[WoW Emulator] eWoW - a modularized C# emulator

[AzolexX]

Oh, man mager you cannot even get in world yet, not even attack npc not even see npc, and you think about scripting language?

[mager1794]

yes, sorry, someone brought it up earlier

[Apoc]

http://wcell.svn.sourceforge.net/vie...tionHandler.cs

solved :P

Not worried about the actual logic to handle the packets. (That part is fairly easy)

It's the SRP implementation that sucks ass. That of which, I haven't gotten around to writing a proper implementation. (I may take a look at the WCell code to see where exactly we're at, but I hate using other people's code.)

Thanks though.

[mgX]

Not worried about the actual logic to handle the packets. (That part is fairly easy)

It's the SRP implementation that sucks ass. That of which, I haven't gotten around to writing a proper implementation. (I may take a look at the WCell code to see where exactly we're at, but I hate using other people's code.)

Thanks though.

hey, its open source, no reason to reinvent the wheel is my motto

[Dr. Livingstone]

Very good to hear mgX. Seems like the C# community might be able to avoid some of this Ascent based drama if people have that motif.

[mgX]

Very good to hear mgX. Seems like the C# community might be able to avoid some of this Ascent based drama if people have that motif.

well, as i stated, i see no reason to reinvent the wheel. As for the ascent community, the "i wanna make a fork" mentality where they basically just copy/paste from elsewhere is also futile. I believe in communism when it comes to the opensource community lol :P

[Gastricpenguin]

mgX, you just earned yourself 10 rep.

[Apoc]

hey, its open source, no reason to reinvent the wheel is my motto

I agree 100%. However, my motto is: "Do it yourself, or you'll never understand it in the end." Well... that, and: "Make shit work. Then make shit pretty."

I may pretty much rip your SRP class (rewriting it by hand) so I can understand it. But as I said, I really don't like using other people's code if I can avoid it.

Kinda pointless to use 99% of someone's work, then attempt to give support on it when you really don't understand any of it.

@Everyone else; sure, developers can be nitpicky and full of drama. But there's no real point. mgX is an example of that. We fight on a few key issues, but it doesn't stop us from helping each other.

I don't like WCell's threading and general structure, but it works for them. That's fine. We can argue all day, but we'll never agree, so instead, we just go back to what we do best. CODE SHIT.

/me never did understand why there was so much drama in the emu community...

+8 to mgX btw

[mgX]

I agree 100%. However, my motto is: "Do it yourself, or you'll never understand it in the end." Well... that, and: "Make shit work. Then make shit pretty."

I may pretty much rip your SRP class (rewriting it by hand) so I can understand it. But as I said, I really don't like using other people's code if I can avoid it.

Kinda pointless to use 99% of someone's work, then attempt to give support on it when you really don't understand any of it.

@Everyone else; sure, developers can be nitpicky and full of drama. But there's no real point. mgX is an example of that. We fight on a few key issues, but it doesn't stop us from helping each other.

I don't like WCell's threading and general structure, but it works for them. That's fine. We can argue all day, but we'll never agree, so instead, we just go back to what we do best. CODE SHIT.

/me never did understand why there was so much drama in the emu community...

+8 to mgX btw

heh, dont see any reason to rep when i just stated the facts :P

Regarding our threading strategy, it is subject to change, since it has limitations in theory. We wanna have several threads working on a region simultaniously, and not just 1 on every region tick.

Anyways, Apoc, you wouldnt happen to be extremely good with 3D math and shit? we need a new polygon reduction algorithm, since our current one doesnt do the job well enough (for collision detection), and it is some complicated shit :/

[AzolexX]

well, as i stated, i see no reason to reinvent the wheel. As for the ascent community, the "i wanna make a fork" mentality where they basically just copy/paste from elsewhere is also futile. I believe in communism when it comes to the opensource community lol :P

+4, Open Source is like any other good forum community, a version of Communism, and i <3 Communism!

[Dingbat00]

Not sure I really understand but from what I can gather it looks like it could be pretty cool, I wish emulators would work together instead of creating different branches of old ones it would be so much less complicated and bugs would be fixed instantly it would be excellent. Of course having different emulators creates diversity and competition but if you think about the private server userbase as a whole it would benefit everyone.

[Hellgawd]

I think mgX just got about 36 reputation from one comment. Which, I also agree with. ^^

[mgX]

I think mgX just got about 36 reputation from one comment. Which, I also agree with. ^^

i still dont understand what rep is for :/

[Apoc]

heh, dont see any reason to rep when i just stated the facts :P

Regarding our threading strategy, it is subject to change, since it has limitations in theory. We wanna have several threads working on a region simultaniously, and not just 1 on every region tick.

Anyways, Apoc, you wouldnt happen to be extremely good with 3D math and shit? we need a new polygon reduction algorithm, since our current one doesnt do the job well enough (for collision detection), and it is some complicated shit :/

Honestly, I never did understand why people needed the collision stuff in the server itself. Sure, I can understand the need for map data, but collisions and LoS? The client does that stuff via the TraceLine function. (Remember, I'm a retard when it comes to actual emulation. I'm just the coder)

Anyhow, it depends on what ngons you want to remove. (Obviously, the need for the inner vertices aren't really needed in the map data) Honestly, just go search for "3D Navigation Mesh" and you'll find plenty of examples. (There were a few I used personally when I wrote my world nav parser.)

[mgX]

Honestly, I never did understand why people needed the collision stuff in the server itself. Sure, I can understand the need for map data, but collisions and LoS? The client does that stuff via the TraceLine function. (Remember, I'm a retard when it comes to actual emulation. I'm just the coder)

Anyhow, it depends on what ngons you want to remove. (Obviously, the need for the inner vertices aren't really needed in the map data) Honestly, just go search for "3D Navigation Mesh" and you'll find plenty of examples. (There were a few I used personally when I wrote my world nav parser.)

i agree,i prefer having collision in the client, but for WoW thats just not an option, since blizzard decided to be dickheads... DAoC has the client check los, it just sends a los request to the client, and waits for it to return


We used mpqnav for reference, but the amount of polygons, is simply too great lol.. You wanna reduce the amount by applying ridiculously complex formulas to reduce the size of each tile, and make raycasting less costly cpu wise... Our problem is the fact that our algo isnt efficient enough for terrain/ADTs :/