Jump to content
TrinityCore

MrSmite

Members
  • Content Count

    2101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    97

MrSmite last won the day on September 30 2015

MrSmite had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

377 Excellent

1 Follower

About MrSmite

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

12493 profile views
  1. This may have been asked but searching for "character convert" yielded several pages that seemed to have nothing to do with the question. Anyway, here goes... When we moved from 335 to 434, there was no tool that I was aware of that would convert your existing characters to the new DB. Players had to reroll and start from scratch. Since Trinity still likes to do things as Blizz-like as possible, this definitely doesn't hit the mark. Is anyone working on (or planning to work on) a method to convert existing 335 characters to 6.x characters? I know 6.x is still in early development but I think it would be a good idea to have a rudimentary tool (eg: use at your own risk) that could also be updated as new features are added to the 6.x codebase. I don't have any experience at all with WoD characters to know all the things that would need changing or I would start the project myself. In fact, the lack of a tool is why I still use and develop 335.
  2. ​Thanks for the info. At least the table I mentioned was pretty easy to figure out.
  3. Just wondering if there is a current 335 wiki somewhere. I went to this one to look at some information about quest_template and that table has fields in it that shouldn't be (eg: RequiredClasses has been moved to quest_template_addon and renamed to AllowableClasses). Also the table quest_template_addon hasn't been defined at all on the wiki. The wiki I linked doesn't indicate which core it's for but since 335 is still in active development and receiving DB structure changes, it would be a good idea to have an up-to-date wiki. Thanks!
  4. There doesn't seem to be a way to delete old notifications. Do they eventually expire and fall off?
  5. Thanks, ravensnow. The reindex also failed with similar errors. I think I had a few bad sectors, chkdsk found a couple filesystem errors. Forutnately I had already exported my code as DIFFs so I ended up just nuking the whole repo.
  6. It's been a while since I've posted so let me start by saying Hello! First, let me describe my setup: PC_A (Win7) = Clones from Github via internet. This is my local "master repo". I push from my LAN to here and then from here out to github.PC_B (Win7) = Clones from PC_A via lan. This is my dev. machine where the server runs and is not connected to the internet.Using Git for WindowsUsing TortoiseGit for my cloning, push, sync, etc. (basically all my GIT functions)NOTE: I did update both GIT and TortoiseGit after the error occurred but it didn't fix the problemI was going to work a little bit on "pets on transports" when I ran into this strange GIT error when I tried to commit to my local repo: error: non-monotonic index .git/objects/pack/pack-037de7c15f9d6483a5f487c6a1394d214bdc5f38.idx This error repeated several hundred times with different values for .idx. Now I have several clones on PC_B (mainly old revisions of Trinity that I haven't got around to deleting) but all of them give this error even when I attempt to view the GIT log. Is there any way to recover this repo or is it broken beyond repair? Thanks!
  7. That isn't really a solution. There are subtle differences with enGB for localization and honestly there shouldn't be any reason why enUS won't work.
  8. Explicit manner? No. The fact that the person posted in this thread implies they already have a 335 client. Since 434 received very little attention compared to 335, it makes little sense to move to that client. The suggestion to move to 6.x implies that you remain on the current working 335 branch until 6.x is playable rather than struggle to get a 434 client to connect to a 434 server that is mediocre at best. As for "nigh unplayable", that is admittedly a subjective statement. When I look at the bugs related to 434 versus 335 I would consider it unplayable and recommend against it.
  9. Last I knew the 434 branch was nigh unplayable too with almost no content. My point was to stay on 335 until 6x is playable and then update to that, rather than muck around with trying to get a 434 client for a world that is largely incomplete.
  10. I would recommend you move on to 6.x since the 434 branch did not receive much attention, it doesn't make sense to try to patch to this client.
  11. Was wondering if you think we should lock my How to Patch to 434 thread? Since we've moved on to 6.x and the 434 branch didn't receive much love, it's pretty much irrelevant at this point. If you do decide to lock it, perhaps in the "lock text" you could leave a message that 434 is not going to be supported (or something like that) so people will move on. Note: I do still receive notifications about it from time to time so there does seem to be a little interest in that branch. Something to consider is that those people would end up posting in Help & Support.
  12. I would like to request an archive of the Wiki for the tables related to 335 for those who wish to continue using / developing that branch. Once table structures change for 6.x, it will be difficult to maintain a 335 repo if the reference material is updated to the new structure without archiving the old structure. Thanks!
  13. I did read the FAQ and the answers were not there, hence why I asked. It doesn't matter wether Blizzard loses money, just consider the videos taken down off YouTube by Nintendo for 5 seconds of audio, Nintendo isn't losing money off those. Copyright enforcement isn't only about money lost but also about others making money off your IP. In some cases a company won't enforce its IP if there is no money exchanging hands. As I mentioned earlier, Trinity has always stood by the fact that illegal server operators are "bad" because they earn money. We are possibly entering into a grey area when we start paying "developers". I guess in some regard it saddens me that people don't want to help / participate so we have to essentially start bribing them to fix things.
  14. Interesting but here are a few questions: Won't this draw Blizzard's ire? It has been long accepted that Trinity flew under the radar because there was no money exchanging hands. In fact we traditionally rebuke illegal server operators and offer them no assistance setting up their servers. Doesn't this now put Trinity in a sort of grey area? Developers / Contributors will be receiving money for working on a project that arguably violates the DMCA in how its sources were obtained. What happens to rewards that are not claimed (eg: I fix something but don't want the money)? I didn't see anything in the FAQ regarding this. What if more than one developer fixes something (eg: I work with Paradox and Malcrom to fix phasing)? I didn't see anything about multiple people claiming a bounty. Can you tie Github to Bountysource? I see there's a link on the Bounty to "view on github" but there is no indication on a Github thread that there is an open bounty. Perhaps add a tag called has-bounty (of course that means an admin will constantly need to search / manage Bountysource) I do think it's an interesting idea but I'd hate for it to cause Trinity to get shut down because Blizzard overreacts.
×
×
  • Create New...