Thread: Client object limit

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11  
    Glory667 Owner/Developer

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    809
    Thanks given
    136
    Thanks received
    184
    Rep Power
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Scu11 View Post
    u literally just reiterated ur claim again lmfao........

    Because its that simple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Registered Member
    Kris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Age
    20
    Posts
    2,962
    Thanks given
    457
    Thanks received
    1,414
    Rep Power
    1146
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnyblob22 View Post
    Because its that simple.
    Show what exactly you had to change to be able to load more than the so-called limit. That number is quite odd, numbers are usually limited to powers of 2, meaning the only logical limit to how many objects you can load should be 2^16 - 1, AKA 65535. How you got the limit at ~70.5k beats the hell out of me.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    I will ignore all personal messages regarding 317s (Including 317 loading X).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. Thankful user:


  4. #13  




    Scu11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Age
    24
    Posts
    15,774
    Thanks given
    6,954
    Thanks received
    11,324
    Rep Power
    5000
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnyblob22 View Post
    Because its that simple.
    yet u cant direct us to any bit of code whatsoever that reveals this limit??







    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #14  
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    506
    Thanks given
    173
    Thanks received
    195
    Rep Power
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Kris View Post
    Show what exactly you had to change to be able to load more than the so-called limit. That number is quite odd, numbers are usually limited to powers of 2, meaning the only logical limit to how many objects you can load should be 2^16 - 1, AKA 65535. How you got the limit at ~70.5k beats the hell out of me.
    Archive reading changed from 671 for archives with ids above 65535. From then an int is being written instead of a short. Thus you can't have archives with ids above 65535 in revisions from and below 670. This is for all indices (so not only objects).

    I think that's what the OP meant.
    link removed
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #15  
    Glory667 Owner/Developer

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    809
    Thanks given
    136
    Thanks received
    184
    Rep Power
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Slee View Post
    Archive reading changed from 670 for archives with ids above 65535. From then an int is being written instead of a short. Thus you can't have archives with ids above 65535 in revisions from and below 670. This is for all indices (so not only objects).

    I think that's what the OP meant.
    Im not exposing this. Giving people this would let them pack osrs to 667s. Which is something that makes my 667 unique.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. Thankful user:


  8. #16  
    Registered Member
    Kris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Age
    20
    Posts
    2,962
    Thanks given
    457
    Thanks received
    1,414
    Rep Power
    1146
    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Slee View Post
    Archive reading changed from 670 for archives with ids above 65535. From then an int is being written instead of a short. Thus you can't have archives with ids above 65535 in revisions from and below 670. This is for all indices (so not only objects).

    I think that's what the OP meant.
    Yeah that's logical, I'd understand that but they claim the limit was at 70.5k? That's quite far from max unsigned short, and honestly makes no sense.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    I will ignore all personal messages regarding 317s (Including 317 loading X).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #17  
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    506
    Thanks given
    173
    Thanks received
    195
    Rep Power
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Kris View Post
    Yeah that's logical, I'd understand that but they claim the limit was at 70.5k? That's quite far from max unsigned short, and honestly makes no sense.
    I didn't understand the question in the first place because he called it "object limit". I had no idea what he was talking about xD.

    When you said "65535" a light in my head started to lit.
    link removed
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #18  
    Donator


    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,457
    Thanks given
    1,589
    Thanks received
    1,011
    Rep Power
    1207
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnyblob22 View Post
    Im not exposing this. Giving people this would let them pack osrs to 667s. Which is something that makes my 667 unique.
    How is that unique, when there multiple 718 loading OSRS data? Anyways most of the 718 programmers know how to load OSRS data on they're cache/client.
    Quote Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
    i'd love to get called in the middle of the night just to hear an indian voice whisper "the nulls are back friend, how i fix"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #19  
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Age
    21
    Posts
    279
    Thanks given
    112
    Thanks received
    75
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by _Patrick_ View Post
    How is that unique, when there multiple 718 loading OSRS data? Anyways most of the 718 programmers know how to load OSRS data on they're cache/client.
    Yeah its legit shit all work to pack almost anything from osrs, most osrs shit has less than half of the opcodes that 718 has.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #20  
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    506
    Thanks given
    173
    Thanks received
    195
    Rep Power
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by _Patrick_ View Post
    How is that unique, when there multiple 718 loading OSRS data? Anyways most of the 718 programmers know how to load OSRS data on they're cache/client.
    Because in 718 you don't need to edit anything. The 718 client already uses the new protocol for reading archives. He was talking about 667 (which doesn't).
    link removed
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Client side objects
    By bluurr in forum Snippets
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 07-18-2010, 08:06 PM
  2. Client sided object loading with arrays.
    By Eternal Darknes in forum Tutorials
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-02-2009, 09:43 AM
  3. [Bluurr's client] Fixing objects
    By Coder Alex in forum Requests
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-16-2009, 05:00 PM
  4. Custom 3ds Max objects?
    By Deviants in forum Help
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-13-2009, 05:16 AM
  5. 474 Client No Objects?
    By Vastiko in forum Show-off
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-03-2009, 03:33 PM
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •