A New Mapping Application

[Sweeney]

What a silly and childish thing to say. I am just trying to point out that some half-assed job isn't going to do it. Guild/Alliances aren't going to force everyone to use the new client. UO players, for some reason, seem very stubborn and don't like change (just my opinion) so doing something that does everything that UOAM does and works with both clients is a must, I think.

It's not childish. I'm just saying that requiring UOAM backwards-compatibility is stupid. Locations for whatever you want can be easily added to any new client, and it would add horrible legacy-code to any new map app.

If people are stubborn and refuse to adjust, refuse to re-add their markers.. I say **** 'em. They have the runes marked anyway.. for access to a SA map they would pay.

As I said before, I wish I wasn't going for grad school.. this would be easy money.

 

[Cear Dallben Dragon]

but it will only take four hours.

 

[kelmo]

but it will only take four hours.

Yeah. *chuckles*

 

[Gellor]

"And old man, you are right, I haven't tried the latest EA offering of a client."

You should try the new client and mapping features before saying you can create something better.

Okay, again. Show me how my saying I haven't used a client equates to me saying I can create something better. In my "rants", I don't believe I've said I could create anything better. In my last "rant" I pointed out that a third party developer has a better chance of creating something better and 100% in a more timely manner.

Your largest argument against this map project was "it violates EA RoC". I called you on it asking you to show me where it was against the RoC. Instead of being able to show me where it proved your point, you fell back upon "no you find it". So I dug out the RoC and dissected it for your benefit and I'm a jerk.

As for being a jerk, look in the mirror. You are the one who has consistently hi-jacked a thread about something you have no interest in using.

I'm still confused how if two things are equivalent how one can be evil. So assuming this map project is strictly a replacement to UOAM with no special super powers, how is it mysteriously evil?

I have not made any arguments based upon client for why a replacement UOAM should or should not be made. Again, that is YOUR argument. I have never made a claim as to why people want the old client but in your opinion, many won't upgrade clients because of the evil cheat programs(and upon that I agree, cheat programs ARE evil). I won't argue that other than to say SOME. What you will find is many don't want to upgrade to the new client because of the graphics.

Let us look at the two main selling points on why a new UOAM is needed:
1) Neither client supports tracking other players that are playing together.
2) Current UOAM does not support new maps

Even if the new client DID support tracking other players similar to what UOAM provides, there are those of us who WILL NOT play the new client for whatever reason(hacks, cheats, graphically unappealing) So there is still the need for an updated UOAM based on reason two.

As far as I can tell, the original post dealt with asking the devs to put in an API to provide x,y, and shard info. So if we can, let us get back onto the topic of actually making one and not arguing the point on whether such a program is the spawn of satan.

 

[Gellor]

I'm just saying that requiring UOAM backwards-compatibility is stupid. Locations for whatever you want can be easily added to any new client, and it would add horrible legacy-code to any new map app.

For locations, having the new map program save data the same way as UOAM doesn't help or hinder it as far as development. If the new map has location data, it needs to save it. Here is a sample of how UOAM saves locations:
+landmark: 1911 3117 0 'castle??

I'm not sure how that could get any better. From a dev standpoint, it would make sense to just use that format so users who come from UOAM can just copy their .MAP files. To me, using that format makes more sense than throwing UOAM converts under the bus or creating a separate UOAM import function.

On the data stream, I'm sure it could be made a more efficient. The problem is many people are renting UOAM servers. Plus, there isn't a 100% guarantee people will go from UOAM to new map. So the problem you end up with is half a guild wanting to run UOAM and half a guild wanting the new map.

There is a linux version of the UOAM server out with source available to look at the data stream. Who knows, maybe the record structure of the data stream is already as tight as it needs to be

 

[Old Man of UO]

...
Even if the new client DID support tracking other players similar to what UOAM provides, there are those of us who WILL NOT play the new client for whatever reason(hacks, cheats, graphically unappealing) So there is still the need for an updated UOAM based on reason two.

As far as I can tell, the original post dealt with asking the devs to put in an API to provide x,y, and shard info. So if we can, let us get back onto the topic of actually making one and not arguing the point on whether such a program is the spawn of satan.

OH MY GOD... first you claim I am putting words in your mouth, then you make stuff up and take it out of context. No where was there anything about "spawn of satan" in my posts. Try sticking to the facts for a change. You are just elevating the hate with your nonsense. But yes, I am against illegal 3rd party programs and so should you. There is NO PLACE for these in UO. If that is your excuse for continuing to use the 2D program, then you or anyone else using these illegal programs don't belong in UO.

As far as posting in a thread about something that I am not planning to use, what you said is a common tactic to create a "chilling effect" to get people to shut up when someone disagrees with you. We are all free to post in Stratics on any topic. You are way off in left field someplace.

Gellor - if you have a problem with me, PM it. These forums aren't the place for rants.

 

[Kiwillian]

*removed*

 

[IanJames]

Are you serious?

Tracking? server? Tell me more?

 

[Kiwillian]

Yes I'm serious

There's a client and a server program. Using the server is optional if you just want to run it as a replacement radar. The server has per-user authentication, so you can manage access easier (i.e. username & password per user).

To use it with the classic client you'll need UOAssist. With the enhanced client it requires a few lines of Lua added to the skin.

Still got lots of things to do yet. (I'm hoping this new classic patch has the new map in it!)

 

[IanJames]

Well, while you guys were arguing about it, looks like someone was doing something about it.

 

[Torin Galka]

OMG awesome!! Can't wait to test it!!

 

[Kiwillian]

Sadly, I have just been informed by someone from Mythic that since they are not approving 3rd party programs anymore that this would be considered an unapproved 3rd party program and therefore not be "legal" to use and could result in action being taken against accounts found using it.

In light of this, I will not be finishing it or releasing it

Oh well... =/

 

[IanJames]

You have got to be kidding me. . .

First you EA guys **** us on an application with crappy tracking ability in the radar map, and now you won't approve an application that EVERYONE has been screaming for.

Someone here in the community has enough ingenuity to get it working.

I hope, sincerely, that you have another replacement for this that you will be adding to the client. If you want this client to get adopted by a large number of people, then this is what you have to do. Do you really have any idea how important this type of feature is to guilds??

PS Kiwillian - have received that in writing and from who?

 

[Kiwillian]

PS Kiwillian - have received that in writing and from who?

Electronically, yeah. Not like a C&D or anything, I just asked for clarification. I won't say who, since it's not really their fault.

 

[IanJames]

did your map interact with the client directly or with UOA?

Well I guess I was just curious how "official" the statement was.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

This is just stupid... especially since they OPENED the data stream in SA back a few months ago to allow external programs easier access.

 

[JC the Builder]

Sadly, I have just been informed by someone from Mythic that since they are not approving 3rd party programs anymore that this would be considered an unapproved 3rd party program and therefore not be "legal" to use and could result in action being taken against accounts found using it.

You don't need EA's approval if the program does not modify client files or read the data stream.

 

[Ash]

...

This is just stupid... especially since they OPENED the data stream in SA back a few months ago to allow external programs easier access.

Dermott is right, been trying to find where it was mentioned but it appears it was in the early days of focus group testing. Which since that NDA is lifted can repeat it now.

They had in place encryption to prevent/hinder 3rd party support but 'flipped switch' to turn it off giving the reason to allow same 3rd party support as 2D. So if they aren't going to allow 3rd party programs, why turn off the encryption and give the reason for 3rd party programs?

Sounds like another example of 2 groups within Mythic that are not on the same page as to what is and isn't going to be allowed. As the engineers/devs working on the client obviously think support is going to be allowed otherwise they wouldn't have turned off the encryption.

 

[Cear Dallben Dragon]

Can I have the source code please.

 

[Torin Galka]

Please do not give up. I am sure something can be worked out.

I will not even consider playing this game outside of 2D without a replacement for UOAM.

 

[mAxius]

i think mythic should just take over UOAM and develop it themselves barring that At the minimum i would expect use of the kingdom reborn map and radar options or at least all of the options it provided the user that would the bare minimum that would be acceptable

see my post here Ive outlined some stuf that needs changing with the so called enhanced client http://vboards.stratics.com/showthread.php?t=155762

 

[Kiwillian]

I haven't given up all hope just yet. I'm especially interested in that comment about not using better encryption in the new client to continue to allow 3rd party addons.

What I had done did not touch either client or sniff the packets in any way whatsoever. It is especially odd (as JC kinda pointed out) that both UOAssist (and by extension, the 2D client) and the new client offer methods to write something like this, yet it somehow isn't allowed.

There is also a difference between allowed and approved, the latter doesn't really bother me and I wasn't expecting it at all, the former is what is important.

I agree with the other poster who said that it seems there are 2 (or more) groups at Mythic who aren't all on the same page.

 

[Fink]

So.. excuse my ignorance but where are we with this?

My understanding is:

Kiwillian basically re-engineered UOAM for Enhanced.
EA/Mythic are saying we can't use it.

Am I right?

 

[JC the Builder]

It doesn't matter what EA wants now, the expansion broke UOAM support completely for 2D Classic. A new application has to be built.

 

[JC the Builder]

Someone in our guild was using the Enhanced Client party tracking and it was completely useless. It has a very limited range (he said about 8 screens). It also updates so slow that someone can not even be remotely where it shows them.

So not only is it completely inferior to what UOAM offers, it doesn't even work. Why would I need a map to show me where someone on my screen is?

 

[Kiwillian]

Ha ha! Yeah I noticed that the other day. I got this small white splotch jumping all around the radar it was pretty useless =/

I see people are having problems with UOAM now. It crashes when trying to convert the maps and someone else reported problems with housing. Not sure what the latter one is about, but it could be a UOA problem perhaps.

Housing is something I haven't done yet actually. It won't be possible in the new client since that info doesn't seem to be available to Lua. Having said that I could certainly add it for 2D and I do have a bit of a workaround for EC that doesn't involve sniffing packets from the client.

The situation is pretty ridiculous at the moment, and I hope we can get some sensible answers once the expansion settles down a bit. Why does UOA even have the WM_USER api if people can't use it? The Lua API in the new client is the in the same boat as well.

 

[Kat]

I was so hoping EA would sanction a modified version of UOAM. I can't understand why they have a problem with it. I'm not entirely sure what to do with my guild that relies so heavily on it.

*sighs*

 

[IanJames]

*nods* same here Kat.

 

[Kiwillian]

This is now the 2nd most viewed thread in this forum

Someone should move it to UHall -

Anyways, not having much luck so far, but with the expansion and all it's kinda understandable. And it's not like what I've done is finished anyhow, yet.

 

[IanJames]

Well it may not be finished, but I for one would hate to see you go through that extraordinary amount of work to have the door slammed in your face by Mythic later on.

I think you should have the Siege guilds test it out for you :-D

 

[JC the Builder]

Kiwillian, you are basically running the show now since you are making the application. If you don't plan to follow through on finishing the application then you should let everyone know so we can make efforts to start another one.

 

[Kiwillian]

Fair enough. At present I'm still planning to finish it. It's probably a few (2?) weeks from being Beta-ish. It's at the point where I can work on it without needing either client, so I don't need to worry about that, at least.

 

[Kiwillian]

Ummm, I was just joking about moving it to UHall

 

[Harlequin]

Just dropping over to offer encouragement.

Go go kiwi!

 

[Duke SP]

Yes, my guild too uses UOAutomap it's very needed for 2D too.

 

[Old Man of UO]

So.. excuse my ignorance but where are we with this?

My understanding is:

Kiwillian basically re-engineered UOAM for Enhanced.
EA/Mythic are saying we can't use it.

Am I right?

I see two problems with someone else "re-engineering" any software to use in UO. Maybe I am misunderstanding the situation, so I am sure someone will let me know.

First, unless you have permission to "re-engineer" someone else's software, without permission, that is copy-righted (UOAM is) then you are infringing the copy-right. Even grabbing hooks without changing the program, but changing the original intent or purpose, can be infringement. If you have written permission from Steve Blanding, then your golden on this point.

Secondly, any 3rd party app that affects UO without the Pro approval may be a violation of the TOS, even if it does all you claim without affecting the data stream, or whatever. The example here would be an application in Windows that continuously repeats a single (or even multiple) key strokes in Windows. This would let you continuously loop UO macros, obviously a violation, without ever intercepting/changing data streams. Without EA/Mythic Pro approval, they have no control over what the application does and how it interacts with UO. How about a server hack that lets you track anyone, even non-group members (think enemies in PvP)?

I also want the functionality for the Enhanced Client that UOAM had, but I think it is better that EA/Mythic develops it and has control of the functionality.

 

[Kiwillian]

On your points:

#1: What I am doing has nothing to do with the original UOAM. I am not using anything from it at all, it is all original work. I am simply "re-engineering" the concept.

#2: This is the sticky point. On the one hand, UOAM or my app do not "affect" the client at all. I don't even touch either client whatsoever. I can understand the position you put forward, but on the other hand why did they not use the more robust encryption they implemented? Why is Tugsoft allowed to make a new app?

 

[IanJames]

Thanks Kiwi

 

[CatLord]

Good day... I believe the Devs point of view is...

- use what we offer.
- dont twist the rules (faction/non-faction guild alliances).
- play uo on the same level everyone else is playing, with no easy to use, razor edge technology.

Cya in game.

GO DEVS!

 

[Kiwillian]

Um, ok.

How is a new, more modern version of UOAM any of that exactly?

- it uses what they offer
- it doesn't twist rules
- it's at the same level since pretty much everyone runs UOAM anyway and even if they don't, UOAM is obviously not part of that equation since it's "Approved".


edit: faction and non-faction guilds can ally anyway so I fail to see your point there...

 

[mutau]

GO go Kiwillian. Right now, you're our only hope. (flash back of Star Wars ).

 

[Kiwillian]

LOL, thanks, now I feel like Princess Leia =/

edit: @(^_^)@ or something

 

[Old Man of UO]

On your points:

#1: What I am doing has nothing to do with the original UOAM. I am not using anything from it at all, it is all original work. I am simply "re-engineering" the concept.

#2: This is the sticky point. On the one hand, UOAM or my app do not "affect" the client at all. I don't even touch either client whatsoever. I can understand the position you put forward, but on the other hand why did they not use the more robust encryption they implemented? Why is Tugsoft allowed to make a new app?

Thanks for the reply and clarification. The reason I brought up point #1 is that JC said his project would use UOAM and hook into that.

Again on the second point, the TOS and 3rd Part apps for UO have nothing whatsoever to do with touching the client. So you need to take that out of your argument. As far as using a more robust encryption, ya - they should have. (But that argument is like the burglar saying it wasn't his fault because the homeowners left the window unlocked.) Tugsoft is allowed to make a new app (technically, NOT a new app) because they already have 3rd Party approval. You don't, but need to get that once your application is completed. This is NOT about Tugsoft and UOAM (you did say your work is original) - this is about your work.

I have nothing against what you are doing Kiwillian, what I am against is 3rd party apps doing things they shouldn't. If you can get Pro approval, then great and I'll probably use it!

 

[Kiwillian]

Thanks! A few clarifications though:

What I am doing has nothing to do with JC, he just made the thread. It used to be in the EC forum, as you know. It got moved here by someone.

Second: UOA is very invasive. It sniffs and decrypts packets and injects them. This is way beyond what I do. I don't go anywhere near the stream.

If Tugsoft have some sort of "do whatever you want" license from Mythic, then that's fine. Maybe they could publish what I've done? lol

 

[IanJames]

Kiwi,

I think you're keeping a great sense of humor over the whole thing. Keep up the good work on everything.

 

[Old Man of UO]

Thanks! A few clarifications though:

What I am doing has nothing to do with JC, he just made the thread. It used to be in the EC forum, as you know. It got moved here by someone.

Second: UOA is very invasive. It sniffs and decrypts packets and injects them. This is way beyond what I do. I don't go anywhere near the stream.

If Tugsoft have some sort of "do whatever you want" license from Mythic, then that's fine. Maybe they could publish what I've done? lol

Even if Tugsoft took over this project, it would still take a separate Pro approval. Tugsoft tried adding many features to UO Assist that were rejected. I understand what your are saying about packets and whatnot... that has nothing to do with 3rd party approval.

By the way, someone asked you to send them your source code - I wouldn't do that if I were you. Consider that if for some reason someone else does something unintended with your code, and it becomes actionable by EA/Mythic. Because you created the original source code, you could be included in that action. All I am saying is do it the proper way and protect yourself.

 

[IanJames]

Well I thought the UO Pro program was done with?

By your logic Old Man, people can't use their G1X Keyboards either

 

[JC the Builder]

For the final time, UOAssist provides an API which allows any person to create a program that accesses client information through UOAssist. Details on this API can be found here:

http://www.tugsoft.com/uoassist/thirdpartydev.asp

There have been several programs created over the years, one such being Davis's GGS Timer that used to be quite popular, that take advantage of this feature of UOAssist. Any program which uses this 100% does not need approval from EA and will not be illegal as long as it does not access the client or data stream directly. However any such program is not going to be UOPro.

Tug (the creator of UOAssist) is expressing interest in updating for the Enhanced Client. If he does so then a new map application can be made for both clients and every UO player can remain happy.

 

[Mr X]

Legal or illegal, it does not really matter to me. How many years has osi/ea had to make their own simple program to appease the masses? Sure it would be buggy and half assed like the rest of their stuff but it would have been a great addition to the game. My guess is the devs no longer play UO and have not for a while. The stuff we get from patches and expansions are ripped from other games. The more the game evolves the less original it gets. If an ea rep came here and deemed Kiwi's program illegal I would still use it. I got people running heal scripts while speedhacking, do you really think I care if I use a program that lets me know where my guildmates are? If he updates a program that has been used by the masses for years, I see no reason not to allow such a program. If they want to ban me for using a UOAM clone then so be it. The game would such balls without the app anyway, so no big loss.

 

[Kaleb]

I feel a new mapping tool is needed, If it does not effect the Data stream it should be ok and considered under the "spirit of UO", If one cant be made being I only live 15-20mins from the creator of UOAM I can knock on his door and have my cousin Guido knee cap him for the source code, or to update UOAM