View Single Post
  #17  
Old 12-08-2008, 04:24 PM
John Adams
Demi-God
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,552
Default

Thank you, trevius. Your posts are always insightful. Not to dwell on anything, but the "lack of acknowledgement" does not mean the devs pick up and run with anything - not at all. I knew they were busy with other things, or more accurately back a year ago, not interested in anything EQEmu really. So I took it upon myself to try and figure things out. When WildcardX posted that it's almost a done deal, there was not a word about the months of my life I spent sorting through that shit. THAT is what pissed me off. Goes for about a dozen other things I have contributed to the emulator over the years that never got even an honorable mention. If it weren't for players/admins expressing their gratitude, it would be for naught. =)

Now, to address roadblocks - I think I more than clearly addressed all issues with the current code by Cofruben in the post I linked. From the time that code was first implemented (and I believe working then), the player structs changed over time and eventually one value "adventure_id" went missing. that stops the show immediately... as you cannot even start having a conversation if you do not have reference to this ID. I've tried hacking it to work, but never figured it out (I am DB, not C++). KLS gave me a good direction to try by using the extended_profile to store the value, which I also could not get to work due to a lack of experience. I'd come here asking questions, and aside from KLS, got nothing.

The next issue was of course the lack of actual adventure information in the tables, which I went out and built myself. But since someone else has this all under control, I figured my info was not necessary. So if you want to see the blockage, start in client.cpp, "Client::SendAdventureRequest()", and follow the GetAdventureID() to nowhere. That's the roadblock.

Had I known as much about C++ and these emulators then as I do now, I probably could have rewritten the entire thing and tossed the old code, rather than try to fix what was already there.
Reply With Quote