[NightFright]

It's gonna be fun to see if they were able to find and alter all the 3DR references in the art files. [I don't think there are that many, though.]

[Lunick]

I've seen the 3D Realms icon on textures in in-game videos though.

[EvilEmperorZoRG {GR}]

 Fox, on 26 September 2016 - 06:14 AM, said:

They are probably not allowed to use the 3DRealms logo.

I'm sure they are allowed to use 3D Realms logo as long as it's something like "Originally created by 3D Realms, episode 5 developed by Gearbox etc..."

If they delete the 3D Realms logo from the intro it's gonna be really lame. I don't think they will do that anyway, they didn't do it in Forever. But if Gearbox is trying to erase the legacy of 3D Realms on Duke Nukem 3D and make Duke Nukem seem like an old Gearbox game then I probably won't buy it : P
It will be just lame to start DN3D and see only Gearbox logo.

[NightFright]

Would be even funnier later if they sell another "definite" edition with the addons included next year. TBH I wouldn't be surprised at all. Pissed, but not surprised.

[Steve 64]

A friend told me of this on steam seems Microsoft has this on the xbox one and store https://www.microsof...10/9nblggh4r9nw I guess we can now play Zero Hour and Duke 64 on Xbox one Now but i'm not going to buy it.

[Valhalla]

 NightFright, on 26 September 2016 - 09:06 AM, said:

Would be even funnier later if they sell another "definite" edition with the addons included next year. TBH I wouldn't be surprised at all. Pissed, but not surprised.

There was something mentioned briefly about that possibly happening directly from gearbox. Of course it'd have to include more than just the addons, because we're going to have them ported over to this world tour in a few weeks time via workshop anyway.

[NightFright]

Well, now that Blum and Levelord got warmed up with these couple of levels, they could knock out some episodes for the 2017 edition, I presume...

[Valhalla]

 NightFright, on 26 September 2016 - 02:12 PM, said:

Well, now that Blum and Levelord got warmed up with these couple of levels, they could knock out some episodes for the 2017 edition, I presume...

I'd still buy it in all liklihood, though I wish they would expand on the engine itself, bigger level capabilities, more SE effects, expanded .con capabilities, etc. I'd pay a LOT more for that. I really struggle with the current wall/sector/sprite limitations, I have to design my levels super basic, then go back and refine them evenly or I always run out before the level is done. And I hate having to use sprites as mcguyevered walls and sectors to push the detail up. At least with the new lighting system I may be able to cut down on sector and wall use for shadows somewhat. (Though the screenshots make the lighting look like more of a gimmick than an actual lighting replacement.

[t800]

No offence, but I wish for exact opposite. Just let them stick to vanilla limits. Because if they will come up with new things, they certainly wont be standartized. And that will only lead to fragmentization of modding/mapping community.

Just my 2 cents.

[Mike Norvak]

 Valhalla, on 26 September 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

I'd still buy it in all liklihood, though I wish they would expand on the engine itself, bigger level capabilities, more SE effects, expanded .con capabilities, etc. I'd pay a LOT more for that. I really struggle with the current wall/sector/sprite limitations

Wut??

[Paul B]

 Valhalla, on 26 September 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

I'd still buy it in all liklihood, though I wish they would expand on the engine itself, bigger level capabilities, more SE effects, expanded .con capabilities, etc.

I think I know what he's trying to say, for the most part. I think he wishes that modifications made to the original Duke Nukem 3D that are present in Eduke are also present in the Gearbox Duke 3D. I'm fairly confident based on reputable sources that TROR will not be a feature of this new Duke 3D game and I see this as a huge step backwards. TROR enhances the editor without breaking stuff and no one really knows if the sector limits will be increased to their expanded limits of what Mapster allows whereas Build only allowed for 1024 sectors or whatever it was. A lot of work has been poured into Mapster and it would be a shame only to get a stripped down version of it in a new professional released product.

Practically all my custom maps were heavily based in Polymer with TROR and now won't work with Gearbox's Duke 3D which really sucks! Also, it would be nice if Sector Tag 30 could actually do something more useful with moving sprites and i'm sure expanding on this functionality with enabling sprites to rest within this sector while it elevates wouldn't break existing functionality.

Or maybe adding additional functionality to Subway Trains. Or fixing Recon Pig Cops in a map with Subway Trains etc.. (Fixed in Eduke) While I have no clue what is under the hood to make these effects happen one would think there could be a graceful way to update these effects without breaking existing functionality. Or like allowing Mappers to easily place a 3 tier elevator like semi-charmed made but have it like a prefab option because that shits impossible to re-create. Why hasn't someone made a M32 script for this shit? Haha! =)

Also, it would be cool if the editor had the ability to store prefab sprite furniture by saving the object as a tile to be easily re-created without having to rebuild sprite furniture from scratch where multiple sprites are used to create a 3D looking object for easy placement.

[Danukem]

Hey, guys, let's use our heads here. On the one hand, you have a port of Duke 3D that has been put together pretty quickly by a company that is notorious for not providing modding tools, and which is obviously lacking many of the things you want. On the other hand, you have a port of Duke 3D that has been developed over a period of more than 15 years with the express purpose of providing the maximum amount of modding and functionality possible, and already gives you most of what you want. Which do you think is the better bet for being a viable platform to develop your projects in the future?

The only reason I can think of for why you would want to develop for World Tour is the assumption that it will have a larger player base. Well, it probably will, for a while. But in the long run, there's not much reason to think there will be a future in it.

[Paul B]

Good point. I guess what we should be asking is how can we import these new assets (AI, art & maps) into eduke? Or would that be infringing on copyrights in some way?

[Danukem]

 Paul B, on 26 September 2016 - 09:37 PM, said:

Good point. I guess what we should be asking is how can we import this new assets AI, art & maps into eduke?

The menu interface, renderer (maybe?) and save rewind features are the things I would like (rewind is not unique to WT of course). The new art is frankly not very good, there isn't any new AI worth mentioning as far as I can see, and the maps are good but they belong to WT and we have tons of good maps already.

[Lunick]

 Paul B, on 26 September 2016 - 09:37 PM, said:

Good point. I guess what we should be asking is how can we import these new assets (AI, art & maps) into eduke? Or would that be infringing on copyrights in some way?

You're free to do whatever you want with the World Tour files, you just can't redistribute them. I assume the maps and art will work out of the box with EDuke32 but the weapon and enemy ai is something that would be looked into supporting.

[DNSkill]

Is the firefly sprites an unused DN3D monster that they found in the alphas/betas?

[TerminX]

I found it and gave it to them. It's an earlier version of what eventually became the liztroop. It follows the same general theme of the liztroop and enforcer, but it's effectively a completely different enemy model.

[Tea Monster]

Do you have copies of the original art files there with the betas? If so, can you tell us if the art tiles exist in native (1x) resolution or if they are available in a higher resolution?

So, from what you are saying, it sounds like GBX do *not* have the original art files from the game?

[TerminX]

Yes, I have quite a bit of original art from before it was imported into the .art files. It was all made at 320x200 resolution and not created at a larger resolution and reduced in any way.

[oasiz]

 Valhalla, on 26 September 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

I really struggle with the current wall/sector/sprite limitations, I have to design my levels super basic, then go back and refine them evenly or I always run out before the level is done.

I don't think that can be upped easily. The initial limit bump was done since there was some buffer left but upping any more would require more or less significant changes in code.
This is where a hub level system comes in handy. Levels load almost instantly anyway these days so you're not really losing anything except some convenience of having the areas inside same .map

Regarding firefly, animation and poses of the it seems similar to the grey trooper from lameduke and later beta shots.
They added that strange horn-like thing coming from the head as well, hinting that this was used for eventual liztroop what TX described.
The flying pose actually looks to be near exact to one of those beta shots it seems.

[Tea Monster]

Thanks TX. I was wondering if it was possible for them, if they had to the files, to export it at higher resolution, This isn't the case it seems.

[PikaCommando]

So is the Firefly using the same AI as the old Flamethrower Enforcer or?

[Lunick]

I'd say the Flamethrower enforcer was better coded...

[NUKEMDAVE]

I think there should be a poll conducted to show how fans prefer Jon St. John do the voice. I've seen numerous complaints about the voicework and not just here. I've even seen Jon himself respond to some comments and he seemed offended in every case, which I don't think he should be offended. He should take the fans' opinions into consideration. A few of the new lines in World Tour sound pretty great, but overall, they're nowhere near topping the original recordings. I think he could have pulled-off saying them just as good as before, but it seems that he's abandoned that Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry element. I personally prefer the voice that way... and I believe the majority of other fans do as well.

[HiPolyBash]

He should not be offended. It's been the general opinion since DNF was released that his voice acting has gone to shit which seems to line up with him saying Gearbox gave him more freedom.

If he acts offended he's doing the same thing Pitchford does whenever criticism is thrown towards him and he throws a tantrum. 'Why aren't the expansions included? Megaton was cheaper and had them.' 'WHAT?! YOU DONT THINK ALL THESE PEOPLES HARD WORK IS DESERVING OF $20 HUH?!! YOU'RE JUST A TERRIBLE PERSON!'

It's important to accept constructive criticism. People have been criticizing his delivery of dialogue since Duke Forever was released and no one has made any effort to direct him to improve it and it isn't helped by Gearbox writing terrible one-liners for him and completely buttfucking the Duke Nukem character until the anus is dripping with failure and lead balloon jokes.

[HMNuke93]

 TerminX, on 26 September 2016 - 10:33 PM, said:

I found it and gave it to them. It's an earlier version of what eventually became the liztroop. It follows the same general theme of the liztroop and enforcer, but it's effectively a completely different enemy model.

Apart from the Overlord with the crotch-machinegun are there early versions of the bosses in the art files you have?

[Valhalla]

 Mike Norvak, on 26 September 2016 - 07:13 PM, said:

Wut??

I'm not sure how I could have been much clearer... But I'll elaborate as best I can. I'm basically hoping for eduke32, with an "optimized" polymer type engine, (The main weak point of eduke currently as even an i7 6700k and gtx1080 start to weep under some circumstances.) and additional mapping capability. (In the form of new effects like eduke does, but also the ability to make levels larger than the current build/eduke engine can handle.)

The main two for me though are a truely 3d engine that doesn't make a supercomputer from the future meltdown in some cases, and the ability to make larger levels (or some trick to seamlessly transition levels.)

Oasiz: Yeah I know it would require a code overhaul, hence why it's on my wishlist. Sadly with the way I like to handle my level designs, a hub simply wouldn't work most of the time, for example I've been working on a large level project for the release of world tour. (Currently it looks like I'll be behind the launch a month or so.) The map makes use of a hub-like area, which connects to other areas, but it's aimed at 2-8 player coop, and since the hub area itself takes up over 1/3 of the entire level's limits alone, it doesn't really work out well to have the level split up in episodic format. Currently I'm pinching pennies so-to-speak with my limits by making much of the level far lower detail than I'd like to to to have it all fit, and hoping the new lighting system is good enough to allow me to skimp on shadowing sectors.

[HiPolyBash]

 Valhalla, on 27 September 2016 - 03:10 AM, said:

I'm not sure how I could have been much clearer... But I'll elaborate as best I can. I'm basically hoping for eduke32, with an "optimized" polymer type engine, (The main weak point of eduke currently as even an i7 6700k and gtx1080 start to weep under some circumstances.) and additional mapping capability. (In the form of new effects like eduke does, but also the ability to make levels larger than the current build/eduke engine can handle.)

The main two for me though are a truely 3d engine that doesn't make a supercomputer from the future meltdown in some cases, and the ability to make larger levels (or some trick to seamlessly transition levels.)

Oasiz: Yeah I know it would require a code overhaul, hence why it's on my wishlist. Sadly with the way I like to handle my level designs, a hub simply wouldn't work most of the time, for example I've been working on a large level project for the release of world tour. (Currently it looks like I'll be behind the launch a month or so.) The map makes use of a hub-like area, which connects to other areas, but it's aimed at 2-8 player coop, and since the hub area itself takes up over 1/3 of the entire level's limits alone, it doesn't really work out well to have the level split up in episodic format. Currently I'm pinching pennies so-to-speak with my limits by making much of the level far lower detail than I'd like to to to have it all fit, and hoping the new lighting system is good enough to allow me to skimp on shadowing sectors.

https://forums.duke4...and-windows-10/

[Kathy]

 NUKEMDAVE, on 27 September 2016 - 02:00 AM, said:

I've even seen Jon himself respond to some comments and he seemed offended in every case, which I don't think he should be offended.

Links?

[TerminX]

 HMNuke93, on 27 September 2016 - 02:58 AM, said:

Apart from the Overlord with the crotch-machinegun are there early versions of the bosses in the art files you have?

There are a few earlier versions of the Battlelord, but they all use more or less the final version of the mesh. Some of them have different animations. There are some frames with no weapon, some variations on the walking animation (tuning things like the gait and swing of the weapon, etc), and an unused melee attack that was cut from the game.