NWNCX

[Zebranky]

When I test with the following script attached to OnModuleLoad:

[Fireboar]

Yep, my mistake, it's the other way around. Logically one might expect everything but the actual command inside the DelayCommand to be executed immediately, but they're not. Same reason can't use AssignCommand(..., ...OBJECT_SELF...).

the.gray.fox, I'm not sure what you're doing to make it not work, but for me, at least, delays OnModuleLoad work fine even using F9.

[Gryphyn]

NWScript uses a 'stack' when processing actions or commands.
This lead to some strange things right from day one. As what you thought was the first action in your script, was in fact the last one to be executed.

push - Delay(-DBG1
push - Delay(-message()

pop message() --Delay(30) @T
pop DBG1 --Delay(30) @T+

(30 later)
@T message()
@T+DBG1

[the.gray.fox]

[ShaDoOoW]

Would be possible to recognize in server script, that player uses NWCX ?
_________________
Community Patch / NWNX Patch / NWNX Files / NWNX Connect

[Baaleos]

Its possible in some ways.

I dont think that through nss it could be detected.

But UDP communication between client and server 'could' make it possible.

The Client Extender cannot actually affect anything in the Clients character while on the server, all the data and variables are stored server side, and the server side nss only really interacts with server side objects which are representive of the client himself.

In order to get the server to detect a client as having nwncx, it would require some sort of 'outside' of nwn communication method.

I believe I saw in another plugin somewhere, where it actually allowed udp communication and udp sockets to be set up on the fly more a less.

This sort of thing could be integrated into a detection system.

To detect the capabilities of the client etc.
Eg - Program nwnx (server) to send udp query to the clients ip address, on the port associated with nwncx, and if it gets reply, consider that player as having nwncx, if not, then dont.
(udp would be good, because it would be a broadcast, not requiring a tcp stable connection - meaning it wouldnt necessarily have to halt the nwnx server process.)


This sort of idea would have merit, if players are going to start having client extenders, which lets face it, grant even more accessibility and potential to modding, then it would make sense for the nwnx server to be able to detect what capabilities the client is able to experience.

Interaction, between nwnx and nwncx.


Since communications between clients and the server should only be for establishing client capabilities, it would be best if these communications were done once per player login, and then nss scripts wanting to use cx capabilities could conduct a simple check to see if the player was marked as having cx enabled.

[virusman]

I think it'd be better to hook the NWN protocol message handlers and add new message type for NWNCX communication.
_________________
In Soviet Russia, NWN plays you!

[Skywing]

The way I handle this for the NWN2 Client Extension is to transmit an Input.RunScript request to the server to run a specific server-side script with parameters that identify the CE's version and capabilities (among other data). The server communicates back to the CE with a specially formatted ClientSideMessage.TextMessage style message.

This is particularly nice for NWN2 in that the handling of the CE can then be done entirely from NWScript on the server via a GUI script entrypoint and SendMessageToPC calls to communicate back to the CE.

My recommendation would be to try and create a similar communication channel for NWN1 that invokes a server-side script rather than hardcoding all of your extension functionality in C.

I've got nearly the entire game protocol mapped out for NWN2 at this point so I may be able to provide some assistance if requested. Much of the protocol maps to NWN1, although some portions are different (particularly with respect to GameObjUpdate handling).

I've also got a fair amount of logic for dealing with the underlying message formats (both the underlying UDP reliability/transport protocol and the high level game state protocol atop that), although you most likely will only want to speak the high level protocol. That code should be 100% compatible with NWN1.

[peachykeen]

[Skywing]

[peachykeen]

[Skywing]

My recommendation is to hook the main message dispatcher (i.e. HandleServerToPlayerMessage/HandlePlayerToServerMessage), parse the message out yourself, then decide whether to send it to its original handler or silently drop it at that point (or even decide to manufacture an entirely new message to loop back through the original message processor).

This gives you a single point to hook and is fully extensible to any other message handler. It's the approach I take in the Client Extension for NWN2 for a number of cases. By avoiding surgery in a number of code places in the game code, logic for extending message functionality can be made much cleaner/simpler to maintain (and less version specific, though this is obviously not a concern for NWN1 anymore).

If you drop by #nwn2cr on irc.nwn2source.net, I could provide more details and/or share some code if you are interested (nick Skywing). My message parsing/constructing logic will handle NWN1 messages just fine, you'll just need to tell it the layout of the individual messagse. Many of those are likely to be quite simpler to my notes for NWN2 outside of GameObjUpdate.

[peachykeen]

[lordofworms]

Maybe a silly question but.....

using this system is it feasible to be able to build using all these updated plugins (nwncx) for single-player testing without messing up the original server nwnx2 dll files?

background: I run my server on a seperate machine then my build version. So I build,edit whatever on one machine then move mod to my other PC(server) and relaunch nwnx2 server...
if I am using different plugins for nwnx2....it doesnt affect the MOD itself does it? meaning I can cleanly and safely move the MOD edited with this nwnxc to my other pc running standard nwnx2?


sorry it might be obvious but I just want to know 'for sure' before I go messing things up on my own.


thank you!

[virusman]