Schmoozerd

if I am not mistaken, these all are different npc-entries

I think this is a problem with the translation from your Database do SELECT * FROM mangos_string WHERE entry = 517; and verify that the content of your language has the format %d%s, Entry %d - |cffffffff|Hgameobject:%d|h[%s X:%f Y:%f Z:%f MapId:%d]|h|r

if you only truncate the instance_reset and character_instance table the worst thing happening is that players may kill a boss more often then they should, so this is should be a good start to get the mess out of the system

you shouldn't test with a new instance like FoS, but rather with one of the older, my tests were everything ok (raids and heroic-dungeons), I tested with Naxx, UtgardeKeep, Sethek Halls, and also the initial resetTime for FoS was correct (though it didn't bind..) - tested with UDB392

this is the first time I read about this config-option, so I think any warning in the config like originally suggested is I think enough; However it _might_ be a very nice idea to start wiki-documentation for these config options - then these detailed notes would there be perfect

you are sure that Unit *GetMisdirectionTarget() { return m_misdirectionTargetGUID ? [b]GetUnit(*this, m_misdirectionTargetGUID)[/b] : NULL; } will compile with mangos?

no offence, but: I will start screaming with CMake! hey, my VC already does the job, so why to change something? ok, I see why you need an improvement for *nix, and I can understand you would love to only have one place defining the building, but I think it is the wrong way to change a well working (and easy) way to build as we (users) have with VC

and very importat is also, that a contract is only binding in the parts where it doesn't conflict with real laws (at least that's the normal way for many countries)

thanks very much! changed the patch accordingly (you infact have also found the right id)

I had some related idea to add a new collumn to creature, go, and a few templates to add a note when they were last seen, but some DB was the opinion that this comment field would only be used for personal petty problems (ielook how important I am) .. Would fit good to this idea however

test again with cleaned source and cleaned DB - no problem for me with 10406 and UDB 392

update sd2, there was a bug.

I hate movies! My guesses: 69140 AoE, TargetSelect? casted with maxTargets=1, the target is used for casting spells (random choice perhaps), three possibilities, not always excecuted (seems to be related to bone storm) 1) 69138 Cast From Boss Onto Target 2) 71580 Cast From Boss Onto Target 3) 72705 Cast From Boss On Boss, followcasts: 72701 72702 72703 72704 Summoned Mobs: cast 69145 -> triggers 69147, that retriggers 69145 (and has unk effect) cast 70823

where are they to be used? (and what overview should happen there)?

it would be possible, and it would be best if you tried to get permission from UDB wiki authors to take their work, and the permission from ytdb wiki, and to get the wiki maintainers of both "teams" to agree to work on one wiki (with the best of both) together

yes works fine

a few strange things inside: example: - uint16 opcode; + uint16 opcode; --------- +++ b/src/game/pchdef.cpp @@ -1 +1 @@ -//#include "pchdef.h" \\ No newline at end of file +//#include "pchdef.h"

mangosscript.dll taken from your latest build?

.cast target <someSpellIdHere>

rsa uses hacks in his scripts, so it is possible that the crash originates there

this is no "crash log", this is normal output in the Server.log

@ faramir: This is still far in the feature, but I had also some target-selecting problems for some bosses, and I think the correct place to modify is the SelectHostileTarget() function. I think what we need in the ChaseMovement case is a way to only select units, to which a path is possible, but I wouldn't modify the threat-list

Description of the feature? * Implement DoFailTimedAchievementCriteria function * Improve the Opcodes For which repository revision was the patch created? 10399, 10637 Is there a thread in the bug report section or at lighthouse? no Who has been writing this patch? me Patch: http://paste2.org/p/1049075 for Rev 10637 - fixed a bug in the DoFailedTimedAchievementCriterias for-loop (please take extra care on review), improved comments, fixed bugs of last version Please test, and report issues if you find any I added a new list, and a new bool to process, and it might be possible I missed some initialization or similar. Also retail _does_ send different timers in the opcodes for _some_ criterias, situations. But I couldn't get a pattern there, and so it might (though unlikely) be possible, that this patch has impact on other Achievements, but I tested it, and didn't found any problems. And ofc any ideas for improving the opcodes are very welcome History: http://paste2.org/p/961639 for Rev 10399 l. 60: data << uint32(progress->timedCriteriaFailed); <-- data << uint32(progress->timedCriteriaFailed ? 1 : 0); l. 191: *data << uint32(iter->second.date); <-- *data << uint32(iter->second.timedCriteriaFailed ? 1 : 0); (..... dammn copy and paste) * iter improvements, suggested by DasBlub

perhaps the easiest for you would be to install git and use it, it is not that hard

what kind of scripts are you talking about?