PDA

View Full Version : Offsets



lildr00d
04-23-2003, 08:48 PM
Looking at MySeq source and offsets looks like these are some of the new offsets needed to get SEQ worknig

00777528 EQADDR_Shortzone
00760248 EDADDR_Char
00760204 EQADDR_Spawnlist
0076024C EQADDR_Target
00760208 EQADDR_Items

Perhaps someone with more exp can convert those numbers to numbers used in SEQ

quackrabbit
04-23-2003, 09:22 PM
/auc WTS a clue...

Yueh
04-23-2003, 09:57 PM
/auc I'll trade you one vowel and 20pp :)

lildr00d
04-23-2003, 10:47 PM
Sorry I dont claim to be a programer or understand the numbers. Was posting oh lets see oh yea INFORMATION so that oh I dont know others could well lets see use said information to better the project. But if giveing um lets see Information is cause to be flamed then flame on. And I'll keep posting information till I get tired of posting. You know that whole everyone working towards a common gole thing. Open source and all.

cavemanbob
04-23-2003, 11:03 PM
Yes ShowEQ can be modified to take at least basic data from a server running on the EQ machine. I've looked into this, but haven't had the time to implement anything yet, but if anyone else wants to go for it.

Ratt
04-23-2003, 11:04 PM
ShowEQ doesn't use offsets... at least those type of offsets, which are memory offsets. Totally useless to SEQ.

We need packet structures :)

Which is why you can never be banned for using SEQ, assuming you don't do stupid things, and you can be banned for using any of the Windows versions.

Amadeus
04-24-2003, 12:48 AM
Here's the other catch: The structures used in memory (ie, that MQ uses) rarely jive with the structures sent via packets (ie, that SEQ uses). Same information, for the most part...just ordered differently usually. /boggle

Lyroschen
04-24-2003, 01:44 AM
Here's the other catch: The structures used in memory (ie, that MQ uses) rarely jive with the structures sent via packets (ie, that SEQ uses). Same information, for the most part...just ordered differently usually. /boggle

If they (SOE) kept them in sync, then everytime they changed the packet structure, they'd have to redefine how information was stored and retrieved from memory. Better to just redefine how the packets are assembled, than to rewrite all of your code to maintain consistency between the packets and memory offsets. At any rate, the two numbers don't coincide. However, I think it was cool of you, lildr00d, to try to contribute.