Underworld Adventures homepage
[04:46:09] --- Sevalecan is now known as DodgeRamJet
[07:16:00] --- DodgeRamJet is now known as Sevalecan
[15:17:56] <-- Sevalecan has left IRC (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[15:17:58] --> Sevalecan has joined #uwadv
[20:30:16] --> Telemachos has joined #uwadv
[20:30:16] --- ChanServ gives channel operator status to Telemachos
[20:30:20] <Telemachos> evening
[20:32:02] <wjp> hi
[20:33:07] <Telemachos> gah, I'm not good enough at this hacking stuff ;) I'm trying to find the connection between keys and doors/locks in uw1.. but I can't seem to find the pattern :(
[20:33:49] <Telemachos> and then to think that jim and vividos decoded as much as they did.. most impressive :)
[20:34:56] <wjp> in u7 and u8 the quality fields of the key/door are used for that
[20:35:14] <wjp> (if the qualities match, the key fits in the door)
[20:37:31] <wjp> hm, how does UW determine if a door is locked?
[20:37:52] <Telemachos> ok.. well, what I *have* figured out is that 'owner' is probably used on the key to identify which locks it matches... quality is always 40 on both locks and keys (at least it's 40 on more than it should if that field were used)
[20:38:45] <Telemachos> On level 1 the 'owner' field on the key matches the 'unknown' bits on the lock for the most part.. but deeper down in the dungeon it breaks down...
[20:39:53] <wjp> do keys have the "can have owner" flag set?
[20:40:05] <Telemachos> and regarding your question: if a door links to a 'a_lock' object it's locked
[20:40:20] <wjp> any idea how that 'a_lock' object is created when the door is locked?
[20:40:34] <wjp> since I'm assuming it's then destroyed if you unlock it?
[20:41:48] <Telemachos> those doors that are locked to begin with are saved with a lock object linked to them.. and doors than can open/close with a trigger (pullchain f.ex.) .. they have a "door-trap" that have a lock object linked to them
[20:42:12] <Telemachos> that lock is used for a template if the doors hasn't got a lock (or so the uw-specs doc say)
[20:42:22] <wjp> could you re-lock a door with a key?
[20:42:34] <Telemachos> 1 sec
[20:43:11] <Telemachos> yeah, it's possible to re-lock with the key
[20:43:47] <wjp> so either the lock isn't destroyed completely when you unlock it, or the key/door-match info is stored outside of the lock?
[20:44:33] <Telemachos> hmm yes, you might be right. Assuming that a key should match the door somehow.. not the lock
[20:45:53] <Telemachos> on the other hand.. it would make much more sense to match it to the lock
[20:47:19] <wjp> but then how would relocking work?
[20:48:25] <Telemachos> then the door would have to store a link to the lock somewhere else than the link field.. or the lock object have a 'state' setting.. locked or unlocked
[20:49:03] <wjp> do you know the UW save format?
[20:49:15] <wjp> if so, could try to unlock a door and see what changes
[20:49:26] <Telemachos> for levels? Thats the same as the initial map format
[20:49:46] <Telemachos> yes, I guess I could try that.. saving while a door is locked, then while unlocked..
[20:53:47] <Telemachos> ok, the lock object survives.. a flag bit is changed.
[20:54:02] <Telemachos> so there seems to be a bit on the lock object telling its state
[20:54:20] <wjp> well, that's something :-)
[20:54:32] <wjp> so the remaining question would indeed be how a lock is matched to a key
[20:55:40] <Telemachos> yes ;) he heh
[20:56:27] <Telemachos> but it seems to me that the properties for the objects are split incorrectly so to speak.. so the solution is probably within the bits of some properties
[21:00:27] <wjp> how exactly did the key.owner/lock.unknown link break down?
[21:00:43] <wjp> and how many bits are those fields?
[21:01:46] <Telemachos> well, what I assumed was that the owner on the key was a sort of "key ID".. and the same value could be found in the "unknown" bits on the lock.. 3 bit long, that flag
[21:03:08] <Telemachos> furthermore the owner on the key object seemed to be unique for the objectID mostly (that eventually also broke down).. ie. key objectID = 0x010a always had owner = 4 etc..
[21:03:45] <wjp> 3 bits sounds a bit on the low side for a key ID
[21:03:47] <Telemachos> but throughout the levels owner will go above the range of 3 bits.. but maybe it'll match if I use the lower 3 bits of the owner field
[21:04:27] <Telemachos> yes, and even though the uw-specs states the unknown flag to be 3 bits long there are 5 unknown bits.
[21:05:27] <Telemachos> but using 4 or 5 bits, then it's doesn't match on level 1... so maybe the match is a coincidence
[21:06:30] <Telemachos> I suspect a 4 bit key ID since there are only 16 different key objects in the game
[21:07:02] <Telemachos> and each key in the game unlocks many doors typically.. so they might have been able to get away with just 16 different keys
[21:11:52] <Telemachos> hmm.. the owner flag on the key might match the lower xxx bits of the 'quantity' field actually...
[21:15:10] <Telemachos> yes, that might be it.. if I use the lower 8 bits of the quantity field on the lock and 'owner' on the key it seems to match on those setup I've written down
[21:15:39] <Telemachos> and where the max. owner on a key is 28 the max value of the lower 8 bits of quantity is also 28 exactly
[21:16:18] <wjp> which bit was the 'locked' flag on the lock, btw?
[21:23:09] <Telemachos> lower bit of the 'flags' field.. so that would be bit 12 in the first word I believe?
[21:23:43] <Telemachos> same as the 'isEnchanted' field I think
[21:31:46] <Telemachos> for the record, just use the lower 6 bits of the quantity field for the lock ID (since the owner field is only 6 bits long)
[21:39:16] <Telemachos> how's pentagram btw ?
[21:39:24] <Telemachos> playable anytime soon ? ;)
[21:39:54] <wjp> playable is hard to define :-)
[21:40:31] <Telemachos> heh.. you know, like exult is playable ;)
[21:40:38] <wjp> well, no, in that case :-)
[21:40:47] <Telemachos> how far away?
[21:41:01] <wjp> but there shouldn't be any really major obstacles anyway to getting quite far in the main plot
[21:41:23] <Telemachos> heh heh. ok, it just wont be any fun playing - that's it? ;)
[21:41:35] <wjp> (with the occasional cheating to get past some avatar-control bugs and ignoring the fact that monsters don't move :-) )
[21:41:57] <Telemachos> you know - I'm really looking forward to it.. it took a few false starts, but when I finally got into u8 I thought it was a great game..
[21:42:27] <Telemachos> and my machine is too slow for playin it emulated in dosbox and with teh xp patch..
[21:42:39] <wjp> how fast is your machine?
[21:42:51] <Telemachos> 1400 mhz, but an old athlon cpu
[21:43:11] <wjp> hm, it might just be fast enough with the dosbox dynamic core
[21:43:40] <wjp> unfortunately u8 doesn't run in the dynamic core in the current dosbox CVS
[21:43:46] <wjp> and it didn't in the last official release either
[21:43:54] <wjp> but a couple of months ago it did work :-)
[21:44:06] <Telemachos> ok, to tell the truth I haven't tried dosbox on u8.. just the patch.. but uw1 is slow in dosbox so I assumed u8 would be worse
[21:44:46] <Telemachos> argh, damnit.. another dx9 release :) they are spitting out betas faster than I can possibly test them ;)
[21:45:07] <Telemachos> and its a 350mb download each time ;)
[21:45:26] <wjp> hm, UW1 is quite playable in dosbox' dynamic core here
[21:45:35] <Telemachos> are you in the dx9 beta as well?
[21:45:51] <wjp> that sounds very windowsy
[21:46:07] <wjp> in fact, UW1 is really smooth in dosbox
[21:46:11] <Telemachos> hmm ok, maybe it's just my settings that's wrong. I just downloaded it and installed a precompiled version
[21:46:15] <wjp> last time I tried it was really slow
[21:46:33] <wjp> you really need the dynamic core though
[21:46:58] <Telemachos> hmm I though you were on windows too.. oh, no wait a sec.. it was colourless who pointed me towards a dx9 sample he did with scaling on the hardware
[21:48:09] <wjp> yay, UW2 runs smoothly too :-)
[21:48:16] <wjp> yeah, that was Colourless
[21:48:29] <Telemachos> both underword games runs smoothly with the xp patch
[21:48:38] <wjp> not in linux though :-)
[21:49:02] <Telemachos> you're on linux right?
[21:49:07] <wjp> yes
[21:50:53] <Telemachos> heh.. call me a herectic but - linux is cool and all.. I've installed and worked with it many many times.. but eventually it annoys me that the programs aren't as "smooth" as the windows counterparts ;)
[21:52:06] <wjp> using windows really annoys me currently because I miss having all the useful commandline tools around
[21:52:45] <wjp> I guess it's mostly what you're used to, though
[21:52:46] <Telemachos> heh heh
[21:53:06] <Telemachos> well, each platform has its strenghts
[21:53:38] <Telemachos> we're using linux for our internet gateway.. and for the online map-editor on the "era" project.. for stability
[21:53:53] <Telemachos> but windows for all clients that needs a graphical frontend
[21:58:05] <wjp> I should start really playing pentagram sometime soon
[21:58:17] <wjp> to see how far I can actually get :-)
[21:58:55] <wjp> last time I got to Lithos (and then stopped because I got distracted)
[22:00:23] <Telemachos> the problem with redoing games is that you ruin them IMHO
[22:00:40] <Telemachos> I don't think I could ever play and really enjoy level 1 of UW1 again ;)
[22:01:02] <wjp> heh, yeah, I've had more than enough of U7 by now too :-)
[22:01:59] <wjp> but recreating them produces many more hours of fun than playing them ever would :-)
[22:02:00] <Telemachos> it's wierd.. I've played just about all Ultima games.. I collect the original and have paid hundreds of dollars for my collection.... but I've never completet u7:BG
[22:02:38] <wjp> I actually completed SI for the first time in Exult
[22:02:50] <Telemachos> u7:SI yes.. and the expansion... but whenever I start u7:BG, the game everybody calls "king of the ultimas" I get annoyed that I have to follow those two guys all the time
[22:02:51] <wjp> (although I had got quite close to the end in the original)
[22:02:59] <Telemachos> for me SI felt less linear actually
[22:03:11] <wjp> hm, you don't really have to follow E&A
[22:03:39] <wjp> I usually go off on the tangent started by Chuckles' clue
[22:03:46] <Telemachos> maybe that's what I do wrong.. I should probably just go explore
[22:04:46] <Telemachos> but the problem is that I've played the start of u7 so often.. same thing with fallout 2.. both probably good games, but since I've played the start a number of times and got stuck it gets more boring each time..
[22:04:59] <wjp> Fallout 2 is awesome :-)
[22:05:13] <Telemachos> I've played and won fallout 1 though,,, great game ;)
[22:06:07] <wjp> hm, I wonder if I ever looked for Fallout 1/2 remakes
[22:07:10] <Telemachos> hmm but what's to remake?
[22:07:17] <Telemachos> except more platforms..
[22:07:56] <wjp> more flexibility, chance to fix UI issues, fun :-)
[22:08:35] <wjp> interplay released an editor for fallout... that should provide more than enough info to get started on it
[22:08:46] <wjp> (not that I'm seriously considering it :-) )
[22:09:25] <Telemachos> heh.. why not, one more remake ;)
[22:12:14] <wjp> there's something called IanOut, but I can't quite figure out from the homepage if it actually plays F1/F2 or just custom mods
[22:14:44] <Telemachos> What is IanOut?
[22:14:46] <Telemachos> IanOut is an emulator for Fallout1 and 2. It's a standalone engine which basically looks, feels and acts like Fallout
[22:14:52] <Telemachos> from the FAQ
[22:14:57] <wjp> yes
[22:19:19] <wjp> I should be going
[22:19:23] <wjp> g'night
[22:19:33] <Telemachos> argh, endless problems ;) that "lock is active bit" I told you about.. well, it matches those locks that has a key
[22:19:57] <wjp> hm?
[22:20:00] <Telemachos> but those doors that are locked and controlled by a pullchain.. those are flagged as "unlocked" from this flag ;)
[22:20:18] <Telemachos> oh well.. g'night ;)
[22:20:41] <wjp> so there might also be a relevant 'has key' flag?
[22:21:06] <wjp> oh, right, I was leaving ;-)
[22:21:24] <Telemachos> probably..
[22:22:28] <wjp> (my random unfounded guess would be quantity & 0x3F != 0 )
[22:22:41] <wjp> (that's how it works in U7)
[22:26:35] <Telemachos> hmm ok, quantity might have something to do with it ;)
[22:52:00] <Telemachos> again for the logs, it's me who've had too much redwine I think ;) the "lock is active" bit is of course bit 9 in the first word, not bit 12 ;)
[23:01:53] <-- Telemachos has left IRC ("Leaving")