Fix class hierarchy. Remove VTBL hacks #3766
Conversation
| void CCameraSA::SetMatrix(CMatrix* matrix) | ||
| { | ||
| CMatrix_Padded* pCamMatrix = GetInterface()->Placeable.matrix; | ||
| CMatrix_Padded* pCamMatrix = GetInterface()->matrix; | ||
| if (pCamMatrix) | ||
| { | ||
| pCamMatrix->vFront = matrix->vFront; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This code had no effect previously. matrix was always nullptr because Placeable was misplaced
| // Initialize doors depending on the vehicle type. | ||
| DWORD dwOffset = 0; | ||
|
|
||
| switch (static_cast<VehicleClass>(GetVehicleInterface()->m_vehicleClass)) | ||
| { | ||
| case VehicleClass::AUTOMOBILE: | ||
| case VehicleClass::MONSTER_TRUCK: | ||
| case VehicleClass::QUAD: | ||
| case VehicleClass::HELI: | ||
| case VehicleClass::PLANE: | ||
| case VehicleClass::TRAILER: | ||
| { | ||
| dwOffset = 1464; | ||
| } | ||
| case VehicleClass::TRAIN: | ||
| { | ||
| dwOffset = 1496; | ||
| } | ||
| default: | ||
| break; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (dwOffset != 0) | ||
| { | ||
| for (unsigned int i = 0; i < sizeof(m_doors) / sizeof(m_doors[0]); ++i) | ||
| { | ||
| DWORD dwInterface = (DWORD)GetInterface(); | ||
| DWORD dwDoorAddress = dwInterface + 1464 + i * 24; | ||
| DWORD dwDoorAddress = dwInterface + dwOffset + i * 24; | ||
| m_doors[i].SetInterface((CDoorSAInterface*)dwDoorAddress); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This code was bugged. The game uses wrong door array positions for CTrain.
It causes train desync issues
|
On this topic, I think we should get rid of two duplicate classes like |
|
You are right, so CMatrix_Padded should inherit CMatrixSAInterface, because now CMatrix_Paddes is the wrong size |
| assert(static_cast<std::size_t*>(pEntity->GetVTBL())[CEntity_DeleteRwObject_VTBL_OFFSET] != 0x00534030); | ||
| #endif | ||
| pSectorEntry = (DWORD*)pSectorEntry[1]; | ||
| continue; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this check should be removed but not in this PR
|
@TheNormalnij Please resolve conflicts. Would it be a good idea to just test its stability in a nightly build soon? A bunch of code reviews have passed, and there seems to be no further feedback after that. |
Updated. |
|
Alright, in a few days we will call for testers, along with for other changes. |
5 participants
This PR:
CEntitySAInterface. All hacks are replaced with virtual methods.Current state: testing.