Cata vs. MoP Development

[Deathomen]

Just something I was thinking about last night... Feel free to share your opinions.

I'm a bit curious as to how complete the development on a Cataclysm client for MaNGOS is. I've been working with some of the newer revisions lately and they appear to function generally well from a playability standpoint. The problem is, there aren't any active projects working to build a fill a database for Cataclysm, and it's especially difficult now that MoP has been released.

I wondering if it would make more sense to simply skip development for Cataclysm and jump straight into Mists. I understand it's only been a few weeks since MoP was released, and development takes time, but I would really love to see MaNGOS bust out a MoP core early on in the expansions life, rather than at the end like was the case with Cataclysm.

Like I said, I understand this takes time and work. I don't know anything about reverse engineering the client, or coding MaNGOS to function properly with MoP, but I'd certainly be willing to learn. Additionally, I'd love to push forward with a MoP content project and could provide dumps from retail to assist with this.

I'd like to hear, specifically, from the developers and find out their views on this. I understand this is completely volunteer for you guys, and it's done in your spare time. The same thing is true for me, I do custom content development as a hobby because I enjoy it. And I know that together we could bust out a working Mists core and database before the rest of the community even knew what hit them. ArcEmu and Trinity still only officially support 3.3.5a. MaNGOS is the only (that I know of) project that has an active development team working on 4.3.4.

So, guys, lets hear what you think. And lets work together to bring MaNGOS back to the spotlight, expand our knowledge, and further the community as a whole.

[Christian Schamara]

heyho we start with mop on last patch of mop so i think in 1-2 years =) cata is still under dev and need a lot of fixes =)

[antz]

I'm biased, it's MOP for me

If you check out the Poll for the WOW versions which people are interested in.... MOP's a clear leader.

But a agree, Cata does seem fairly dead in the water right now. It might be possible to back port most of the database back to cata once MOP is done.

[xnxx10_]

People wanna MoP coz its new, but this exp will bring every patch braek code for developers. Better have full working cata.

[antz]

The Problem is that Cata can only be compared to Memory/Guides as the game is dead now of official servers.

Cata and MOP are more closely related than WOLK,TBC and Vanilla

[Zamara]

Over at Project Vortex we have had a 434 db in development for a while, only problem was it was an ArkCore structure and the conversion process with as little loss of data as possible is taking us more time than we thought it would.

Since there has not been a working core to test it on until now we cannot yet verify playability, but we have managed to get the error logs from 200k lines to around 25K.

While our team is split between 406 and 434 development right now, we do hope to have a playable beta db available for testing soon.

[Deathomen]

heyho we start with mop on last patch of mop so i think in 1-2 years =) cata is still under dev and need a lot of fixes =)

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Can you clarify it a bit? I understand Cata is still under development and needs many fixes still, but are you saying that you've already started making a core that can interface properly with a MoP client?

People wanna MoP coz its new, but this exp will bring every patch braek code for developers. Better have full working cata.

You're partially correct. There are a lot of people who would like to see MoP because it's new, and I can't blame them. The next part I'm a little unclear on what you're trying to say. Do you mean that every time Blizzard releases a new patch for MoP that it will break the core? If so, that's already a given. It happened with EVERY SINGLE core previously. And if we would have been up-to-date with a functional Cata core it would have been exactly the same.

You say that it would be better to have a working Cata core than a MoP core, and I'm going to have to disagree with you. There's no reason we can't keep developing a Cata core - just as we are for every single one of the other expansions. I'll elaborate on that a bit more down below.

Over at Project Vortex we have had a 434 db in development for a while, only problem was it was an ArkCore structure and the conversion process with as little loss of data as possible is taking us more time than we thought it would.

Since there has not been a working core to test it on until now we cannot yet verify playability, but we have managed to get the error logs from 200k lines to around 25K.

While our team is split between 406 and 434 development right now, we do hope to have a playable beta db available for testing soon.

It's great that Project Vortex has been working on a Cataclysm DB for quite some time. I applaud you for taking the effort to create a database for current content even though there weren't any active projects producing a core for it. And I can definitely understand how difficult it would be to verify functionality. Thank you again for your hard work.

I feel like it would be more beneficial to have a core that closely follows the retail builds than waiting until a NEW expansion is released (or almost released) before we even have a core for the current expansion. As we are seeing with Cataclysm, it makes development quite a bit more difficult when we can't pull information directly from the retail servers. This is true not only for database development, but also for core development as well.

Look, I'm not a developer. And I don't have the skills required to construct and maintain a core for Cataclysm, let alone Mists of Pandaria. I just feel that, from a developmental and educational standpoint, there's no reason we should be running as far behind as we are right now. I don't know the science and difficulty behind the program, and I can certainly appreciate all of the work that the developers put into this project, but I don't understand why we're continuing primary development on an expansion that is no longer even available for us to work off.

[X-Savior_]

I need to speak up here because I am going to be honest. Every time an expansion is released people 2 days later come on demanding development of the latest version.

Do you guys have ANY CLUE what it takes to develop a core/db/scripts for a client?

Plans are in works for a new Cataclysm DB from some of the UDB team members.

Now lets look at facts. Currently we do not even have 100% or close to functionality for WOTLK (3.3.5a). So we are unable to even fully implement all functions and features.

As for Calaclysm I would be making an stretch to say we have it even 25% working (I suspect somewhere around 10 - 15% is more accurate). At face you say "Oh it is very playable and working" but this is an extreme exaggeration. The reason we have not started full tilt development of 4.3.4 is because the core is not even functional enough for us to get into any deep development yet.

Now you want to take a core that is barely even functioning and skip current development and push on to MoP where even Blizz is having problems getting it working properly.

To me these comments that are being made might be slightly out of touch with reality. and slightly uneducated.

I am not picking on anyone but as I know you are all very new to the community I figured it was time to bring you all back down to earth. Salja said is very kindly but did not seem to get the point across to you.

Instead of having a bunch of different projects with a couple people working on each one we should be working at developing the fundamental implementations and work on getting at least ONE fully working one.

In fact currently with the level of our core development the only 2 clients that actually have the chance of reaching 100% completion is Classic and TBC... That is IT!

As for 4.3.4 Development, we actually have massive archives of data that have been collecting in anticipation of development of this. So it is not solely by memory by any means. In fact there has been planning and work that has been ongoing for several months already on our Alpha. The only problem is we have been waiting on the core to reach a level that sustained development can be done. It is hard to develop a DB when large portions of the core are not working so we are unable to test the data in the DB.

So I am personally standing by and am ready to start the VERY LONG journey of creating a new DB for 4.3.4 (This will take many years to complete or even get half as close as UDB is to completion).

I hope I have gotten my point across and have no offended anyone as I am not trying to hurt any feelings or upset anyone. This is just a reality check for members of the community.

[Deathomen]

X-Savior,

Thank you for voicing your opinions on this matter. I want to first start out by saying that I do not expect anyone to take this thread and act solely upon my opinions. I have my reasons for suggesting this, and it goes beyond simply wanting a working MoP core. While you're correct that I'm new to THIS community, I'm no stranger to the emulation scene. I worked very closely with several DB projects over on the Antrix/Ascent/ArcEmu side of emulation for quite some time.

My reasoning behind this suggestion is simple. If my ideas are really as unrealistic as you say, then so be it. As I've said previously, I am in no way qualified to develop or maintain the MaNGOS core, so my opinions are exactly that - opinions. My feeling was that we should focus more on getting a stable core for the CURRENT expansion rather than working to get a functional core for a now-outdated expansion. I was unaware that it was necessary to get a functional core for a previous expansion before we could start on the current.

As for database development, I'm glad to hear that UDB has plans in the works for a Cataclysm database. I was a little worried when I first started around here because UDB has long been known as the most up-to-date and reliable database around, even for those of us in the Arcemu scene. There were many attempts to port UDB to an Arc-compatible structure, but I don't think any of those were ever successful. I wish you guys the best of luck with the development, and I will definitely be contributing to the progression and stabilization of said project. Keep an eye out for me on the UDB side once you get things up and running. I'm currently only running a closed 4.3.4 private realm for some testing and custom development purposes, but you can be sure I'll be one of the first to grab and test the first UDB release for Cataclysm.

I certainly have no problem with the continued development of a Cataclysm core. I have very little understanding of how the core is created to begin with, let alone what it would take to produce a MoP core. Again, my reasoning for this discussion was simply because I felt it made more sense to spend the time developing a current core than to try to get a core working for an older expansion. I don't know what mechanics changed from Cata to MoP, but I would imagine that if we took the existing core and modified it to support MoP that we should have an easier time backing up to something more stable for Cata support. But again, this is my lack of knowledge speaking.

Perhaps an explanation of what would be necessary is in order? This is definitely something I'm interested in learning about so that my ignorance doesn't slap me in the face in the future.

[Christian Schamara]

The main problem is we have far too little developer to say exactly 1 active dev atm for cata 1 active dev atm for tbc and 1 active dev for classic.

we have absolutely no options to start something new (mop dev branch etc) so we work on cata, cata is not playtable for use for other players its still under dev.

its better to wait of last mop patch befor start dev on mop 1.12.1, 2.4.3, 335a, 434 and wehn come last mop patch we can talk over start =)

[tim]

its hard to understand why devs not finish main parts of Wotlk which are needed to develop Cata and Mop (for example Vehicles ) its like build a house without finish the ground but start to build walls we all know whats happens it.... it will be a fail build... and it has nothing to do with right doing development...

[Graahl]

Why not doing it well, with using the 1 dev there and the one dev over there, for develop just one branch and then doing it right.

So there is still standing in every branch, just major updates every few weeks.

Iam wondering about all the old devs at mangos. Where are they? Its just, because the feel the wow emu scene is dead?

Iam not a developer and i dont want to say how youre doing youre job guys, but in my opinion you should work on one patch, finish the basics and then go to next patch version like trinity do.

To give the ability to run servers with all versions is great but i think if someone wants to be out of the egde they have to do it itself.

But i see its the discussion like every year and at every new patchversion or expension is coming out.

[TuX]

Guys,

the decision is already made... so we don't need to discuss on this topic any longer.

MaNGOS newest patch will be Cataclysm 15595 (4.3.4).

As already mentioned it is senseless to switch to 5.0.x . We made this fault with Wotlk, other projects with Cata.

Due the reason there aren't 100 developers the best thing you can do is to wait for the last patch (where all instances included and bugs are fixed) and start developing. Of course we can use some parts of the current core for MoP lateron; but watch out there might be some upcoming changes on MoP we don't know yet and might become it impossible to re.

Some words on the DB:

The guys from YTDB are already on developing a DB for 4.3.4.

It is currently in alpha state, which means you can't use it for productive systems.

I would suggest everyone who is interested in Cata to sign up at their forum (www.ytdb.ru) and help to improve the DB.

There is a lot on phasing-stuff and EAI which needs be done.

Maybe UDB-guys could work this time with the YTDB-team?

Kind regards,

ZuSe

[X-Savior_]

Unfortunately we do not see eye to eye with ytdb due to their development methods. UDB already has an Alpha as well for 4.3.4 but it is not yet ready for public hands by any means.

We have started a new DB from scratch and we are being very careful to not make mistakes like we have in past in filling in the table data and this will be a really solid base for us to work from.

for those who are waiting for UDB development just wait patiently. I will do my best to keep community updated. As soon as wee have a solid enough base we will make it available to the public.

as for the remaining part of the thread it has been made clear. 4.3.4 is the direction of development. UDB will be continuing with 3.3.5a development but a few of us have decided to also split out time between that and 4.3.4. (For myself I am still going to be very active in the TBC Scene). FYI ACID also has an empty template file for 4.3.4 as well and as soon as development starts moving forward I will commit/backport data there as well.

for those who say everyone should work on one client... there is also a problem with that. As a hobby people prefer to work on a particular client version. Luda like Classic, Salja/Myself like TBC, UDB in general prefers WOTLK and some of is combined are looking forward to 4.3.4 development. This is just how it works.... as a hobby developers can work on anything they want. It is true the community is getting smaller and smaller. WoW is actually pretty much EOL soon. The good old days of large dev teams and ect are long gone. The people who now remain and here because this is what we know how to do and still want to see this through till the end.

Thank You!

[YuruY]

Unfortunately we do not see eye to eye with ytdb due to their development methods.

We sniff all continents and the locations, all vaults and raids 4.3.4, and it is an order of 8GB of arkhivirovanny data, we finish work on their processing. Next week there is a base where all this will be.

And you speak about what methods without knowing as we rbotay? Or you sniff not on the official server???)))

All of us do one work, but everyone on the, each of us has users and the critics, nobody offers you associations, we don't have sense, we work more productively you.

But why to us not to start to cooperate in some difficult situations for both bases?

We will help you, you with what that to us, what in it bad?

p.s: This and our hobby.

[rsa]

We will help you, you with what that to us, what in it bad?

hardly of trying to interact get anything for people who prefer UDB your work is about the same properties as the R2 for fans cmangos/mainstreem. that is, even if they use it, you will not admit it

[X-Savior_]

Yes, this was not meant to say bad things about any other projects. I just stated we do not see eye to eye with YTDB. We prefer to parse source data ourselves and implement as we see fit. YTDB has followers and so does UDB. Each project has it`s strength`s and weaknesses.

If you would like to share your original sniff`s we would be glad to accept them and use them as part of our base.

[YuruY]

If you would like to share your original sniff`s we would be glad to accept them and use them as part of our base.

Write to me to PM that is necessary for you, I hope I can help.

[herrtrigger]

If you would like to share your original sniff`s we would be glad to accept them and use them as part of our base.

Write to me to PM that is necessary for you, I hope I can help.

Very cool to see some interaction between UDB & Ytdb after all these years.

[TuX]

If you would like to share your original sniff`s we would be glad to accept them and use them as part of our base.

Write to me to PM that is necessary for you, I hope I can help.

Very cool to see some interaction between UDB & Ytdb after all these years.

signed.. thats what we need now !

[Unkle Nuke]

With all these declarations of massive sniff archives, it does beg a question...

Why are we not all sharing sniffs for any and all client versions? This would he a great help for core, database, and scripting development for everyone.

[void513]

need some to send the sniff to or to coordinate getting in the db

[turtleswin]

Sadly, MoP private servers are not creatable due to flaws in realmlist files (They are non-existant).

[Christian Schamara]

Sadly, MoP private servers are not creatable due to flaws in realmlist files (They are non-existant).

you can use the config file for the releamlist in the config is save the releamlist so its not the problem =)

[turtleswin]

Sadly, MoP private servers are not creatable due to flaws in realmlist files (They are non-existant).

you can use the config file for the releamlist in the config is save the releamlist so its not the problem =)

MoP doesn't have realmlist support.