MTM2.com

I contacted Oliver Pieper, one of the forefathers of MTM utilities and he sent me the source code to BinEdit (which if you know MTM, you should know of Binedit) and also his track viewer, TrackView. Between the source to MTM2, MFR, Binedit, and Trackview, I don't think we could get a better start on a new game. Not sure which direction to go though, a new game, learn from the MTM code, Alpine posted his idea, MFR needs a lot of work to it. The only problem with releasing modified code for MTM2 (source modification) I hate to say but I will have no part in. The Non-disclosure agreement is no joke. The source to TrackView is pretty comprehensive with rendering tracks but the code is written in Delphi so parts would be just for reference and would have to be ported. That's were I stand right now with all of this new found glory. Questions or comments, anything, contact me at Jpez1432@gmail.com

Should just make a new game I think. Maybe just open source it and we can all help. As I said previously, more than half of us on this forum are computer programmers.

I agree with you Slayer, mainly because of the Non-Disclosure Agreement. The other major things are the new enhancements for graphics and physics that are now available since 1998. As much as I like MTM2, straight out, it is dated. I've got a good start on my own graphics engine, and I am almost to the point of posting it on GitHub or one of those repositories. I've been trying to decide on using ODE for the physics (MFR used it) or considering Bullet (GTAV uses it). I'm thinking we should use are own tr?ck formats. but at the very least support MTM2 trucks as well, it wouldn't be hard at all. These are the main ideals we need to pin down if everyone agrees to working on a new game. MFR was nothing more than a update to graphics/physics on MTM2 (wrote from scratch though), I want to do more, utilize technology from what we now have available. Please post suggestions, comments, questions, criticism are all welcome.

I've used Bullet in the past for one of my own projects and found that it worked very nicely. Polygon mesh collision is a little bit spotty by default (in my experience) but it is so open and expandable that this wouldn't be hard to fix. Or perhaps I'm just biased because it was the only physics engine I was able to compile properly years ago.

Maybe you should be getting a kickstarter going? Honestly I think the world needs a new monster truck madness.

As for using old tr?cks. Might be better to make a conversion tool. I think it would be overcomplicated to have to make it on the fly interpret those old tr?cks to newer formats that you'd be using. But that's just my inexperienced thoughts on that.

If we could all decide on a cohesive plan, a unofficial sequel is entirely possible. We easily have the people with the skill and knowledge on the programming side of things at this point.

Though my ultimate goal is a sequel to 4x4Evo. I wanted to keep it simple using something that has physics/rendering/sound/etc. already handled (Unity/Unreal/possibly others), and can easily do cross platform with little effort.

However, there is a third option that would take a lot less effort than either one and that is the full conversion of 4x4EvoR to MTM. Still outdated yes, but much more capable.

Wait, full conversion of EvoR to MTM???

The games have two different audiences, and try as I might I can't meet them perfectly. Compatibility is pretty high right now, and with the code for both being accessible, we have the missing pieces.

What would need to be done:
-BIN Animation support needs fixed
-Certain BIN files are causing a crash
-Transparencies on a select few models do not work
-Certain triggered platforms won't trigger
-Reactivate/re-write cockpit code
-Announcer voices re-added.
-Physics/game-engine tweaks (Lower game speed to 100%, tweak CG)

Could be based off Evo 1, 2, or R.

Ah right. I'm too tired. What I understood was bringing EvoR into the MTM2 engine and I was "what? why not bring MTM2 into EvoR engine?"