🚀 go-pugleaf

On Nov 21, 1:15 pm, "skippi" <s...@spam.net> wrote:
> Well, basically UT3 is Okay ... but in a lot of ways it's a BIG
> disappointment to me. First you should know that I only play Bots, and
> mostly I do deathmatch. I don't do online. The Bots are pretty good, so
> that's not the problem.
>
> It's the look - the levels are for the most part dark, dingy and dirty. I
> thought it was my card or monitor. Nope! I turned up the brightness and
> contrast and details. And where are all the levels anyway. Only about ten or
> less for most of the game formats? What's up with that? I guess they are
> expecting the user community to fill in the void. By the way, some of the
> maps just seem to be all about being fancy, but hardly practical for real
> deathmatch. It's like the Epic mappers were just showing off what the engine
> could do. Okay. Now release some real deathmatch maps! Pretty please! I hope
> there is going to be a major map pack or two or three to make up for all of
> this.
>
> And most of the MODs that come with the game are stupid. After all this time
> you would think Epic would know which mutators the gaming community wanted.
> Where is instagib? I guess the community has to fill in this void too. So,
> why do they charge so much for a half baked game? We should charge them. Ha!
>
> Now to some technical stuff. Both the Demo and the full game would NOT save
> any game configurations!!! Arghhh! (This problem and others are noted on the
> Epic game forums.) The solution I used - not found on the forums - was to
> edit the game and weapon and engine and player ini files found in
> C:\Documents and Settings\XuserX\My Documents\My Games\UT3 ... etc. But,
> this is a lot of trouble. So, why did Epic ship with this clearly noted
> "bug"??? Oh well, if this is any indication of where Epic is headed, I don't
> look forward to Unreal Tournament 4.
>
> If the mutator and MOD community get on board for UT3, then UT3 will be
> great. But, why did Epic do such a half way job on UT3. At least that's what
> it look like to me. I'll keep UT3 on my hard drive for a while, but if the
> modding and mapping community doesn't get to work then I'll go back to the
> other Unreal games for deathmatch botting.
>
> skippi

I agree with you 100%, except I believe Instagib is one of the
mutators included.

Anyways, You didn't mention the number of bots being maxed at 15, is
this an issue to you? It's personally my biggest complaint. .

Right you are! Instagib is there. Sorry about that.

The Bot limit IS a problem when doing CTF on huge levels that require a
large team. Thanks for noting that problem too.

skippi 

Okay, what's up with this!!! I read somewhere that turning down the Video 
sliders down for textures, etc would IMPROVE the dirty looks. So, I turned 
both sliders in the advanced menu down to "1" and things look BETTER?!? Not 
quite as ugly, not quite as dark and dingy. Is this for real, or is it just 
me?

skippi


"skippi" <spam@spam.net> wrote in message 
news:C521j.8035$Rw3.3919@newsfe06.phx...
> Well, basically UT3 is Okay ... but in a lot of ways it's a BIG 
> disappointment to me. First you should know that I only play Bots, and 
> mostly I do deathmatch. I don't do online. The Bots are pretty good, so 
> that's not the problem.
>
> It's the look - the levels are for the most part dark, dingy and dirty. I 
> thought it was my card or monitor. Nope! I turned up the brightness and 
> contrast and details. And where are all the levels anyway. Only about ten 
> or less for most of the game formats? What's up with that? I guess they 
> are expecting the user community to fill in the void. By the way, some of 
> the maps just seem to be all about being fancy, but hardly practical for 
> real deathmatch. It's like the Epic mappers were just showing off what the 
> engine could do. Okay. Now release some real deathmatch maps! Pretty 
> please! I hope there is going to be a major map pack or two or three to 
> make up for all of this.
>
> And most of the MODs that come with the game are stupid. After all this 
> time you would think Epic would know which mutators the gaming community 
> wanted. Where is instagib? I guess the community has to fill in this void 
> too. So, why do they charge so much for a half baked game? We should 
> charge them. Ha!
>
> Now to some technical stuff. Both the Demo and the full game would NOT 
> save any game configurations!!! Arghhh! (This problem and others are noted 
> on the Epic game forums.) The solution I used - not found on the forums - 
> was to edit the game and weapon and engine and player ini files found in 
> C:\Documents and Settings\XuserX\My Documents\My Games\UT3 ... etc. But, 
> this is a lot of trouble. So, why did Epic ship with this clearly noted 
> "bug"??? Oh well, if this is any indication of where Epic is headed, I 
> don't look forward to Unreal Tournament 4.
>
> If the mutator and MOD community get on board for UT3, then UT3 will be 
> great. But, why did Epic do such a half way job on UT3. At least that's 
> what it look like to me. I'll keep UT3 on my hard drive for a while, but 
> if the modding and mapping community doesn't get to work then I'll go back 
> to the other Unreal games for deathmatch botting.
>
> skippi
> 

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:08:16 -0700, "skippi" <spam@spam.net> wrote:

>Okay, what's up with this!!! I read somewhere that turning down the Video 
>sliders down for textures, etc would IMPROVE the dirty looks. So, I turned 
>both sliders in the advanced menu down to "1" and things look BETTER?!? Not 
>quite as ugly, not quite as dark and dingy. Is this for real, or is it just 
>me?

Nope, it's not just you.  Maxing everything out makes thing look too
"busy", for lack of a better term.  Turning both sliders down to 1
don't make things look "better" IMO, but to me it does make other
players easier to see.  But then I turned things way down in 2k4 as
well.  The fast paced action of UT doesn't really need a lot of eye
candy.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:15:02 -0700, "skippi" <spam@spam.net> wrote:

>If the mutator and MOD community get on board for UT3, then UT3 will be 
>great. But, why did Epic do such a half way job on UT3. At least that's what 
>it look like to me. I'll keep UT3 on my hard drive for a while, but if the 
>modding and mapping community doesn't get to work then I'll go back to the 
>other Unreal games for deathmatch botting.

UT3 suffered from two problems...

1.  Rush job, just like you say.  It was obviously pushed out the door
to catch holiday sales.  But then *that* problem was compounded by...

2.  The success of GoW.  All the talent at Epic games was siphoned off
to work on Gears.  UT3 got the second string talent and it shows.

It's going to be a couple of patches before some of the most glaring
issues are addressed.  But it's not just the clients that are
suffering.  I've talked to a couple of server admins and they also are
faced with a ton of problems.  An emergency beta patch for servers is
supposed to go out next week.  I haven't heard about a client patch
yet, but it's sorely needed.

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:spfbk3da3toeuudjhdhs52ekius779pg4j@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:15:02 -0700, "skippi" <spam@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>If the mutator and MOD community get on board for UT3, then UT3 will be
>>great. But, why did Epic do such a half way job on UT3. At least that's 
>>what
>>it look like to me. I'll keep UT3 on my hard drive for a while, but if the
>>modding and mapping community doesn't get to work then I'll go back to the
>>other Unreal games for deathmatch botting.
>
> UT3 suffered from two problems...
>
> 1.  Rush job, just like you say.  It was obviously pushed out the door
> to catch holiday sales.  But then *that* problem was compounded by...
>
> 2.  The success of GoW.  All the talent at Epic games was siphoned off
> to work on Gears.  UT3 got the second string talent and it shows.
>
> It's going to be a couple of patches before some of the most glaring
> issues are addressed.  But it's not just the clients that are
> suffering.  I've talked to a couple of server admins and they also are
> faced with a ton of problems.  An emergency beta patch for servers is
> supposed to go out next week.  I haven't heard about a client patch
> yet, but it's sorely needed.

Not to turn the thread in another direction Folksie but has the GoW save 
problem been addressed? I deleted it until saves could be made locally. I 
was absolutely pissed when I played for a couple of hours then found my game 
wasn't saved. I'd have taken the game back if I hadn't ripped the box open 
to make a lunchtray (doh). 

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:5lfbk3h58cpq6vrnet5c7c34g0osb506aj@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:08:16 -0700, "skippi" <spam@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>Okay, what's up with this!!! I read somewhere that turning down the Video
>>sliders down for textures, etc would IMPROVE the dirty looks. So, I turned
>>both sliders in the advanced menu down to "1" and things look BETTER?!? 
>>Not
>>quite as ugly, not quite as dark and dingy. Is this for real, or is it 
>>just
>>me?
>
> Nope, it's not just you.  Maxing everything out makes thing look too
> "busy", for lack of a better term.  Turning both sliders down to 1
> don't make things look "better" IMO, but to me it does make other
> players easier to see.  But then I turned things way down in 2k4 as
> well.  The fast paced action of UT doesn't really need a lot of eye
> candy.


I've found myself doing that too sometimes. I'll crank the visuals way back 
and it does indeed help gameplay. It's much more bland but with grass and 
shit out of your way the players do stand out much better. I read once where 
the most elite 2K4 player have settings only slightly better than wireframe 
:) 

Folk wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:15:02 -0700, "skippi" <spam@spam.net> wrote:
> 
>> If the mutator and MOD community get on board for UT3, then UT3 will be 
>> great. But, why did Epic do such a half way job on UT3. At least that's what 
>> it look like to me. I'll keep UT3 on my hard drive for a while, but if the 
>> modding and mapping community doesn't get to work then I'll go back to the 
>> other Unreal games for deathmatch botting.
> 
> UT3 suffered from two problems...
> 
> 1.  Rush job, just like you say.  It was obviously pushed out the door
> to catch holiday sales.  But then *that* problem was compounded by...
> 
> 2.  The success of GoW.  All the talent at Epic games was siphoned off
> to work on Gears.  UT3 got the second string talent and it shows.
> 
> It's going to be a couple of patches before some of the most glaring
> issues are addressed.  But it's not just the clients that are
> suffering.  I've talked to a couple of server admins and they also are
> faced with a ton of problems.  An emergency beta patch for servers is
> supposed to go out next week.  I haven't heard about a client patch
> yet, but it's sorely needed.

I'm not seeing patches fixing everything that IMO are problems. I'm not 
sure if they can up the limit of bots to 32 or more with a patch, but 
that's a big one, , but, , if they don't add some gametypes, I have 
little use for it. The (lack of) Adrenaline system is another thing I 
doubt can be fixed with a patch, and even if it was, the maps would need 
  fixing also.

I spent more on this than '04 was when it came out, yet there is what 
feels like half the content, maybe less.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:18:45 -0800, "goPostal"
<agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
>news:spfbk3da3toeuudjhdhs52ekius779pg4j@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:15:02 -0700, "skippi" <spam@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If the mutator and MOD community get on board for UT3, then UT3 will be
>>>great. But, why did Epic do such a half way job on UT3. At least that's 
>>>what
>>>it look like to me. I'll keep UT3 on my hard drive for a while, but if the
>>>modding and mapping community doesn't get to work then I'll go back to the
>>>other Unreal games for deathmatch botting.
>>
>> UT3 suffered from two problems...
>>
>> 1.  Rush job, just like you say.  It was obviously pushed out the door
>> to catch holiday sales.  But then *that* problem was compounded by...
>>
>> 2.  The success of GoW.  All the talent at Epic games was siphoned off
>> to work on Gears.  UT3 got the second string talent and it shows.
>>
>> It's going to be a couple of patches before some of the most glaring
>> issues are addressed.  But it's not just the clients that are
>> suffering.  I've talked to a couple of server admins and they also are
>> faced with a ton of problems.  An emergency beta patch for servers is
>> supposed to go out next week.  I haven't heard about a client patch
>> yet, but it's sorely needed.
>
>Not to turn the thread in another direction Folksie but has the GoW save 
>problem been addressed? I deleted it until saves could be made locally. I 
>was absolutely pissed when I played for a couple of hours then found my game 
>wasn't saved. I'd have taken the game back if I hadn't ripped the box open 
>to make a lunchtray (doh). 

Not yet.  I found a method that's *supposed* to preserve your saved
games but I didn't have to use it... I reinstalled the game and after
that didn't lose any of the saves.

But then in the final act I ran into another problem... stuttering.
The Epic forums are filled with people having the same problem.  The
game just starts chugging like crazy and then often crashes to a blank
display.  I was *going* to get it to crash and post my log file to the
forums, but then it magically quit stuttering and I was able to finish
the game.

This is one of the few single player campaigns that I will probably
play again.  They did a great job on making it a compelling story. But
I'm not going to bother until they get a patch out.  

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:10:11 -0900, GTD <Stooopid@duuuh.net> wrote:

>Folk wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:15:02 -0700, "skippi" <spam@spam.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> If the mutator and MOD community get on board for UT3, then UT3 will be 
>>> great. But, why did Epic do such a half way job on UT3. At least that's what 
>>> it look like to me. I'll keep UT3 on my hard drive for a while, but if the 
>>> modding and mapping community doesn't get to work then I'll go back to the 
>>> other Unreal games for deathmatch botting.
>> 
>> UT3 suffered from two problems...
>> 
>> 1.  Rush job, just like you say.  It was obviously pushed out the door
>> to catch holiday sales.  But then *that* problem was compounded by...
>> 
>> 2.  The success of GoW.  All the talent at Epic games was siphoned off
>> to work on Gears.  UT3 got the second string talent and it shows.
>> 
>> It's going to be a couple of patches before some of the most glaring
>> issues are addressed.  But it's not just the clients that are
>> suffering.  I've talked to a couple of server admins and they also are
>> faced with a ton of problems.  An emergency beta patch for servers is
>> supposed to go out next week.  I haven't heard about a client patch
>> yet, but it's sorely needed.
>
>I'm not seeing patches fixing everything that IMO are problems. I'm not 
>sure if they can up the limit of bots to 32 or more with a patch, but 
>that's a big one, , but, , if they don't add some gametypes, I have 
>little use for it. The (lack of) Adrenaline system is another thing I 
>doubt can be fixed with a patch, and even if it was, the maps would need 
>  fixing also.
>
>I spent more on this than '04 was when it came out, yet there is what 
>feels like half the content, maybe less.

You don't read alt.games.unreal.tournament2003?  I posted a changelog
of a beta patch over there.  One of the several thousand <g> things
they're fixing is adding the capability of having 32 bots.  The beta
version is already available for download but if I were you I would
wait for the official patch.

>> I spent more on this than '04 was when it came out, yet there is what 
>> feels like half the content, maybe less.
> 
> You don't read alt.games.unreal.tournament2003?  I posted a changelog
> of a beta patch over there. 
Not before I posted my previous message you didn't. . ..


> One of the several thousand <g> things
> they're fixing is adding the capability of having 32 bots.  The beta
> version is already available for download but if I were you I would
> wait for the official patch.

I found the beta patch, and, not to get too technical, , they only 
bumped it up to 31 bots, It's cool, I'm just surprised at the 
discrepancy. ..

I was pretty surprised at the number of changes, ,makes me believe they 
were working on it based on the demo feedback, and have been since 
BEFORE it went gold. .

No gametypes or such though. It is mainly bugfixes. It is a fat-assed 
list of them though. . .

goPostal wrote:

>> Nope, it's not just you.  Maxing everything out makes thing look too
>> "busy", for lack of a better term.  Turning both sliders down to 1
>> don't make things look "better" IMO, but to me it does make other
>> players easier to see.  But then I turned things way down in 2k4 as
>> well.  The fast paced action of UT doesn't really need a lot of eye
>> candy.
> 
> 
> I've found myself doing that too sometimes. I'll crank the visuals way back 
> and it does indeed help gameplay. It's much more bland but with grass and 
> shit out of your way the players do stand out much better. I read once where 
> the most elite 2K4 player have settings only slightly better than wireframe 

Game graphics get better, computers improve, trying to keep up, and 
still we're turning graphics down to get better performance. I used to 
do this in UT99!

GTD wrote:
> 
>>> I spent more on this than '04 was when it came out, yet there is what 
>>> feels like half the content, maybe less.
>>
>> You don't read alt.games.unreal.tournament2003?  I posted a changelog
>> of a beta patch over there. 
> Not before I posted my previous message you didn't. . ..
> 
> 
>> One of the several thousand <g> things
>> they're fixing is adding the capability of having 32 bots.  The beta
>> version is already available for download but if I were you I would
>> wait for the official patch.
> 
> I found the beta patch, and, not to get too technical, , they only 
> bumped it up to 31 bots, It's cool, I'm just surprised at the 
> discrepancy. ..
> 
> I was pretty surprised at the number of changes, ,makes me believe they 
> were working on it based on the demo feedback, and have been since 
> BEFORE it went gold. .
> 
> No gametypes or such though. It is mainly bugfixes. It is a fat-assed 
> list of them though. . .
I have to say though, all in all, they fixed a LOT of stuff. Kudos to 
Epic for that. .

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:36:59 GMT, me <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>goPostal wrote:
>
>>> Nope, it's not just you.  Maxing everything out makes thing look too
>>> "busy", for lack of a better term.  Turning both sliders down to 1
>>> don't make things look "better" IMO, but to me it does make other
>>> players easier to see.  But then I turned things way down in 2k4 as
>>> well.  The fast paced action of UT doesn't really need a lot of eye
>>> candy.
>> 
>> 
>> I've found myself doing that too sometimes. I'll crank the visuals way back 
>> and it does indeed help gameplay. It's much more bland but with grass and 
>> shit out of your way the players do stand out much better. I read once where 
>> the most elite 2K4 player have settings only slightly better than wireframe 
>
>Game graphics get better, computers improve, trying to keep up, and 
>still we're turning graphics down to get better performance. I used to 
>do this in UT99!

I'm not turning it down to get better performance.  My system runs
with all sliders maxed at over 150 fps average and never drops below
60.  I'm turning it down so it's easier to see what I'm shooting at.

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:stafk3hnrjknj9jbfhje4otir703ls47o3@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:36:59 GMT, me <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>goPostal wrote:
>>
>>>> Nope, it's not just you.  Maxing everything out makes thing look too
>>>> "busy", for lack of a better term.  Turning both sliders down to 1
>>>> don't make things look "better" IMO, but to me it does make other
>>>> players easier to see.  But then I turned things way down in 2k4 as
>>>> well.  The fast paced action of UT doesn't really need a lot of eye
>>>> candy.
>>>
>>>
>>> I've found myself doing that too sometimes. I'll crank the visuals way 
>>> back
>>> and it does indeed help gameplay. It's much more bland but with grass 
>>> and
>>> shit out of your way the players do stand out much better. I read once 
>>> where
>>> the most elite 2K4 player have settings only slightly better than 
>>> wireframe
>>
>>Game graphics get better, computers improve, trying to keep up, and
>>still we're turning graphics down to get better performance. I used to
>>do this in UT99!
>
> I'm not turning it down to get better performance.  My system runs
> with all sliders maxed at over 150 fps average and never drops below
> 60.  I'm turning it down so it's easier to see what I'm shooting at.

Yeah, same here. Once you have played a map a few times, opened it in editor 
to look for any surprises, and added it to your offline list I pretty much 
stop looking at visuals. I can go to blank walls and for me the game is 
still as fun.
The one exception for me personally is DM-Inferno. I freakin love that map. 
I can walk around looking at that for a long time and enjoy it. Playability 
isn't as good as most but visually it's right up there with the nicest maps 
I've seen. I wish I could decorate like that on my mapping. 

In article <stafk3hnrjknj9jbfhje4otir703ls47o3@4ax.com>, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:36:59 GMT, me <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>goPostal wrote:
>>
>>>> Nope, it's not just you.  Maxing everything out makes thing look too
>>>> "busy", for lack of a better term.  Turning both sliders down to 1
>>>> don't make things look "better" IMO, but to me it does make other
>>>> players easier to see.  But then I turned things way down in 2k4 as
>>>> well.  The fast paced action of UT doesn't really need a lot of eye
>>>> candy.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I've found myself doing that too sometimes. I'll crank the visuals way back 
>>> and it does indeed help gameplay. It's much more bland but with grass and 
>>> shit out of your way the players do stand out much better. I read once where
> 
>>> the most elite 2K4 player have settings only slightly better than wireframe 
>>
>>Game graphics get better, computers improve, trying to keep up, and 
>>still we're turning graphics down to get better performance. I used to 
>>do this in UT99!
>
>I'm not turning it down to get better performance.  My system runs
>with all sliders maxed at over 150 fps average and never drops below
>60.  I'm turning it down so it's easier to see what I'm shooting at.
Damn it sucks to get old!!!! LMAO!!!!

Folk wrote:

> I'm not turning it down to get better performance.  My system runs
> with all sliders maxed at over 150 fps average and never drops below
> 60.  I'm turning it down so it's easier to see what I'm shooting at.

This is UT3??

I haven't got my copy yet. They tell me it's on its way :)
I've played the demo but didn't test my FPS. I just assumed it would be 
demanding of the hardware, but perhaps I was wrong.

What are your system specs?

I have..

E6400 C2D
nVidia 7900GS
1gb ram

Hope it's good enough.

"me" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message 
news:gb%1j.1991$8k2.1955@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> Folk wrote:
>
>> I'm not turning it down to get better performance.  My system runs
>> with all sliders maxed at over 150 fps average and never drops below
>> 60.  I'm turning it down so it's easier to see what I'm shooting at.
>
> This is UT3??
>
> I haven't got my copy yet. They tell me it's on its way :)
> I've played the demo but didn't test my FPS. I just assumed it would be 
> demanding of the hardware, but perhaps I was wrong.
>
> What are your system specs?
>
> I have..
>
> E6400 C2D
> nVidia 7900GS
> 1gb ram
>
> Hope it's good enough.

You might throw another GB of RAM in to keep any swapping from happening. 
The 7900 is a really great card for the money and you might look at 
overclocking it a bit to get a little extra. They have a nice bit of 
overhead room for that without risk of damage.

My thoughts now that I have the full game is that I'm a little let down. All 
the maps look too much alike, all gritty and grainy. I like the new physics, 
much more realistic, but the overall effect is just OK for me. I'll probably 
play offline and stick with 2K4 for a while longer. I'm interested how the 
mappers will go with this. I'd like to see brighter, more open maps like 
ONS-Torlon. The VCTF is way too constrained to be fun. You can hardly turn a 
goliath in the maps. Geez, it's not like Epic is paying rental fee for 
leased combat lands  :)

Overall, worth the money but ultimately forgettable for now.

Oh, and fix that goddamn game interface. If a group is going to mod, they 
should start with the 2K4 template and apply the UT3 browser to it. I can't 
find anything and there are too many screens to click through to get to a 
simple offline game. 

On 22-Nov-2007, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:

> But then I turned things way down in 2k4 as
> well.  The fast paced action of UT doesn't really need a lot of eye
> candy.

Now that's what I was wondering about.  I watched my nephew plaing
yesterday.  I saw a couple of maps that just seemed too big to maintain
"fast paced action".  How does this newest installment of UT compare as far
as "fast paced action" is concerned.

Happily, most everything we have complained about has been fixed with the 
101 (beta) patch! I just installed it and most all of my gripes are gone. (I 
still wonder why turning down the graphic settings gives me a much better 
look in my book. But, I'm glad that UT3 scales well to various systems. Mine 
is an AMD 3 GHz, single core; 2 Gigs of DDR RAM; and an NVidia 7600 with 512 
Megs of RAM.)

skippi

PS When you install the patch, make sure you pay attention to the mouse 
sensitivity settings! 

skippi wrote:
> Happily, most everything we have complained about has been fixed with the 
> 101 (beta) patch! I just installed it and most all of my gripes are gone. (I 
> still wonder why turning down the graphic settings gives me a much better 
> look in my book. But, I'm glad that UT3 scales well to various systems. Mine 
> is an AMD 3 GHz, single core; 2 Gigs of DDR RAM; and an NVidia 7600 with 512 
> Megs of RAM.)
> 
> skippi
> 
> PS When you install the patch, make sure you pay attention to the mouse 
> sensitivity settings! 
> 
> 
It fixed some, but it still leaves the game with little content.

WTF is up with the Flak Cannon? It looks downright horrible (The fire 
effects, not the model itself), the secondary has a range on about two 
feet (You can almost catch up with it when running), and the primary 
projectiles seem slow.

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:45:16 GMT, me <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>Folk wrote:
>
>> I'm not turning it down to get better performance.  My system runs
>> with all sliders maxed at over 150 fps average and never drops below
>> 60.  I'm turning it down so it's easier to see what I'm shooting at.
>
>This is UT3??
>
>I haven't got my copy yet. They tell me it's on its way :)
>I've played the demo but didn't test my FPS. I just assumed it would be 
>demanding of the hardware, but perhaps I was wrong.
>
>What are your system specs?
>
>I have..
>
>E6400 C2D
>nVidia 7900GS
>1gb ram
>
>Hope it's good enough.

Epic has done a great job tweaking Unreal Engine 3 for UT3.  There's a
lot of problems with the game but with all the bitching I don't see
too many people saying it won't play on their hardware as long as the
hardware is relatively current.  Outside of the memory increase
suggested by GP, you should be good to go.

But... I *do* run a God box.  :)

Q6600 @ 3.0
8800 GTX
2 GB DDR2

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 04:35:02 GMT, "§ï×darts" <sixdarts@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>On 22-Nov-2007, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:
>
>> But then I turned things way down in 2k4 as
>> well.  The fast paced action of UT doesn't really need a lot of eye
>> candy.
>
>Now that's what I was wondering about.  I watched my nephew plaing
>yesterday.  I saw a couple of maps that just seemed too big to maintain
>"fast paced action".  How does this newest installment of UT compare as far
>as "fast paced action" is concerned.

Sup man.  LTNS.

See my reply to "me".  Runs good on recent hardware.

IMO, they've really nailed DM on UT3... unless you were in love with
2k3/2k4 player movement, that is.  Player model feels more "grounded"
and "gravity" feels more realistic.  Weapon balance is good.  DM/TDM
players should be pleased.  UT3 has a redo of Deck 16... lot's of fun.

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:38:33 -0900, GTD <Stooopid@duuuh.net> wrote:

>skippi wrote:
>> Happily, most everything we have complained about has been fixed with the 
>> 101 (beta) patch! I just installed it and most all of my gripes are gone. (I 
>> still wonder why turning down the graphic settings gives me a much better 
>> look in my book. But, I'm glad that UT3 scales well to various systems. Mine 
>> is an AMD 3 GHz, single core; 2 Gigs of DDR RAM; and an NVidia 7600 with 512 
>> Megs of RAM.)
>> 
>> skippi
>> 
>> PS When you install the patch, make sure you pay attention to the mouse 
>> sensitivity settings! 
>> 
>> 
>It fixed some, but it still leaves the game with little content.
>
>WTF is up with the Flak Cannon? It looks downright horrible (The fire 
>effects, not the model itself), the secondary has a range on about two 
>feet (You can almost catch up with it when running), and the primary 
>projectiles seem slow.

They've really screwed up that weapon.  For me primary is OK, but the
arc on secondary makes it a joke... it has absolutely no relationship
with the crosshair and always fires at some undetermined level *above*
the crosshair.  You have to aim well below something that's directly
in front of you in order to hit it.