What are you hoping to do with fastman92's limit adjuster?

[AfterAll14]

6 hours ago, ut0pic said:

We just want a better streaming system and the ability to use custom ids in engineImportTXD, engineReplaceModel etc

I guess that summs up the community opinion.

[Arran]

On 10/12/2016 at 6:28 PM, qaisjp said:

Once the team has understood what the community wants, we can decide on how we want things to be implemented. If fastman92 goes through the enormous amount of effort in submitting a pull request with his limit adjuster integrated into MTA (without prior discussion), and if his implementation does not align with how we'd like things to be implemented, we will have to reject the PR. Wasting effort is not fun for all parties involved - for the team to review the code and for fastman92 to implement the limit adjuster.

Is this limit adjuster something that can have individual limit adjustments added on their own? For example the object streaming limit is one of the most requested things to increase, if this limit was increased on it's own, that would be seen as a huge update. A single change like this couldn't have any reason to disagree with either, rather than if it was part of a huge pull request that involve too many modifications.

[fastman92]

5 minutes ago, Arran said:

Is this limit adjuster something that can have individual limit adjustments added on their own? For example the object streaming limit is one of the most requested things to increase, if this limit was increased on it's own, that would be seen as a huge update. A single change like this couldn't have any reason to disagree with either, rather than if it was part of a huge pull request that involve too many modifications.

Yes.

[gustavorn]

If in a way, this does not affect the gameplay making the players having difficulty accessing because of the modification, maybe it is a step that is missing a long time.

[dugasz1]

On 2016. 12. 13. at 5:24 PM, Arran said:

the object streaming limit is one of the most requested things

@fastman92 Please if it possible don't forget about ID limit too. There are a lot of server which would be happy if this limit would be increased.
(At least here in Hungary, lot of RolePlay would use that feature.)

Edited December 15, 2016 by dugasz1

[Einheit-101]

This is less of an ID limit, it's more the fact that MTA does not offer a function to add new stuff at all even if there are free IDs. All you can do is replace, and in case of objects + collision this causes bugs which can lead to unplayability:(https://bugs.mtasa.com/view.php?id=8012)

Tho it's nothing that would be fixed with FLA 

[Captain Cody]

I have no coll issues on my amp and there are thousands of objects being replaced.

[Einheit-101]

I have only one but some players report many others and they start being annoying with only ~30 replaced objects. Maybe you have replaced most objects where players can walk on, that would explain why no one reported a stair or wall without collision because custom objects are not affected.

Object 10244 has no col for me on my server.

[Captain Cody]

I use SA objects along side custom ones.

Also 10244 is just fine for me.

[Captain Cody]

Any updates on this?

[PlatinumS]

I released a MTA version back in January of this year that was compatible with FLA. The only limit that was not resolved was the ID limit relating to the 16 bit limit(IDs couldnt be over 32767). I am currently working on a new version and with Fastmans help we were able to resolve the 16 bit limit(FLA 4.1+). Based on experience making the standard MTA code compatible with FLA was rather easy, it mostly included changing hard-coded values(addresses usually) to dynamic ones as suggested by Fastman. 

My release:

http://gtaforums.com/topic/839261-saxvcxlc-mta-compatible-build/

 

[TwisT3R]

I'd like to see this thing in MTA, it would open a lot of new things which we couldn't see until this.

Edited December 31, 2016 by TwisT3R

[ALw7sH]

Did MTA-Team come up with a conclusion yet?

[fastman92]

Edited January 16, 2017 by fastman92

[Jusonex]

We really appreciate your interest in integrating FLA in MTA, but there are a few requirements that have to be met:

• Only one MTA version (2 versions would lead to fragmentation which is not our intention). The other main problem with a "moddable" version is also that such a version would be very prone to cheating and would lead to frustration due to cheaters on the long term
• It has to be integrated in a dynamic way. That means: No MTA restarts, but changing the limits on demand via a clientside function (or something similar)
• Since FLA would require modifications for MTA anyway, I don't see a reason to load FLA via an ASI loader. Instead, it should be merged with the Game SA/Multiplayer SA module.

If you are still not deterred by these requirements and think it is affordable, we'd definitely appreciate a pull request on GitHub (and will accept it if the code quality is fine).

[fastman92]

15 hours ago, Jusonex said:

We really appreciate your interest in integrating FLA in MTA, but there are a few requirements that have to be met:

• Only one MTA version (2 versions would lead to fragmentation which is not our intention). The other main problem with a "moddable" version is also that such a version would be very prone to cheating and would lead to frustration due to cheaters on the long term
• It has to be integrated in a dynamic way. That means: No MTA restarts, but changing the limits on demand via a clientside function (or something similar)
• Since FLA would require modifications for MTA anyway, I don't see a reason to load FLA via an ASI loader. Instead, it should be merged with the Game SA/Multiplayer SA module.

If you are still not deterred by these requirements and think it is affordable, we'd definitely appreciate a pull request on GitHub (and will accept it if the code quality is fine).

Changing the limits while the game is running cannot be done, the FLA makes changes, which are irreversible: all or none.

The limit patching is an extremely complicated process.

There's a valid reason, why the limits weren't hacked before.

If you want some changes, (the FLA should do different changes according to different configuration?), obviously you need to run the game once again, with the FLA.

 

There is no nothing to agree with.

There is no better choice available.

One idea is to make a launcher a launcher where you could choose a server.
Like SA:MP
Which starts the proxy_gtasa.exe only after you click Connect
It only takes to understand the rule. How they implement it is completely their choice.
The rule is that the FLA loads and changes the executable code in some places, when GTA SA starts. 

The choice is yours.

You can complain saying that the design is still far from you'd want it to be and get stuck with it.

Or you can actually do something and make the MTA better for many.

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by fastman92

[Einheit-101]

There is no reason to run MTA with different limit adjustments. Thus, easiest way would be to max out all (necessary) limits and run MTA with this configuration instead of making things more complex than they should be.

[Captain Cody]

I agree with Einheit, make the limits maxed out by default instead of allowing servers to set their own limits; there's really no reason to have lower limits by default, if any thing it improves game play quite a bit.

[fastman92]

There's something to think of.

Certain limits need some consideration.

Like Water map size.

This limit sets the max Water map size with all the underlying consequences:

 

the outside water is normally rendered outside of -3000 to 3000 coordinates.

Anything inside depends on the water.dat.

 

When the Water map size is changed to let's say 12000, the outside water will be rendered outside of -6000 to 6000 coordinates.

Anything inside will depend on the water.dat.

Edited January 17, 2017 by fastman92

[Captain Cody]

It could be possible to just by default recreate the out side water using create water functions. And have the water map size at ~1200. (Also seabed can possibly be recreated by drawing a 3d image.

Edited January 17, 2017 by CodyL

[Simple0x47]

What's the status of this implementation?

[fastman92]

Come, let's solve this problem quickly.

The MTA team, get decided, do not wait years, it doesn't lead to anything.

 

]

Edited January 18, 2017 by fastman92

[fastman92]

I don't feel qualified enough to tell the MTA how the FLA should be implemented.
The MTA team is free to implement the FLA in any way that's possible.

 

One part the MTA team must do themselves.
Loading of the FLA.
It's the MTA team to decide how it will be made.
Without this part I can't modify the MTA.
(if I make changes, we should be able to test if game works, with the FLA running, right?)

 

Get the MTA team to decide how the FLA should be implemented, they should make a loading of the FLA at least.
Then I can change a certain MTA code to become compatible with the interesting limits.

Edited January 18, 2017 by fastman92

[Simple0x47]

The best option and the only option is to make a server browser that doesn't load GTA_SA.exe. If they won't do that I won't see FLA implemented in MTA.

[Aquiles]

Any updates?