EQBuilder 2.0

**trevius** · #1 02-24-2009, 05:55 PM

Ok, after re-reading the post that cavedude made earlier in this thread, it looks like eqextractor needs something before it that can actually convert the packets into something it can read to do the extractions from. I am guessing that is what eqcollector is, needed for then.

Really, it seems like quite a hassle to have to use 3 programs to accomplish this lol. The log files from ShowEQ should be pretty simple for a parser to be able to handle pulling the data from. They clearly show the opcodes for each packet and which direction they are being sent from. So, once a parser can identify those 2 things, it should just be a matter of running the data in the packet through a struct to have it converted. Then, once it is converted, it would just need something to tell the program which tables/fields in the database to put each bit of data into.

I am not really sure why these 3 programs are requiring so many extra files and stuff from the source code. Really, I would think that if they are just parsing something and converting it to something else, it should be pretty straight forward and not require a bunch of code to do it. It is too bad we don't have FNW here anymore to maybe give some advise, or at least to get the apps able to compile again

After that point, I am sure someone can get them working with Live again.

**cavedude** · #2 02-24-2009, 06:20 PM

It is silly to have 3 programs, but at the same time it makes some sense. The packet collector produces pf files (I think, it's been some time) which eqextractor is able to read. Eqextractor can then dump the doors, zone data, zone points, books, aas, objects, etc to a sql that source right into the DB. It also has the ability to export to a file format that EQBuilder understands. EQBuilder is what creates the NPCs, spawns, grids, and merchantlists. Its accuracy is really pretty terrific. Eqextractor and EQBuilder can probably be merged into a single program, but that would probably require a bit of annoying work, it might just be easier to get the two of them working as is.

If eqextractor can be updated to import ShowEQ logs, then our collector would no longer be needed. That's probably for the best, as that will be one less program we need to maintain. At that point we would just need to update eqextractor and eqbuilder with the new structs, opcodes, and database structure. I'll talk to FNW and see if he could possibly rewrite the programs so they at least compile in a modern environment. From there, Trevius if you can update the structs and like, I can update the database structure portion of the code and then we all collect the hell out of Live

Sylaei · #3 05-27-2009, 10:30 PM

I was just wondering if Andrew80K was still working on eqcollector/eqextractor/eqbuilder?

I have the source but didn't want to duplicate effort.

**trevius** · #4 05-27-2009, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylaei

I was just wondering if Andrew80K was still working on eqcollector/eqextractor/eqbuilder?

I have the source but didn't want to duplicate effort.

I highly doubt it. I think he gave up shortly after seeing how badly the compiles failed :P

Andrew80k · #5 05-27-2009, 11:36 PM

I'm still working on it. I actually got it to compile and run fine. I have the opcodes updated and about half way through the structures, but since I'm using ShowEQ to get the structures from and they are not as interested in some of the stuff as we are, the going is kind of slow. I have had to use some of the struct info from the SoF stuff and that's only been recently where it's getting pretty solid. Then I have to sort of wing it.

I should say that I have only got it working on my Linux box. I don't have an MFC compiler to use for the windows compile. Apparently, the MFC classes don't come with the express version. /shrug.

Sylaei · #6 05-28-2009, 01:12 AM

I have vs2k3 pro, it has the MFC classes. I'll go ahead and see if I can get it to compile, at least get the dependancies worked out, then can take the code you have and try to compile it. Let me know if this sounds ok to you or let me know what you need.

Just a thought if its not too much work we'll want to remove the MFC stuff and get it back to pure c++ code? More or less a question.

Ps. I got the source from sourceforge tonight.

**cavedude** · #7 05-28-2009, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylaei

Just a thought if its not too much work we'll want to remove the MFC stuff and get it back to pure c++ code? More or less a question.

That's the crap I'm failing on, so yes!