EQEmulator Forums

EQEmulator Forums (https://www.eqemulator.org/forums/index.php)
-   Development::Development (https://www.eqemulator.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=590)
-   -   Steam RoF Development Tracking (https://www.eqemulator.org/forums/showthread.php?t=36104)

Drajor 02-09-2013 11:04 AM

There is a new skill ID listed in skillcaps.txt. Skill 76.
Also 'BERSERKING' (72) is not listed.

liquest 02-10-2013 07:55 PM

Haha, so i was checking out the new armor graphics (heros Forge) And i went to /bow to a player. Meet Garorn the Super woodelf.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...11978362_o.jpg

prickle 02-11-2013 12:38 AM

did the Guild Lobby ever get merged back into main?

I ask because my RoF clients are still unable to enter the Guild Lobby. I made sure it's not my client by logging into PEQ's server and verifying my ability to get into the Guild Lobby with my RoF client. I as able to.

On my server, I cannot enter with my RoF client, but I can with my UF client. So, I thought I'd ask if the necessary bits have been added back into main, before i start down my rabbit hole ...

sorvani 02-11-2013 01:27 AM

GL in RoF is a new zone actually. On PEQ it is a separate instance and cavedude has implemented a script to bounce you to the right version based on your client.

Derision 02-11-2013 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drajor (Post 217878)
BUG:
Command - #unscribespells

Spells stay in RoF spell book, but can not be mem'd. After relogging the spell book is empty. On UF the spell book is wiped immediately. Looks like OP_DeleteSpell may have changed a little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zia (Post 217879)
2. There are no sounds while casting spells. There are sounds when they are landing though.

These two are fixed in the latest Rev. First was an incorrect opcode and the second was a changed struct. Thanks to both of you for the bug reports.

Drajor 02-11-2013 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derision (Post 218006)
These two are fixed in the latest Rev. First was an incorrect opcode and the second was a changed struct. Thanks to both of you for the bug reports.

Winner! :D Cheers heh

trevius 02-13-2013 07:47 AM

As now noted at the top of the first post of this thread in big red letters, Steam has updated the RoF download to the Jan 16th patch from Live, so it is no longer compatible with EQEmu.

It was a known possibility that Steam might start doing semi-regular updates to the client downloads. Hopefully if they continue, it is at least automated on their end (which I suspect it is), which should mean the dates it gets updated would be predictable. The current interval was about 2 months (RoF was added to Steam on 12-13-2012, and the earliest report of it being updated was on 02-11-2013). If the updates are every 60 days (which lines up with what we know so far), that would put the next Steam download update at about 04-12-2013. If it happens then, that should confirm their schedule, which should make it easier to plan for and make people aware of pending updates.

The EQEmu Dev Team is already discussing our options to make a solution for regular updates. The good thing is they are less frequent and hopefully more predictable than Live patches. The bad thing is it will require regular upkeep from the Dev Team to keep EQEmu working with Steam. As far as I know, Steam is still our best option for an easily and legally attainable client so I think it is worth the effort if we can streamline it.

I can get opcodes updated from patches fairly quickly now. And the ShowEQ team normally figures out the position update struct changes pretty quickly (which happen every patch), so those are 2 pretty big parts of making a client compatible that can be done quickly and easily. There will still be struct changes required here and there and those are not predictable and will have to be worked as they are found. At least by keeping up with them regularly, we shouldn't run into too many major changes for most of the updates which should limit the amount of work required for getting a new client fully compatible. The difference in time between the UF client and the RoF client was pretty long (over 2 years), which is why it is taking so long to get the RoF client fully compatible. By keeping up with the clients regularly, it will mean just a little work is required at a time and the new client will be complete unless there was a major overhaul of some system that requires major changes on our end (which shouldn't be too frequent).

My main concern is how to deal with having multiple versions of the same expansion all compatible with EQEmu. We can easily enough just copy the patch files in the source and make adjustments to the copies. But, that leaves us with potentially dozens of different patches to deal with eventually. This isn't really a problem until we try to implement a new system that we want to give all clients support for. For example, if we eventually add in Shared Tasks or the Expedition system, we would not only have to add structs, opcodes, encodes and decodes to Titanium, SoF, SoD, UF and possibly RoF, but we might also have to add them to 15 (made up number) other version's patch files as well. It would mean the same thing for any packet related fixes that get put in. This is nearly impossible to manage, and would probably lead to new stuff and fixes only being implemented into the latest client, which certainly isn't ideal if it can be avoided.

Another problem is that in order to support all clients properly, the dev team has to actually have all clients and test each one if the change might break something with certain clients. This is bad enough now having 5 or more installs at ~10GBs each, but at 20 installs that is just insane to even consider.

Since each client potentially has packet struct changes for packets that aren't already encoded/decoded, the patch files are just going to keep getting bigger and bigger even if there are only minor differences between the current client and the version just before it. One idea I have had so far (but not really sure how to implement) would be to have mini-patch files that only include the structs and encodes/decodes that differ from the client directly previous to it. So, if only the position updates and spawn struct gets changed, then those are the only structs and encodes/decodes we would need to put in there. If this is possible, it might resolve the issue with having to update multiple patch files anytime we implement a new system or put in a packet-related fix. We would just add the update to the main patch files for the expansion and the mini-patch files would inherit the update without needing to be touched.

Another possible (but less ideal) solution would be to only support something like 2 new client versions at a time. So, every 60 days (assuming that is the schedule for Steam updates), we would delete the client from 2 updates ago and add the latest one in its place. This way, people who already have the current client will not run into issues at all until the next update, and the latest/new version will be added and compatible ASAP so people getting the new download will be able to use it soon after the update happens. This solution would work, but is extra headache for players. It would mean players would have to download a new client at least every 60 days, and copy over their character files, maps, update their UI, etc. each time.

We could also possibly consider coding the packets that get sent out to be sent in the format used by the latest clients and then adding encodes to the older clients and removing them from the newer ones. This might make it easier to feed through the newer patch files, and would allow us to send all of the correct data from the server instead of having to fake it or put in hacks on the encodes and decodes for newer clients. It would be a pretty good amount of work and testing through. It would be good to do, but I am not sure that it would really help with the issue of having multiple patch versions to deal with.

No matter what the solution is; if we decide to start keeping up with the Steam updates, it would also mean all servers that want to allow the newer clients would have to update after each new client is added. Otherwise players running the latest client won't be able to play there, which would cause problems for all people new to EQEmu at that time.

Some of the goals for a solution are:
1. Minimal time investment required for devs to make new clients fully compatible.
2. Minimal work required to add new systems and packet-related fixes to previous clients.
3. Ability to continue supporting previous clients within reason.
4. Least amount of impact on Players.
5. Simplifying/automating the dev update process where possible.

Anyone that has ideas and is knowledgeable of the workings of the EQEmu patch files, feel free to chime in!

trevius 02-13-2013 07:58 AM

BTW, I updated my RoF Test Server with the opcodes from EQExtractor2 for for the Jan 16th client and updated the position updates in the structs to match what ShowEQ has for the that client as well. I did not create it as new patch files yet (I just edited the RoF ones), so the Dec 10 2012 doesn't currently work on the server, but the Jan 16 2013 one does.

The good news is that I got in first try. The bad news is there are probably some opcode and struct issues as many things aren't functioning properly. Though, I imagine it won't be hard at all to get the client up to speed with our Dec 10 2012 RoF client.

lerxst2112 02-13-2013 07:03 PM

There was another live patch today. I suppose we can see how long it will take to get to Steam.

[Wed Feb 13 14:46:16 2013]00000:Starting EverQuest (Built Feb 11 2013 19:17:05)

wolfwalkereci 02-13-2013 08:24 PM

Whatever you guys need to do to stay sane. No one can argue with that.
Myself I look forward to the day eqemu removes all support for titanium.
I hate that client with a passion.

blackdragonsdg 02-13-2013 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lerxst2112 (Post 218162)
There was another live patch today. I suppose we can see how long it will take to get to Steam.

[Wed Feb 13 14:46:16 2013]00000:Starting EverQuest (Built Feb 11 2013 19:17:05)

Well your wait is over. I just downloaded Everquest F2P off Steam and it matches current live again.

lerxst2112 02-14-2013 02:20 AM

There's another emergency patch tomorrow. If it changes the exe we can see if that shows up immediately as well.

trevius 02-14-2013 07:19 AM

This is a bit depressing :P

I am not really sure what to do about this. At this point, we might as well be chasing Live if they keep this up, which is a headache for multiple reasons. Hopefully we can come up with a good solution for this. The best way may be to see if we can simplify the update process as much as possible. Otherwise, we will have to consider what alternatives there are or if it is even worth working on new clients. I still think it is worthwhile to get the RoF client completed, but we will need to figure out what to do about these update issues first.

rhyotte 02-14-2013 05:15 PM

We can hope this is the initial "patch up" sequence for a new client where SoE is bringing it up to a certain stability level.

liquest 02-14-2013 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevius (Post 218192)
This is a bit depressing :P

I am not really sure what to do about this. At this point, we might as well be chasing Live if they keep this up, which is a headache for multiple reasons. Hopefully we can come up with a good solution for this. The best way may be to see if we can simplify the update process as much as possible. Otherwise, we will have to consider what alternatives there are or if it is even worth working on new clients. I still think it is worthwhile to get the RoF client completed, but we will need to figure out what to do about these update issues first.

Do you think it would be best for people to grab the RoF FTP client while they still can?

gibroni 02-14-2013 06:40 PM

It's been posted for a month for people to grab ROF client from steam on various sites.

ChaosSlayerZ 02-14-2013 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevius (Post 218192)
This is a bit depressing :P

I am not really sure what to do about this. At this point, we might as well be chasing Live if they keep this up, which is a headache for multiple reasons. Hopefully we can come up with a good solution for this. The best way may be to see if we can simplify the update process as much as possible. Otherwise, we will have to consider what alternatives there are or if it is even worth working on new clients. I still think it is worthwhile to get the RoF client completed, but we will need to figure out what to do about these update issues first.

imho, don't waste your time trying to keep up with every patch
stop at that last version for RoF that already working, and wait till they put up next expansion. That would be logical imho.

demonstar55 02-14-2013 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosSlayerZ (Post 218239)
imho, don't waste your time trying to keep up with every patch
stop at that last version for RoF that already working, and wait till they put up next expansion. That would be logical imho.

Just they want an easy to obtain client. That is also legal to obtain.

sorvani 02-14-2013 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demonstar55 (Post 218240)
Just they want an easy to obtain client. That is also legal to obtain.

Precisely, otherwise, how would people be able to get said client to play? They couldn't.

wolfwalkereci 02-15-2013 10:25 AM

Then people need to pay attention and get the clients when they are released and before they get patched.
It's not like RoF was a giant surprise, but the players that do not, will not or just refuse to visit eqemu forums / server forums do not deserve to whine that they can not acquire a legal client.

demonstar55 02-15-2013 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfwalkereci (Post 218292)
Then people need to pay attention and get the clients when they are released and before they get patched.
It's not like RoF was a giant surprise, but the players that do not, will not or just refuse to visit eqemu forums / server forums do not deserve to whine that they can not acquire a legal client.

But most of there driving force behind new client development is to gibe us a legally obtainable client, and I think Trev just likes doing it.

wolfwalkereci 02-15-2013 12:32 PM

Well people should check the emu forum at least once a month.
It's not like the news posts are happening every day so people have no excuse for not being aware of the client.
The client patching people have a excuse for, no way to know if its your first time downloading it if its been patched to something newer then current emu supported version.

Davood 02-15-2013 02:00 PM

People "should" do alot of things. unfortnatelu they don't

one thing you learn when you develop software and systems is that the developers are the only "good" users

you really have to plan systems with bad users in mind

bad_captain 02-15-2013 02:42 PM

Or people who have not heard of EQEmu yet. How were they supposed to read a message to download the RoF client when they haven't heard of it yet?

If updates keep coming, then certain versions should be targeted at some interval ( first patch in even months, quarterly, whatever) and work on getting those fully functional , while opcodes canbe updated whenever possible for EQExtractor purposes. If people know to download latest client every two months or whatever, it would be doable. Although if updates keep coming, it might work almost as well to just off of live, pick your interval and go at it. People would need to backup clients at those intervals, which may not work out as well, but something will need to be the official plan and communicated well.

FievelMousey 02-18-2013 01:07 AM

Someone needs host the Dec 2012 version on a site like oldversion.com does programs as was free I dont see why someone couldnt do that.

blackdragonsdg 02-18-2013 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FievelMousey (Post 218413)
Someone needs host the Dec 2012 version on a site like oldversion.com does programs as was free I dont see why someone couldnt do that.

It is not done that way because it would violate more than a few copyright laws.

c0ncrete 02-18-2013 01:16 AM

because sony would slap them with a c&d as soon as they found out.

wolfwalkereci 02-18-2013 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bad_captain (Post 218298)
pick your interval and go at it. People would need to backup clients at those intervals, which may not work out as well, but something will need to be the official plan and communicated well.

Thats all I want to see, a communicated interval for client updates that the team will support.
However as long as the original download version from steam works I guess I can't complain.

FievelMousey 02-18-2013 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c0ncrete (Post 218416)
because sony would slap them with a c&d as soon as they found out.

I dont see how as it was a free to get thing they published. If that case why dont the software companies stop oldversion.com etc. And if sony cared dont you think they go after eqemulator site by now as i am sure money they got they win if wanted try. I dont think they care EQ is EOL in there eyes

demonstar55 02-18-2013 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FievelMousey (Post 218438)
I dont see how as it was a free to get thing they published. If that case why dont the software companies stop oldversion.com etc. And if sony cared dont you think they go after eqemulator site by now as i am sure money they got they win if wanted try. I dont think they care EQ is EOL in there eyes

Just because the software is free, doesn't mean it's legal to redistribute without a license from the copyright holder.

c0ncrete 02-18-2013 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FievelMousey (Post 218438)
I dont see how as it was a free to get thing they published. If that case why dont the software companies stop oldversion.com etc. And if sony cared dont you think they go after eqemulator site by now as i am sure money they got they win if wanted try. I dont think they care EQ is EOL in there eyes

seriously? we're not talking about other software companies. we're talking about sony. in case you were unaware, sony has a rack record of going after people via litigation for exactly this sort of thing.

as to your belief that they don't care because it's eol... why would they be releasing patches and new content if that were the case?

FievelMousey 02-18-2013 05:23 PM

they patch to milk all money they can to Everquest Next is out then i bet EQ dies.

c0ncrete 02-18-2013 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FievelMousey (Post 218447)
they patch to milk all money they can to Everquest Next is out then i bet EQ dies.

many people expected that to happen when wow and/or eq2 came out. yet here we are, in 2013, and they're still putting out content for the original.

kebtiz 02-18-2013 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FievelMousey (Post 218438)
I dont see how as it was a free to get thing they published. If that case why dont the software companies stop oldversion.com etc. And if sony cared dont you think they go after eqemulator site by now as i am sure money they got they win if wanted try. I dont think they care EQ is EOL in there eyes

There is a fine line in the legal field, Emu is acceptable because they don't touch the client, officially supporting an illegally obtained client would be a death wish.

Isobel 02-22-2013 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sorvani (Post 217975)
GL in RoF is a new zone actually. On PEQ it is a separate instance and cavedude has implemented a script to bounce you to the right version based on your client.

Is there any idea if this will ever be changed so that the RoF client won't instance you on PEQ? I can change to titanium to get into the lobby with people, but I'd love to know if I'll be able to ditch titanium and stick with RoF.

On the flipside, if I was able to get UF, would that give me a non instanced lobby?

I'm a complete n00b to eqemu so I apologize for my ignorance, I haven't even delved into MQ yet lol.

wolfwalkereci 02-22-2013 09:19 AM

Quote:

2. Guilds - Most of the guild stuff is now functional. Editing Guild Ranks & Permissions and the Guild Bank are currently actively being worked on by the Developers.
Was this ever finished for any version of this client? I'm still using 20121210 build and nothing guild related works. Searched this thread for keyword 'guild' and didn't see anything related.

ie can not speak in guild, invite, kick, change member permissions, motd etc.

cavedude 02-23-2013 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isobel (Post 218657)
Is there any idea if this will ever be changed so that the RoF client won't instance you on PEQ? I can change to titanium to get into the lobby with people, but I'd love to know if I'll be able to ditch titanium and stick with RoF.

On the flipside, if I was able to get UF, would that give me a non instanced lobby?

As it was said, HoT+ clients use a different physical zone than the clients below them. We want to stick with stock clients, so those clients will always have to go to their own shared instance. Once the Live client situation is sorted and more people begin using the new client, the player population of the HoT+ GL instance will increase obviously. It isn't a private instance or anything like that, everybody with the new client will go to the same instance.

RoF is the only client that uses this new instance, all the other clients supported by EQEmu including UF use the original version of GL.

Andrew80k 02-23-2013 07:00 PM

So what version of the RoF client is working with the Emu? I rebuilt my server this morning and my 12/12 client is not logging in. Server just disconnects the client. Before I dig too much into why I want to make sure I should be able to.

Derision 02-23-2013 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew80k (Post 218727)
So what version of the RoF client is working with the Emu? I rebuilt my server this morning and my 12/12 client is not logging in. Server just disconnects the client. Before I dig too much into why I want to make sure I should be able to.

Welcome back :)

The version that is compatible is:
Code:

Starting EverQuest (Built Dec 10 2012 17:35:44)
No other version will work.

Andrew80k 02-23-2013 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derision (Post 218730)
Welcome back :)

The version that is compatible is:
Code:

Starting EverQuest (Built Dec 10 2012 17:35:44)
No other version will work.

Thanks! Finally finished my Masters degree...

Must still be doing something wrong...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.