lockdown-IX86-XX.mpq update?

[Ersan]

I don't understand why BNLS_VERSIONCHECKEX2 only supports those products that have been affected with the lockdown issue. Why not make the packet support all the clients and let BNLS decide what values to throw back based on whether the product is still compliant with the old login procedure or the new login procedure with the updated check revision.

It's going to be a headache later on if D2 switches and we all have to change our if statements so it supports the new one. I don't see what's wrong with keeping the old bnls version check for older clients and letting the new one take over so our bots remain as versatile to future updates for other products that change.

I understand you already made the packet format and people may hate to change their bot once again to comply with it but I think it's in our best interests later on so the headache doesn't occur again and we aren't sitting around with bots that don't work for war3, d2.

If I am wrong, I am wrong but that's my take. Feel free to make things more clear for me.

You are wrong.  BNLS_VERSIONCHECKEX2 supports all products.  If diablo 2 changes MPQ's and you are using BNLS_VERSIONCHECKEX2 you would be sending the entire mpq filename, not the number, as well as the product ID (and file timestamp), so the people who run BNLS can update it server side.

Thanks, I'll look again at my code and let you know how I go.

I would suggest you switch to BNLS_CHECKVERSIONEX2 to ensure future compatibility.

[Skywing]

I don't understand why BNLS_VERSIONCHECKEX2 only supports those products that have been affected with the lockdown issue. Why not make the packet support all the clients and let BNLS decide what values to throw back based on whether the product is still compliant with the old login procedure or the new login procedure with the updated check revision.

It's going to be a headache later on if D2 switches and we all have to change our if statements so it supports the new one. I don't see what's wrong with keeping the old bnls version check for older clients and letting the new one take over so our bots remain as versatile to future updates for other products that change.

I understand you already made the packet format and people may hate to change their bot once again to comply with it but I think it's in our best interests later on so the headache doesn't occur again and we aren't sitting around with bots that don't work for war3, d2.

If I am wrong, I am wrong but that's my take. Feel free to make things more clear for me.

It should work for all supported products.

[Logitech]

That is indeed where you are extracting the archive number, incorrectly.
The new lockdown MPQs are 2 digets, whereis you're only sending one.
Try extracting the full archive name, and then retrieving the number based off of that (Remamber the formats are: PRODver#.mpq ver-PROD-#.mpq lockdown-PROD-##.mpq)
~-~(HDX)~-~

So, I need to extract the following information and send back the full name, ie:

(for SEXP/PC) - 'lockdown-IX86-xx.mpq'
Whereas right now, I'm just sending one mpq digit.

Is that right?

[Skywing]

So, I need to extract the following information and send back the full name, ie:

(for SEXP/PC) - 'lockdown-IX86-xx.mpq'
Whereas right now, I'm just sending one mpq digit.

Is that right?

The protocol spec has the details.  Basically, you need the timestamp for the MPQ (the two ULONG values immediately prior to the MPQ name), and the name of the MPQ.

[Logitech]

Ok, thanks. That makes sense.

[warz]

Well, not sure if anyone is even interested in this anymore, but I've been at it for awhile, and have finally got my dll to properly reproduce checkrevision's version and checksum output. After all this work, just thought I'd let this thread know.

[Hero]

Well, not sure if anyone is even interested in this anymore, but I've been at it for awhile, and have finally got my dll to properly reproduce checkrevision's version and checksum output. After all this work, just thought I'd let this thread know.

Share the knowledge?!

[Newby]

Brad Paisley? Damn you're a fag.

As for releasing info, I hereby support warz releasing it. That way, Blizzard can fix it right away (much like the PMAC "solution") and you can all work even harder to get it working.

To speed that process up, release a DLL with VB6.0 example code.

[Hero]

Yeah, I bet they'll get right on it.

[l2k-Shadow]

Brad Paisley? Damn you're a fag.

As for releasing info, I hereby support warz releasing it. That way, Blizzard can fix it right away (much like the PMAC "solution") and you can all work even harder to get it working.

To speed that process up, release a DLL with VB6.0 example code.

rofl. unfortunate truth =(

[UserLoser]

Pathetic

[Newby]

Pathetic

Elaborate, Mr. MVP. You should be setting an example, not (what seems to be) criticizing warz' work.

[Ersan]

I think he was criticizing the people (read: you) asking for code that does everything for them.

[Hdx]

Partly yes.
~-~(HDX)~-~

[Newby]

I think he was criticizing the people (read: you) asking for code that does everything for them.

Haha. Did the sarcasm not come through in my message?

I've got a question: how do I code VB6 in Linux?