dont like it then ..... off and go to another game.
As I see it now the community is already breaking up more and more.
I know there are a lot of silly questions made about extra weapons/functionality etc but a question as consistend as the multiple trains should ring a bell @ SID like Duh maybe it would be a good idea to put it in.
Porting the mod to ET was a great idea, not using the full capabilities of the ET engine is just plain stupid.
M4F
#7
HoboHumpinSlut (old)
- Joined: 07-February 04
- Posts: 2,308
Posted 06 September 2004 - 05:46 PM
Quote
But more and more the whole mod feels like its a SID toy and they've stopped listning to the ones that play the mod and are trying to keep the community going.
erm, sorry if im mistaken here, but isnt UrT SID's mod? isnt it SID who did all the work? do you think you got something ilke a right for changes? i dont think so.
im with tub about the turrets. they just dont really fit in the stlye of UrT. if you want a fast shootin gun with nearly unlimited ammo just use the negev.
about the func_trains. it is not a limitation of UrT but a limitation of Q3 iirc. i dont think SID coded UrT to explicitly allow only 1 func_train.
#8 Guest_Map4Fun
Posted 06 September 2004 - 07:34 PM
Quote
Quote
But more and more the whole mod feels like its a SID toy and they've stopped listning to the ones that play the mod and are trying to keep the community going.
erm, sorry if im mistaken here, but isnt UrT SID's mod? isnt it SID who did all the work? do you think you got something ilke a right for changes? i dont think so.
im with tub about the turrets. they just dont really fit in the stlye of UrT. if you want a fast shootin gun with nearly unlimited ammo just use the negev.
about the func_trains. it is not a limitation of UrT but a limitation of Q3 iirc. i dont think SID coded UrT to explicitly allow only 1 func_train.
1st off you need to start reading a bit better. I never said that SID coded 1 func train in Q3. I was talking about ET.
2nd : Yes Sid did all the work, but without the community they wouldnt have been today as were they are now.
As i said before just give the mappers the chance to use the extra entities, the community will decide if they like the map or not.
Thats why i wonderd why chance to a new engine and do not use the capabilities of the new engine.
And its not so much about the turrets as wel as the functions itself. You can do a lot more with a func train then just create an elevator. Same goes for the mountable objects.
M4F
#9
HoboHumpinSlut (old)
- Joined: 07-February 04
- Posts: 2,308
Posted 06 September 2004 - 11:48 PM
Quote
1st off you need to start reading a bit better. I never said that SID coded 1 func train in Q3. I was talking about ET.
erm, i didnt say you said that. i wanted to make clear, that 2+ func_trains might work even if its going to be a 1:1 port.
[quote name='"Map4Fun"]2nd : Yes Sid did all the work' date=' but without the community they wouldnt have been today as were they are now.[/quote']
right in some way. but if SID would have implemented all the community ever wanted we would have 100s of different UrT versions out there. each of them with about 5 ppl playing it.
i gotta accept your opinion on the rest of your post. but i dont really agree, as turrets lead the mod in a direction where every new shooter is now. and i kinda like 'my' UrT like it is right now.
#10 Guest_Map4Fun
Posted 07 September 2004 - 04:16 PM
[quote name='"HoboHumpinSlut"]erm' date=' i didnt say you said that. i wanted to make clear, that 2+ func_trains might work even if its going to be a 1:1 port.[/quote']
Quote from oswald from another post where ppl asked about the func train.
[quote name='"Oswald"]Seems some missed the first part of our answer. A) Func_train for Urban Terror on Quake 3 is not broke' date=' it is an engine limitation. As for ETUT, it will remain unchanged and limited to one.[/quote']
Meaning they will limit it, as in sid need to do work to turn it off and make it 1 func train
[quote]right in some way. but if SID would have implemented all the community ever wanted we would have 100s of different UrT versions out there. each of them with about 5 ppl playing it.[/quote]
I know what you mean i've said be4 that i've seen 1000's of request for all sorts of things to put in UrT. Glad SID didnt do a lot of them things. But on the other hand if a certain request keeps comming back from the community like the func train it might be worth it to have a 2nd look at instead of just saying that it wont get in.
Specialy for this function, it wont take away anything of the UrT feeling/gamestyle etc it only adds an extra option for mappers.
M4F
Quote from oswald from another post where ppl asked about the func train.
[quote name='"Oswald"]Seems some missed the first part of our answer. A) Func_train for Urban Terror on Quake 3 is not broke' date=' it is an engine limitation. As for ETUT, it will remain unchanged and limited to one.[/quote']
Meaning they will limit it, as in sid need to do work to turn it off and make it 1 func train
[quote]right in some way. but if SID would have implemented all the community ever wanted we would have 100s of different UrT versions out there. each of them with about 5 ppl playing it.[/quote]
I know what you mean i've said be4 that i've seen 1000's of request for all sorts of things to put in UrT. Glad SID didnt do a lot of them things. But on the other hand if a certain request keeps comming back from the community like the func train it might be worth it to have a 2nd look at instead of just saying that it wont get in.
Specialy for this function, it wont take away anything of the UrT feeling/gamestyle etc it only adds an extra option for mappers.
M4F
1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
Advertisement