|MaNGOS| Best than ever!

[nanounico]

Hi,

I just want talk about the current performance of MaNGOS, and maybe we can talk about what features would be great have in MaNGOS.

Now we have:

- Multi Threads Support*

- Mmaps Redux*

- Visibility Patch

- DB Layer

- Collision System

(Sorry if i miss some important feature, comment and i add)

Now MaNGOS are more solid and stable, thats why i want to congratz every dev, and every single person who makes possible MaNGOS continue on top.

So, whats coming?, maybe Multi-Core Support? improvements in Network?

What do you think is coming in a future for MaNGOS? (Please don't talk about Cataclysm)

Chears!

[GloverX]

Maybe a stupid idéa.

But why not have an option to setup the server, to connect to a complete different server when queue and entering dungeons and battlegrounds? (And also, be able to configure the server to act as a dungeon/bg-server only.)

I thought it becouse maybe the resources is less used at a computer when having a server that is only for dungeons and BG's, instead of running the whole world + the bg's and dungeons. Then a lot more players could connect at the same time, at a server like that.

Players at a normal private server with low amount of players, can connect to these dungeon/battleground-servers to meet more people in instances.

I don't know the problems that can be connected to this idéa though lol.

[Lascax]

Well, there are a lot of features that people here are waiting to be implemented (vehicles, SotA, IoC, Aura-Stacking System...) but I want to take advantage of this thread to ask an important thing to MaNGOS Devs:

is the implementation of the AHBot a sign of a more open and less strictly "icylike" code?

I mean, we all know that the AHBot is not something that can be tagged as "icylike", but it is also a custom feature that does not represent what the icy-company have in the original project.

Are we going to implement hacky Vehicles? Or not-so-hackly-but-good-coded vehicles?

There will be the playerbot feature or other things like MangChat that just enhance the program without being modified in its base features (like AHBot did being disabled in config by default)?

These are questions that I am asking to know if I can hope to see more of the good things that branches like MaNGOSr2 are doing to be implemented in the master, or if I will have to continue to depend on these projects for advanced features.

By the way, to all of you who are ready to blame the Devs in case of a negative response to my questions, remember that this is a learning project and advanced features can always be found around GitHub, if you think that MaNGOS is "going slow".

[Drevan]

Well, there are a lot of features that people here are waiting to be implemented (vehicles, SotA, IoC, Aura-Stacking System...) but I want to take advantage of this thread to ask an important thing to MaNGOS Devs:

is the implementation of the AHBot a sign of a more open and less strictly "icylike" code?

I mean, we all know that the AHBot is not something that can be tagged as "icylike", but it is also a custom feature that does not represent what the icy-company have in the original project.

Are we going to implement hacky Vehicles? Or not-so-hackly-but-good-coded vehicles?

There will be the playerbot feature or other things like MangChat that just enhance the program without being modified in its base features (like AHBot did being disabled in config by default)?

The problem is with things like this, while nice additions, over time the project will become bloated and not the MaNGOS that we know and love today.

[lp-vamp]

I do not think that the project will become bloated. There are some additions and changes in the past. Some parts are gone because of the reason that no one had used it over time. I've seen structure changes in parts of the code, some features changed from hard coded to db-content, better look and feel all about.

So what about new content, nice patches and additions. I've seen that mangos will support many patches, but it is bound to some conditions how the patch will be find its way to the core.

The patch has to match the mangos structure of coding and should be nearly free of so called "hacks" (this definition is described here in forums in long terms). The more the patch is tested the better. These are all the things the patch writer or community can do. The rest depends on the devs.

The patch can be the best in your life, but without the review of a dev it will be stuck in paches and it will not find it's way to the core.

The importend part here is. The dev have to look in your code and test it for all the flavour. Maybe he'll modify it a bit, understand the meaning of every funktion bevor he get a fully understanding of the whole patch. Only if the devs are able to support and understand this patch code they might do decide it to implement in core.

In my basic understanding, a patch find its way into the core when:

- it has mangos coding style

- only needed Hacks (witch is hard to determine)

- tested and reviewed by community and dev

- the devs are able to manage the code, take support and more

- dev team descisions (is the funktion nessesary, other ways of implementation, un/wanted feature because of reasons)

It is up to us. Personaly i would prefer every patch to be reviewed, but time is expensive. I'am looking forward. maybe the is some patch in review of the dev that i am not aware of yet.

cheers

[lillecarl]

Maybe a stupid idéa.

But why not have an option to setup the server, to connect to a complete different server when queue and entering dungeons and battlegrounds? (And also, be able to configure the server to act as a dungeon/bg-server only.)

I thought it becouse maybe the resources is less used at a computer when having a server that is only for dungeons and BG's, instead of running the whole world + the bg's and dungeons. Then a lot more players could connect at the same time, at a server like that.

Players at a normal private server with low amount of players, can connect to these dungeon/battleground-servers to meet more people in instances.

I don't know the problems that can be connected to this idéa though lol.

It is a good idea, tho its like really hard to do and it requires more resources if you dont have more then one server machine (but sure it is a really good idea (since it is damn cheap to buy 5 VPS servers and have like 2 useless and 3 powerful or how it would be splitted

- LilleCarl