Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question about DLL
#1
I have a question. When Rockpatch2 is released, how will it be?

-One big DLL (all the features are in one DLL)
-Many DLLs, (every features is one DLL each)
Reply
#2
Right now I'm thinking about two DLLs, one for except handling + copy protection + logging, the other for everything else. It is quite likely that the former DLL will be released as a standalone download as well, well before the actual new features (remember ExceptChecker? This DLL is exactly that, reborn.)
Reply
#3
(29.11.2008, 18:49:56)DCoder Wrote: Right now I'm thinking about two DLLs, one for except handling + copy protection + logging, the other for everything else
well, I dont like that idea. I like the idea mentioned above:

Quote:-Many DLLs, (every features is one DLL each)
Reson?:
Works with NPatch.
Reply
#4
Feel free to make your own build then.

* DCoder shrugs indifferently.
Reply
#5
(29.11.2008, 19:07:59)Guest Wrote:
(29.11.2008, 18:49:56)DCoder Wrote: Right now I'm thinking about two DLLs, one for except handling + copy protection + logging, the other for everything else
well, I dont like that idea. I like the idea mentioned above:

Quote:-Many DLLs, (every features is one DLL each)
Reson?:
Works with NPatch.

its highly unlikely anything will work with NPatch, you're adding 1 hack on top of another hack. its like installing linux and vista on your PC an expecting them to buth run inside windows XP.
Reply
#6
An update, since bob pointed out why you'd want many DLLs over IRC:

If you want to disable certain features of Ares, you will have the ability to, most of the time. Each hook Ares makes can be disabled by the end user, the fun will be ensuring that the hooks are not multitasking (quite a few of them will be).
Reply
#7
(29.11.2008, 19:17:21)Bobingabout Wrote:
(29.11.2008, 19:07:59)Guest Wrote:
(29.11.2008, 18:49:56)DCoder Wrote: Right now I'm thinking about two DLLs, one for except handling + copy protection + logging, the other for everything else
well, I dont like that idea. I like the idea mentioned above:

Quote:-Many DLLs, (every features is one DLL each)
Reson?:
Works with NPatch.

its highly unlikely anything will work with NPatch, you're adding 1 hack on top of another hack. its like installing linux and vista on your PC an expecting them to buth run inside windows XP.
I think u are wrong
Reply
#8
Words are cheap. Unless you have experience doing this sort of work, your opinion on this issue is moot.
Reply
#9
the difference is, i know what i'm talking about
Reply
#10
(29.11.2008, 19:07:59)Guest Wrote: Reson?:
Works with NPatch.
You do realize that Ares will implement most, if not all or more than what NPatch already does. So you won't even need NPatch anymore.
[Image: hiatus.png]
Reply
#11
(29.11.2008, 21:16:48)IcySon55 Wrote:
(29.11.2008, 19:07:59)Guest Wrote: Reson?:
Works with NPatch.
You do realize that Ares will implement most, if not all or more than what NPatch already does. So you won't even need NPatch anymore.

well, actually think many features wont be implanted, such as Upgrade SW, SpySat SW, Droppod, custom radiation, immunity logic, remove 100-unit limit, lasersize, ironcurtian on warheads and new sides.

DCoder: it seems like you dont like tipps stuff?
Reply
#12
What is "tipps" stuff?

What I don't like is people who have no experience or knowledge in reverse engineering and hack programming telling me how this project should be run. If I'm wrong and you do have experience, feel free to take the source and prove that bob (and me) is wrong and your way would work better.

P.S. Iron Curtain on Warheads has worked since September. Thanks, if you hadn't mentioned it I wouldn't have noticed that the tracker status on that issue is wrong. There are other features on your "list" that are already functional as well.
Reply
#13
(29.11.2008, 21:57:13)Guest Wrote: well, actually think many features wont be implanted,

DCoder: it seems like you dont like tipps stuff?
Where is your proof that these things will not be implemented? Where is your proof that DCoder does not like "these stuff"?

You're just assuming. Please STFU until you have an actual argument.
[Image: hiatus.png]
Reply
#14
Unidentified guest: Please take note of our forum rules, especially the second commandment.
Unless you can contribute on a factual/programatical level, you are fair game.

In addition, please be aware that being called "Guest" does not identify you in any way, so your opinion will have little impact anyway, and if you actually do want to contribute, you should register either way.

In other words: Either show that you actually know something, or fuck off. We value community input, but as long as you can't prove you're actually the same guest every time, your posts are just slightly above viagra spam on the significance scale.
Forum Rules

(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!

(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.
Reply
#15
(30.11.2008, 03:59:43)Renegade Wrote: your posts are just slightly above viagra spam on the significance scale.

But viagra is useful
[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)