Consider Project 2002

[apio]

Originally Posted by snoopdog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I was just curious, because there is the occasional complaint about the client.

Yeah, it is one of the big reasons why P99 wouldn't switch to Trilogy Client at this point. It is a year older than the client used on P2002, and has even less options and stability, and offers even less functionality. If you think having no mousewheel scroll is bad, how about just using 1 chat window, etc. I reckon a lot of people would quit if P99 forced them to play on the Trilogy client

[Wharhog]

The client issue is that this jan 2002 client is the only one that has ever been made Mac compatible. Reverse engineering a client is much harder than doing a database revamp. Love em or hate em Secrets deserves serious props for the skill it takes to do what was done with the client we all use.

[snoopdog]

Originally Posted by apio [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, it is one of the big reasons why P99 wouldn't switch to Trilogy Client at this point. It is a year older than the client used on P2002, and has even less options and stability, and offers even less functionality. If you think having no mousewheel scroll is bad, how about just using 1 chat window, etc. I reckon a lot of people would quit if P99 forced them to play on the Trilogy client

I just cannot do it. Plus the newer clients seem to be more stable. I cannot tell you how many times the older clients crashed on me. But on the other side of the coin, the older clients do have some nice nostalgic value to them.

[Wharhog]

Yea, I just really wish we had the newer net code ....that would make things night and day

[apio]

I think there is still room for improvement on the netcode side. As for the stability of the client: It is not really intended for boxing (Sony added that functionality at a later point) so having the client run natively (in full screen mode) would probably help immensely with stability. However you would also lose the chance to tab out to do something else, and won't be able to box. I do not remember EQW at the time as being a very stable way to run EQ, it comes as no surprise this hasn't changed: WinEQ2 was released once EQ switched to the newer version of Direct X (from 8 to 9 iirc) and nobody continued development on the outdated EQW that is being used on TAK and P2002.

Just wish someone would come along who could code a more stable alternative to EQW.exe. You could include such things as FPS limiter and Customizable hotkeys, and the servers would be instantly much more accessible.

[snoopdog]

Originally Posted by apio [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think there is still room for improvement on the netcode side.

Have you guys thought about shifting gears here and either integrating in some of the EqEmu source to at least allow up to Underfoot? Or possibly full EqEmu source and use your current database?

[xate]

I actually quite enjoy the older client that TAKP (and p2002) use compared to the Titanium client others like p99 use. If somehow a new EQW container would be available, I think it would be the superior emu client hands down.

The list of pros for the older client is longer than the list of cons imo but I guess they are subjective. Among other things, theres no "WoW cam" (the mouse-scroll behind-the-shoulder camera that didn't exist in classic EQ) and zone/loading times are blazing ultra fast.

[snoopdog]

Originally Posted by xate [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I actually quite enjoy the older client that TAKP (and p2002) use compared to the Titanium client others like p99 use. If somehow a new EQW container would be available, I think it would be the superior emu client hands down.

The list of pros for the older client is longer than the list of cons imo but I guess they are subjective. Among other things, theres no "WoW cam" (the mouse-scroll behind-the-shoulder camera that didn't exist in classic EQ) and zone/loading times are blazing ultra fast.

Is that client what EqEmu used to call the 6.2 client?

[xate]

Originally Posted by apio [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just wanted to point out why there's confusion, it's 2 separate incidents

Not sure what confusion you're referring to, I was simply correcting BossThunderace's inaccurate history that Vox was "exploited" by starvald, presuming he referred to our week 2 kill, but works for our week 1 kill too.

Originally Posted by apio [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

(at the time we were the only guild capable of killing Naggy and Vox)

That's a silly thing to say on a triple boxing server about such an easy mob (unless you're the only guild on the server), but it would explain where the exploiting rumours probably started from.

[xate]

Originally Posted by snoopdog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is that client what EqEmu used to call the 6.2 client?

I don't know enough to know [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]. There's no install files for this client either, it seems like you can only acquire it in pre-installed varieties, which some folks might not like, but I guess its because its a hacked together client to run on the original sony EQmac server.