Phantomboy wrote:Wouldn't the field that deals dev mode likely have the option defaulted to zero? I think that doesn't narrow down the option that much, however wouldn't testing every variable that is set to zero to one eventually we would find it. It feels like the long way but perhaps it would work..
That sounds reasonable theoretically, and you could be right - but if you're wrong, they'll have dug through an extensive amount of code (I imagine lots of things are defaulted at 0) and gained nothing from it. The (probable) truth is that there are (probably) so many values beaming through with the same numeric value that it would be almost the same if they tested every value, which just brings us back to square one.
I don't really know a whole lot about code, but from what I do know I can safely deduce that guesswork isn't going to help the situation very much. Correct me if I'm wrong though!
boss wrote:That sounds reasonable theoretically, and you could be right - but if you're wrong, they'll have dug through an extensive amount of code (I imagine lots of things are defaulted at 0) and gained nothing from it. The (probable) truth is that there are (probably) so many values beaming through with the same numeric value that it would be almost the same if they tested every value, which just brings us back to square one.
I don't really know a whole lot about code, but from what I do know I can safely deduce that guesswork isn't going to help the situation very much. Correct me if I'm wrong though!
No, that seems rather correct. I was admittedly grasping at straws with that suggestion, something I seem to do a lot. Regardless, if anyone else happens to stumble upon something or finds some bit of information that could help us crack this mystery I would be happy to help them explore it.
Sebastian Lawe wrote:That was the purpose of trying to compile a compilable dll. However, since we can't do that, there's no easy way to flip the values.
Well, according to eXoDuS it CAN be compiled... I just don't know how
Sebastian Lawe wrote:That was the purpose of trying to create a compilable dll. However, since we can't do that, there's no easy way to flip the values.
Yeah, that's why I tried searching for it with a hex editor. It seems though that you need to be logged in to have dev mode enabled, or at least that's what it looked like to me when I looked at the code and dll.
bionicnacho wrote:Well, according to eXoDuS it CAN be compiled... I just don't know how
It can't be compiled, no decompiler can decompile everything in IL. The code that can't be compiled, can't be compiled because the decompiler attempted to decompile IL code that has no reverse translation that works.
Sebastian Lawe wrote:It can't be compiled, no decompiler can decompile everything in IL. The code that can't be compiled, can't be compiled because the decompiler attempted to decompile IL code that has no reverse translation that works.
Download this file, remove the ".dev", and replace the normal .dll in your Atmosphir folder.
He says he used Reflector and a plugin called Reflexil to both decompile and then recompile the dll.
Edit: Not quite working for me yet; the loading screen is clearly running in a "developer" mode, but it complains it's missing some assets. Nin says he has to upload them.
Nin, feel free to speak up if you feel so inclined. I don't mind relaying information for you, but you're the one who's actually figuring this stuff out.
It's complicated and I'm trying to think of an easy analogy to use, but I can't think of one. But anyway none of the dlls or exes technically require Unity3d assets to run. Unity3d assets are merely compressed files holding resources like meshes, images, sound, etc.
Nin wrote:It's complicated and I'm trying to think of an easy analogy to use, but I can't think of one. But anyway none of the dlls or exes technically require Unity3d assets to run. Unity3d assets are merely compressed files holding resources like meshes, images, sound, etc.