All Worlds Maintenance (Oct. 24)

[Judai]

Yea, I went like 1/30 or so..

[Amele]

And SE is well-known for blaming things on things like this that make no sense. Like how they say the limit of 60 inventory is due to ps2 limitations. No sense at all. I can still see /bank, /storage, /locker while I'm out xp'ing, so the only difference is whether or not I can access those items outside a mog house. Nothing at all to do with "ps2 limitations."

Not to mention AH browsing, how many Body or Feet pieces comes up in a search? Each with their own detailed info.

"Sorry , you can't browse AH due to PS2 limitations"... I have yet to see that happening

Hell, just say you don't have experience on PC programming, or that you just C&P your code from the PS2 version with small adjustments and now it's bloated beyond programmer's comprehension

eh. the 60 item limit *is* a hard limit on "inventory" because you have to be able to open it side by side in the moghouse (this is where the limit comes in) and I agree with SE's decision to make the moghouse/storage/locker the 80 and the inventory 60.

where SE is falling down here is that there's no reason they can't give us 'auxiliary' field packs, (similar to how the mog locker is an auxiliary moghouse). these could easily be up to 40 and carry loot/consumable items (if not actual armor - that probably has to stay in the inventory) or up to 80 if they just carry loot.*


*40 limit for consumables has to deal with an assumed interaction between inventory and temp item space (specifically, I believe temp items load into the same space a 'moghouse' does) so since there's 80 slots there, and 40 are reserved for temp items, that leaves another 40 to play with for auxiliary storage that could still display in the consumable item list.

[Xanthe]

And SE is well-known for blaming things on things like this that make no sense. Like how they say the limit of 60 inventory is due to ps2 limitations. No sense at all. I can still see /bank, /storage, /locker while I'm out xp'ing, so the only difference is whether or not I can access those items outside a mog house. Nothing at all to do with "ps2 limitations."

The difference though is you're only viewing cached data while you're outside of your mog house. You can't interact in any way. A static list is much less memory-intensive than a dynamic one, thus the reason they can still let you view it outside. So yeah, it actually is due to memory limitations on the ps2.

[Deftscythe]

One thing I've been wanting lately is a storage area outside of the locker/safe just for furnishings. I want to decorate my MH(after all, we'll have guests soon) but I don't want to give up safe space just for the sake of a pretty MH.

[Lokim]

And SE is well-known for blaming things on things like this that make no sense. Like how they say the limit of 60 inventory is due to ps2 limitations. No sense at all. I can still see /bank, /storage, /locker while I'm out xp'ing, so the only difference is whether or not I can access those items outside a mog house. Nothing at all to do with "ps2 limitations."

Actually, SE is well known for explaining exactly why they can't add something you desperately want due to very real limitations, and the community it well known for assuming they are lying because it isn't what we want to hear.

You can see the things you mention for two reasons: one, the data is cached and doesn't represent all the information necessary to actually make use of the stuff in your locker, storage or house. Furthermore, the memory that is used to display this information has been alloted for this task in the memory budget the devs created. Assuming that this memory is not used for other tasks when you're not looking at your locker contents (which is a mighty large assumption in an embedded programming environment) then it could, theoretically, be re-purposed as additional inventory space but only at the expense of losing the option to view your locker/safe/storage outside of your moghouse.

Whether or not you think that's worth giving up is, of course, open to debate, but it assumes that the memory used by that function is never used by anything else (which may or may not be true).

Not to mention AH browsing, how many Body or Feet pieces comes up in a search? Each with their own detailed info.

"Sorry , you can't browse AH due to PS2 limitations"... I have yet to see that happening

I swear to god, if you don't write software just stop making shit like this up. Open a memory editing program and take a look at the data that's actually sent when you browse the auction house; it looks nothing like your inventory data. Furthermore, and this is what nobody seems to get, there is a section of memory reserved for browsing the auction house and it can't just be over-written with your inventory data.

It's possible that this is what people don't understand: your inventory is always in memory even when you don't have it open. This is what allows Taj's LightLuggage program to sort and stack your stuff automatically. It's also what allows you to swap equipment pieces and use items via macros. To add more inventory means that they would have to permanently allocate additional memory to this task, memory that (according to the devs) is not available on the PS2. QED.

[Xanthe]

Awesome rebuttal

And there's the extended version of my explanation. Thanks Lok. :D

[Amele]

Assuming that this memory is not used for other tasks when you're not looking at your locker contents (which is a mighty large assumption in an embedded programming environment)

ps2 isn't really an embedded platform, it's just a dedicated PC. (with weak components sure)

then it could, theoretically, be re-purposed as additional inventory space but only at the expense of losing the option to view your locker/safe/storage outside of your moghouse.

nonsense, it just wouldn't be accessible simultaneously. this is hardly a problem as long as people are ok with leaving all their active gear in their inventory.

To add more inventory means that they would have to permanently allocate additional memory to this task, memory that (according to the devs) is not available on the PS2. QED.

which is why I recommended making it auxiliary storage similar to the moglocker.

[Whatinthe]

Actually, SE is well known for explaining exactly why they can't add something you desperately want due to very real limitations, and the community it well known for assuming they are lying because it isn't what we want to hear.

Furthermore, the memory that is used to display this information has been alloted for this task in the memory budget the devs created. Assuming that this memory is not used for other tasks when you're not looking at your locker contents (which is a mighty large assumption in an embedded programming environment) then it could, theoretically, be re-purposed as additional inventory space but only at the expense of losing the option to view your locker/safe/storage outside of your moghouse.

To add more inventory means that they would have to permanently allocate additional memory to this task, memory that (according to the devs) is not available on the PS2. QED.

And if you look at the memory layout of FFXiMain.dll, you'll note there's a lot of duplications. Way too many to be explained away by "memory budgeting". If SE truly wanted to give us more inventory space, they could give up the 4th or 5th copy of "own char's pos" (16 bytes right there) or cut out some "pointer to near objects based on apparent distance" that occupies a good 80 bytes or so which is there for god knows what reason. Probably could cut out one of the modelpos (different from charpos) data, or at least optimize it enough to not require a callback addy in the linked list.

Hint: You know the gobbie bag limit is enforced by the client, and not by the server? At least until a zone change, that is.

[Ragns]

[Lokim]

ps2 isn't really an embedded platform, it's just a dedicated PC. (with weak components sure)

That's only barely true, especially with regards to the PS2. Developing for last-gen consoles resembles embedded development for a couple reasons: you're working relatively close to the metal (as compared to PC development) because the hardware is non-standard and because the significantly restricted memory requires you to be a lot more careful with what you're doing. If you want to say it's like programming a PC in the days of old, fine. I figured modern embedded development was just as acceptable a comparison.

nonsense, it just wouldn't be accessible simultaneously. this is hardly a problem as long as people are ok with leaving all their active gear in their inventory.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Your inventory never leaves memory, so of course it would be accessible simultaneously. At no point is your inventory ever not accessible (aside from zoning and things of that nature, anyway). Besides, what would be the point in adding a ton of non-macro-accessible inventory space? I don't think most people would care about being able to carry around a ton of stuff they can't swap automatically, especially in this day of windower macros.

Making the new inventory in a way that isn't macro usable isn't going to satisfy 90% of the playerbase, which is probably why they haven't bothered.

And if you look at the memory layout of FFXiMain.dll, you'll note there's a lot of duplications. Way too many to be explained away by "memory budgeting".

You misunderstand what the term "memory budget" actually means. Though it theoretically implies that you're carefully allocating what goes where (and in the best practice, you are!) that is often not the case. A memory budget just means that you've got a specific amount of memory allocated for specific tasks and you can't just go switching it around without potentially breaking dozens of unrelated systems.

In any case, I agree with you: I have looked at the process space and there's almost certainly a ton of stuff that could be optimized out and improved to make room for more inventory. My point is simply that the available memory on the PS2 is maxed out by what they're doing now, and more likely than not SE is not willing to take the risk of doing major code re-writes at this stage in FFXI's life. To redo the core memory system like you're suggesting would be a massive project that I doubt they're willing to undertake (and their comments seem to indicate they won't). Whether it's needed or not all of that information is actually used at some point in the program, and thus removing it will mean changing the way all of those functions are handled.

Hint: You know the gobbie bag limit is enforced by the client, and not by the server? At least until a zone change, that is.

The memory limitation is client-side (the PS2) and not server side, so I'm not sure what your point is here. Unless you're making a statement about the ridiculousness of not checking things like that on the server end, in which case we agree that it's a good way to allow exploits but it really doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.

Awesome image.

Well played, sir.

[Amele]

ps2 isn't really an embedded platform, it's just a dedicated PC. (with weak components sure)

That's only barely true, especially with regards to the PS2. Developing for last-gen consoles resembles embedded development for a couple reasons: you're working relatively close to the metal (as compared to PC development) because the hardware is non-standard and because the significantly restricted memory requires you to be a lot more careful with what you're doing. If you want to say it's like programming a PC in the days of old, fine. I figured modern embedded development was just as acceptable a comparison.

fair enough; I work with embedded applications all the time in my job (I'm in Controls Engineering at Trane Commercial) and compared to what we're doing here, a ps2 is a luxury platform (it has a standard HAL! and real RAM!) etc.

but yeah. it is closer to large scale embedded than a modern vista/xp platform. the kit is better than a typical embedded device though.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Your inventory never leaves memory, so of course it would be accessible simultaneously. At no point is your inventory ever not accessible (aside from zoning and things of that nature, anyway). Besides, what would be the point in adding a ton of non-macro-accessible inventory space? I don't think most people would care about being able to carry around a ton of stuff they can't swap automatically, especially in this day of windower macros.

Making the new inventory in a way that isn't macro usable isn't going to satisfy 90% of the playerbase, which is probably why they haven't bothered.

I was proposing a second storage area that isn't always in memory and is only accessible in the field (like a mobile mog locker basically) - which would suck in the sense that you wouldn't be able to use gear directly out of it. but honestly - how often are you really switching 60+ pieces of gear all the time? you don't need the accuracy stuff in your inventory if you're meriting on non mamool but if you end up going to a mamool camp you'll want it, so move it in. only need the zerg gear for the actual DL fight; so move it in. etc.

otherwise I largely agree with you. they can't actually expand inventory without significantly refactoring the memory map...

but I'd take space period if I couldn't get real inventory.

[Rocl]

Wajoam Woodlands? Nashmau? Batallia Downs, Port Bastok, and Ru'Lude Gardens going down for maint? wtf lol >_>

Anyone having issues entering these areas? How'd they mess them up

[Rocl]

BAHAMUT GOING DOWN IN THIRTY MINUTE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Lujei]

BAHAMUT GOING DOWN IN THIRTY MINUTE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Phoenix too. Right in the middle of Beseiged.

[Not Luto]

Unicorn is still up. :<

[HAcoreRD]

All fine on Midgard atm

[Ryany]

I warped myself to a closed area by accident, got d/ced because of it, and then it wouldn't let me back on.

[bercus]

[Affected Worlds]
-Bahamut
-Shiva
-Titan
-Ramuh
-Phoenix

[Not Luto]

Bercus I'm an idiot, all this time reading your posts and never noticed we were on the same server.

[supercoco]

did they explain what was this maint for?