Unreal Tournament 0.1.9 Update Released

[schmidtbag]

Yeah, why don't they just add "New" to the name to differentiate it? It's pretty common in other industrial branches. For example, in transport ("Volkswagen New Beetle", "Van Hool newAG300").

Don't forget "The New iPad"
Probably the worst usage of the word "new" I've ever seen (except when it was actually the newest)

[aht0]

I couldn't agree more. What also drives me insane are products that count backwards but aren't prequels or re-makes, like "Xbox One" or "Battlefield 1".

Well. "Battlefield 1" is IMHO sort of an excusable lapse. It being set into World War I theme and all. "Battlefield:World War" would have sounded awfully like Call of Duty: World at War.. there have already been names like "Battlefield 1942/3" already.. so perhaps if you named it "Battlefield 1914" dumb ones would think it perhaps "old game". And if you named it simply Battlefield 5, people would have sort of expected "modern theme" since 2, 3 and 4 were set into modern times.
"Battlefield 1" fits with it´s name IMHO. At least there is a number you can distinguish it by. Not just New or/and franchise name..

[schmidtbag]

Well. "Battlefield 1" is IMHO sort of an excusable lapse. It being set into World War I theme and all. "Battlefield:World War" would have sounded awfully like Call of Duty: World at War.. there have already been names like "Battlefield 1942/3" already.. so perhaps if you named it "Battlefield 1914" dumb ones would think it perhaps "old game". And if you named it simply Battlefield 5, people would have sort of expected "modern theme" since 2, 3 and 4 were set into modern times.
"Battlefield 1" fits with it´s name IMHO. At least there is a number you can distinguish it by. Not just New or/and franchise name..

I understand your thought process but no matter which way you look at it, something is contradictory:
1. Calling it "Battlefield 1" because it's WW1 doesn't make sense (or at least isn't consistent), because Battlefield 2 takes place in the 21st century. The first battlefield is WW2.
2. If the game can't be called "Battlefield 1914" because of sounding like an older game, how is the name "Battlefield 1" less confusing by the same logic?
3. The name "CoD: World at War" was WW2, not WW1. That name in of itself was ambiguous. There are plenty of games out there with "world" and "war" in the title; considering how big of names "Battlefield" and "Call of Duty" are (and considering how much their fanbases hate each other) I personally think "Battlefield 5: World War" would be a better title.
4. If calling the game "BF5" confuses the chronology of the series, then what will be the next name in the series, regardless of timeline? They have basically trapped themselves with a naming scheme that will no longer make sense. They can't call the next game (regardless of timeline) BF5 because it isn't the 5th game. If they call it BF6, it will be confusing. If they name it after a year and it's still pre-modern, then we're back to the issue of point #2.

[aht0]

I understand your thought process but no matter which way you look at it, something is contradictory:
1. Calling it "Battlefield 1" because it's WW1 doesn't make sense (or at least isn't consistent), because Battlefield 2 takes place in the 21st century. The first battlefield is WW2.
2. If the game can't be called "Battlefield 1914" because of sounding like an older game, how is the name "Battlefield 1" less confusing by the same logic?
3. The name "CoD: World at War" was WW2, not WW1. That name in of itself was ambiguous. There are plenty of games out there with "world" and "war" in the title; considering how big of names "Battlefield" and "Call of Duty" are (and considering how much their fanbases hate each other) I personally think "Battlefield 5: World War" would be a better title.
4. If calling the game "BF5" confuses the chronology of the series, then what will be the next name in the series, regardless of timeline? They have basically trapped themselves with a naming scheme that will no longer make sense. They can't call the next game (regardless of timeline) BF5 because it isn't the 5th game. If they call it BF6, it will be confusing. If they name it after a year and it's still pre-modern, then we're back to the issue of point #2.

I even agree with you. It's just that people are different, on average ignorant as fuck about any kind of history and marketing is more about perception than anything else. Name was chosen more than likely by marketing department.

About the topic. Tried this UT remaster. Love it. Good old times.

[Desti]

Was expecting a patch for Unreal Tournament.

[GreatEmerald]

A very little typo (missing space):

EAGLE EYE!

I hate how new games have the exact same name as an older existing game in the same franchise...

I just call it Unreal Tournament 4, because that's what it is. But the devs chose that name because it's a rolling release game. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

Runs at a good framerate for me, RX 480 w/ Mesa 17.0.2. A few of the bodies render black, but otherwise it's problem free.

Nice, does that include the fully meshed/particled levels? On highest settings?

[Xicronic]

Nice, does that include the fully meshed/particled levels? On highest settings?

Yes. No, I only run all high + FXAA

[GreatEmerald]

Yes. No, I only run all high + FXAA

That's still quite impressive. I'm thinking about replacing my GTX 660 with something like the RX 480 or RX 470 (barring Vega having anything interesting).

[Xicronic]

That's still quite impressive. I'm thinking about replacing my GTX 660 with something like the RX 480 or RX 470 (barring Vega having anything interesting).

I upgraded 660 Ti -> RX 480 and I regret it. Nvidia is way more consistent across the board on Linux.
Grievances:
* There are some titles where the CPU overhead is still so great on AMD drivers, that you get an extremely unpleasant experience (Even though I have an R7 1700 @ 3.7GHZ): e.x. Dolphin emulator, Saints Row series.
* Said CPU overhead means lower fps across the board. I could hit 300+ fps in TF2 with an Nvidia card, but I hover 90 - 140 on my RX 480.
* Even when AMD delivers comparable average fps, Nvidia has much higher min / 99th percentile fps that makes games much more enjoyable: e.x. HITMAN
* Many AAA releases this past year, on day 1, did not work or performed very poorly on AMD
* AMD has no sort of driver GUI, and minimal GPU sensor support for temperature, clockspeeds, utilization %, etc.
* AMD has two drivers, which are situationally better than the other one. Mesa often renders incorrectly, and AMDGPU-PRO is generally more conformant, but much slower than Mesa.
* Did I mention Mesa still doesn't support HDMI/DP audio or FreeSync?

tl;dr AMD still has really shitty Linux drivers; half the time my 660 Ti still outperforms my RX 480. I would definitely not consider another AMD card soon for gaming on Linux.

[schmidtbag]

Xicronic
Part of me thinks you've done something wrong if your experience is that bad, and, that you didn't do your research. You should almost never have any CPU overhead issues unless you have Freesync enabled (which as you described, does not seem to be the case). I guess maybe you could have Vsync disabled, but I don't understand why you'd intentionally do that.
I figure your Ryzen might be more likely the problem. From what I recall, Ryzen seems to overall perform worse in Linux than it does in Windows, though I'm sure it won't take long for those problems to fade. My R9 290 has been able to play plenty of AAA titles very smoothly. Your GPU is better than mine in almost every way, so I something seems out of place to me

If playing fresh new AAA titles were your primary focus, getting an AMD GPU now was a bad idea and anyone could've told you that. Developers primarily only focus on Nvidia first, and sometimes only Nvidia.