Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Mob packet building inconsistency #182

Closed
Uleat opened this issue Aug 17, 2014 · 2 comments
Closed

Mob packet building inconsistency #182

Uleat opened this issue Aug 17, 2014 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@Uleat
Copy link
Contributor

Uleat commented Aug 17, 2014

I looked into this issue and found an inconsistency between 'Zone Entry' and 'Zone Repop' packet construction. (Could be the difference between Queue and FastQueue builds.)

ref: http://www.eqemulator.org/forums/showthread.php?t=38623

I tested Ti through UF and all have the problem identified in the thread.

All are fixed by a zone #repop.

I added a PacketDump() call on the Encode of Ti's OP_ZoneSpawn.

Not counting the 'SpawnID' field, which obviously changed, everything else was the same..except for the last line of the dump:

624: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 [zone entry]
624: FF FF FF FF FF FF FF [zone #repop]

These are the last three 'destructible fields'

Obviously, they're being handled by two different handlers..I just need to trace which is doing what.

Hopefully, this will solve some other issues too.

@Uleat Uleat self-assigned this Aug 17, 2014
@Uleat
Copy link
Contributor Author

Uleat commented Sep 20, 2014

NOTES:

Monk epic particle effect may be affected by this.

Particle effect displays if epic equipped on zone-in..and persists if epic is removed (MainHands item.) Particle effect does not display otherwise.

Ti->UF: Only the primary hand displays if both primary and secondary are empty. Upon placing item in primary slot, secondary begins to display (no display with equipped weapon.)

RoF: Same as above with the exception of both hands displaying upon zone-in.

Since Ti exhibits the same behavior, this can't be an OP_WearChange packet issue where the SoF+
clients have additional information in them.

@Akkadius
Copy link
Member

@Uleat is this still an issue?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants