Updated UT2004 Demo Available

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Updated UT2004 Demo Available

Posted by Zonk on Monday September 27, 2004 @02:45AM from the head-shot! dept.

Coneasfast writes "A new Unreal Tournament 2004 demo is available. The new UT2004 demo has all the fixes and updates in the latest full version of UT2004, and also includes two additional maps, ONS-Primeval and CTF-FaceClassic, as well as the Instagib CTF game type. In addition, new demo servers are compatible with full version clients, so if you run a demo server, anyone can join it. The windows version is 282Mb, and the linux version is 77.2Mb." Update: Looks like the site is wrong, the linux client is 275 megs.

28 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Did they fix the 64-bit version? by 7-Vodka · 2004-09-27 02:47 · Score: 1

I just got an athlon64 and I was dying to run the 64-bit version of ut2004 on it. But I couldn't get the demo to work properly and it turns out there were serious bugs not fixed, which were fixed in the full version.
Hopefully I they updated the amd64 version too.

--
Liberty.
1. Re:Did they fix the 64-bit version? by 7-Vodka · 2004-09-27 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  sad replying to my own post but... BLAH. No updated 64-bit version. At least I could not find one.
  
  --
  Liberty.
2. Re:Did they fix the 64-bit version? by RussGarrett · 2004-09-27 05:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's an integrated installer - from the readme:
  
  AMD64 vs x86:
  If you install this on a 64-bit version of GNU/Linux, then you'll get the
  64-bit binaries. Otherwise, you'll get the 32-bit ones. You won't get the
  64-bit version unless you've got an amd64-compatible chip and are running
  a 64-bit OS on that chip. If you don't know, then you're on a 32-bit
  platform.
  
  Please note that the amd64 binaries are considered experimental at this
  time, as is the entire amd64 Linux system at the time of this writing.
  We accept bug reports for them and strive to fix them, but we don't promise
  stellar performance or stability. You have been warned.
  
  And indeed:
  
  russ@russ:~/ut2004demo/System$ file ./ut2004-bin ./ut2004-bin: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, AMD x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.1, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped
Why the size discrepancy? by cjpez · 2004-09-27 02:51 · Score: 1

I wonder why the Linux demo is so much smaller...

--
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
1. Re:Why the size discrepancy? by wscott · 2004-09-27 02:58 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It's not. The linux version is 275 megs. Their webpage is just wrong.
  BTW the first download link is a torrent that is maxing out my line at 351 kB/s with all seeds and no peers. (gotta love bittorrent)
2. Re:Why the size discrepancy? by euxneks · 2004-09-27 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  Damn. You're right. Usually it's leechers just sucking my upload from me.. =)
  
  --
  in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Whoa... by Firehawke · 2004-09-27 02:54 · Score: 1

Talk about a surprise! I didn't expect them to put Facing Worlds on the *demo*-- that's one of the most popular maps in UT! I've already gone out and bought the full game, but I might just grab the demo to shove onto a CDR/DVDR to take for portable LAN party use.
1. Re:Whoa... by noselasd · 2004-09-27 02:56 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Why ? That level suck utterly. It looks fancy but I saw no fun whatsoever playing on it.
2. Re:Whoa... by AlexMax2742 · 2004-09-27 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the same thing as you. With Facing Worlds Classic on the demo, the people who buy UT2004 just to play Facing Worlds 24/7 don't have to buy the retail version.
  I approve. Weeds them out. :thumbsup:
  
  --
  I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
I've been addicted to this game by cerebralsugar · 2004-09-27 02:54 · Score: 0

It's really fun, and if you do like it, I do recommend buying it - the retail version adds SO MANY MAPS, and the community adds a lot to it too - I played one user map with speedboats, there are others that add new kinds of tanks, and modifications to exisiting maps that you can't have in the demo. (Torlan in the winter with Leviathans!!)

--
Easy guys, I put my pants on one leg at a time. The difference is after I put on my pants I make gold records!
Please by superpulpsicle · 2004-09-27 03:01 · Score: 1

I had everything running perfect in Unreal 2004 for the longest time. Until I installed the latest Catalyst 4.9 driver for Doom III. Now I play 2 minutes of UT2004 and it just dies. I think more people have ATI Radeon 9800 pro than 64bit processors.
1. Re:Please by hawkbug · 2004-09-27 03:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That sounds like a major driver issue if you ask me. There is a reason I quit buying ATI you know ;) Seriously, not to start a flame war because I know people who have good luck with ATI, but I never have. I have owned several ATI products in the past, and each one of them seemed to have beta-like drivers for the entire time I owned the products. I used to like the AiW products, but half the advertised features never did work for me, always causing a crash, and it took months in between driver updates. I know ATI has gotten better about drivers in the last few years, but once I went Nvidia I never looked back because of their rock solid driver update schedule. I'm not going to say Nvidia is perfect in that area, just better than ATI.
2. Re:Please by Baikala · 2004-09-27 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Must be a 9800 specific problem, or maybe it has something to do with your mobo because I'm running the 4.9 beta drivers with no problems for UT2004 on a 9600 pro. What are your AA, and AF settings? I'm still on Direct X 9b, have you installed the 9c?
  
  --
  16,777,216 comments ought to be enough for any forum!
3. Re:Please by delus10n0 · 2004-09-27 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Works fine here. I'm not using the Doom3 beta 4.9's, I'm using the final 4.9s:
  
  http://www.ati.com/support/drivers/winxp/radeonw dm -xp.html?type=xp&prodType=graphic&prod=productsXPd river&submit.x=16&submit.y=7&submit=GO %21
  
  --
  Not All Who Wander Are Lost
can someone explain by WormholeFiend · 2004-09-27 03:12 · Score: 1

Why some people run 32-people servers with ONS-Primeval?
1. Re:can someone explain by Zixia · 2004-09-27 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  It's purely to annoy you.
Cool except ONS-Primeval is WORST MAP EVAR by billybob · 2004-09-27 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

I played the original demo for probably 2 months and then bought the full version. The main reason I played and bought the game was for Onslaught. I loved Torlan and all of the ONS levels in the full retial package range from pretty good to damn sweet... EXCEPT for Primeval. This map is just a piece of crap. It seriously feels like it is someone's first ever map, made by Billy (age 7)

The past few months I was actually playing the demo more than the retail version because I love Torlan so much and just wanted to play that for a while. But now the old demo doesnt work anymore with their master servers, you have to run the new demo, this totally sucks because I do NOT want to play Primeval. Everytime I was on the retail version and this map came up, I would change servers. I'm actually really pissed at them for including such a horrible map.

Other than that, it's cool they released a new demo with all their updates up til this point.

--
Joseph?
1. Re:Cool except ONS-Primeval is WORST MAP EVAR by News+for+nerds · 2004-09-27 05:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I think I love Torlan and its compact tactics as possible, and like to play demo as it's faster in loading textures and skins than retail (the retail version takes 30 - 60 seconds loading time for each ONS play because of its fat textures and more complicated online coordination)
  
  But Primeval is not bad IMHO. It's kind of brain-less team death match with some vehicles, just killing each other, it's simple and intensive fight to last very long if teams are even. Sure it often brings lag since many ppl are packed in a small map, nevertheless condensed all-out war is very exciting in itself. In larger maps such as Red Planet you have to run alone very long distance to see your first enemy which is boring sometimes.
2. Re:Cool except ONS-Primeval is WORST MAP EVAR by Solder+Fumes · 2004-09-27 09:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No no no...the level does NOT take a full minute to load. That happens to be the default setting, but anyone who knows anything has already turned the "precache skins" setting off. Even if you have more than 512MB of RAM, it makes no sense to have that setting turned on. If someone joins the game, it takes almost instantly to load just that skin, rather than loading all of them and not using hardly any.
  
  I don't mind Primeval actually, though I didn't like it at first. After playing it for a while, you start to see the strategy. It's the one map where the Hellbender plays a pivotal role. In order to win you must park the Hellbender far away from the central node, but close enough for line of sight. Then you float skymines over the node and opposing team's field and keep carpet-bombing the area. Perfect area denial, as long as everyone on your team understands what you're doing, and heals the Hellbender when possible and don't jump in a charge into the middle of a heated battle.
3. Re:Cool except ONS-Primeval is WORST MAP EVAR by Clomer · 2004-09-28 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  I tend to agree. ONS-Primeval is the worst of the stock maps, whereas ONS-Torlan is one of the best. I personally feel that they should have gone with ONS-Arctic Stronghold or ONS-Crossfire. Of course, with Crossfire they'd have to add in the target painter which they may not want to do. Arctic Stronghold doesn't add any vehicles or weapons that weren't already in the demo, and it's a far better map than Primeval.
  
  --
  Intelligent responses welcome, flames will be met with marshmallows.
4. Re:Cool except ONS-Primeval is WORST MAP EVAR by Lord+of+the+Wazz · 2004-09-28 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  I have to disagree. Primeval is one of my favourite Onslaught maps. It's probably the most evenly contested map there is in the game and you can always guarantee that it'll be all out mayhem.
  
  I agree that it's simple, but that's half the fun. Everyone meets at the middle node and it makes for a fun, intense battle.
Incredible update by imr · 2004-09-27 09:27 · Score: 1

It changes completly the onslaught gameplay, but in the tactical sense of it. Awesome game!
Games are longuer, more balanced between the winning and the losing team, and the teamplay is even more important. The best coordinated team will win.
Even the redeemer isnt that important anymore, and I have already seen many games were nobody would lose time to go for it, as it would mean losing one or two nodes immediatly.
Updated Mac demo also available by dn15 · 2004-09-27 12:56 · Score: 3, Informative

The original post neglected to mention that there is also an updated Mac version of the demo.
1. Re:Updated Mac demo also available by Quobobo · 2004-09-27 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure that this is an incomplete archive. The version found here is much bigger (about 268 megs), yet the file name is the same. Also, that file you linked to seems to make Stuffit lock up.
2. Re:Updated Mac demo also available by Quobobo · 2004-09-27 21:01 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  My bad. It seems like the 3D Gamers link is good, but the other two aren't.
3. Re:Updated Mac demo also available by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-28 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  getting it fine from NGI
4. Re:Updated Mac demo also available by dn15 · 2004-09-28 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, after posting the link I discovered that the one I downloaded was bad as well.
Why does it max out at 32 players? by British · 2004-09-28 05:13 · Score: 1

Before UT2004 I used to play Wolfenstein ET quite abit. I was always on chigc.com, one of the few servers that ran a full 64-player campaign. it was full-out war and it was fun.

But UT2004 maxes out at a wimpy 32 players. Surely it can go higher. Some of the 10+ meg maps have more than enough room for 64 players to duke it out.

C'mon Atari, get with it!