Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Argelle]

Is installing DFHAck 0.34.10 r1 on top of DF 34.11 working?
I'm a week old noob at DF, and only using DFHack for stonesense.
Seems I got an error message on start and stderr.log says :

FirstCall()
Initized HOOKS!
Identifying DF version.
Loading hack\symbols.xml ... OK
Dummy symbol table entry: timed_events
Loaded 6 DF symbol tables.

[46852]

Is installing DFHAck 0.34.10 r1 on top of DF 34.11 working?
I'm a week old noob at DF, and only using DFHack for stonesense.
Seems I got an error message on start and stderr.log says :

FirstCall()
Initized HOOKS!
Identifying DF version.
Loading hack\symbols.xml ... OK
Dummy symbol table entry: timed_events
Loaded 6 DF symbol tables.

You can at least make DFHack start by replacing the following in "...\df_34_11_win\hack\symbols.xml":

<symbol-table name='v0.34.10 SDL' os-type='windows'>
        <binary-timestamp value='0x4fba073a'/>

to

<symbol-table name='v0.34.11 SDL' os-type='windows'>
        <binary-timestamp value='0x4fcc9488'/>

But as I said, that just allows it to start properly, other things may not function. At least prospect-command doesn't work, it doesn't find the map even if DF is running.

[Argelle]

But as I said, that just allows it to start properly, other things may not function. At least prospect-command doesn't work, it doesn't find the map even if DF is running.

Thanks!
What would be enough for me, as I only use it for stonesense

[46852]

But as I said, that just allows it to start properly, other things may not function. At least prospect-command doesn't work, it doesn't find the map even if DF is running.

Thanks!
What would be enough for me, as I only use it for stonesense

I wouldn't bet on StoneSense working either, but give it a try

[Argelle]

You're - sadly -  right
It went up to opening stonesense welcome screen, but never goes further (loading the game running into a 3D view).

[Rose]

Is installing DFHAck 0.34.10 r1 on top of DF 34.11 working?
I'm a week old noob at DF, and only using DFHack for stonesense.
Seems I got an error message on start and stderr.log says :

FirstCall()
Initized HOOKS!
Identifying DF version.
Loading hack\symbols.xml ... OK
Dummy symbol table entry: timed_events
Loaded 6 DF symbol tables.

You can at least make DFHack start by replacing the following in "...\df_34_11_win\hack\symbols.xml":

<symbol-table name='v0.34.10 SDL' os-type='windows'>
        <binary-timestamp value='0x4fba073a'/>

to

<symbol-table name='v0.34.11 SDL' os-type='windows'>
        <binary-timestamp value='0x4fcc9488'/>

But as I said, that just allows it to start properly, other things may not function. At least prospect-command doesn't work, it doesn't find the map even if DF is running.

Doing this has a very high chance of destroying your everything, and a zero chance of making anything work at all.

[Quietust]

You can at least make DFHack start by replacing the following in "...\df_34_11_win\hack\symbols.xml":

<symbol-table name='v0.34.10 SDL' os-type='windows'>
        <binary-timestamp value='0x4fba073a'/>

to

<symbol-table name='v0.34.11 SDL' os-type='windows'>
        <binary-timestamp value='0x4fcc9488'/>

But as I said, that just allows it to start properly, other things may not function. At least prospect-command doesn't work, it doesn't find the map even if DF is running.

This is the WRONG thing to do, and it is absolutely TERRIBLE advice! Editing the XML file in that manner will make DFHack try to use the v0.34.10 offsets with v0.34.11, which, in this case, will simply cause Dwarf Fortress to crash whenever you try to do anything with DFHack.

If the current version is not defined in symbols.xml, DFHack pops up a warning message and exits - this is expected behavior, and it's there to prevent it from screwing up your game.

[slink]

The DFHack binary-timestamp seems to be the same as the checksum in DT.  That's a start.

[ag]

Just everybody quit doing pointless things, grab this file, erase all os-type='darwin' symbol tables at the end, and be happy:

https://raw.github.com/angavrilov/df-structures/master/symbols.xml

[Rose]

Not really a start at all. All that does it lets DFhack know that this is, indeed, some version of DF.

It doesn't actually tell it where anything is that it needs, which will result in it poking around the wrong places and breaking things.

[Quietust]

Not really a start at all. All that does it lets DFhack know that this is, indeed, some version of DF.

It doesn't actually tell it where anything is that it needs, which will result in it poking around the wrong places and breaking things.

No, it's even worse - it tells DFHack that things are located at addresses where they aren't, which is what will cause it to break things.

Just adding "<symbol-table name='v0.34.11 SDL' os-type='windows'> <binary-timestamp value='0x4fcc9488'/> </symbol-table>" would have accomplished this "fix" much more cleanly - it'd make it stop complaining about unknown versions, and the absence of any defined addresses would have just caused all plugins to fail to do anything (or crash as a result of trying to access null pointers).

[slink]

Not really a start at all. All that does it lets DFhack know that this is, indeed, some version of DF.

It doesn't actually tell it where anything is that it needs, which will result in it poking around the wrong places and breaking things.

No, it's even worse - it tells DFHack that things are located at addresses where they aren't, which is what will cause it to break things.

Just adding "<symbol-table name='v0.34.11 SDL' os-type='windows'> <binary-timestamp value='0x4fcc9488'/> </symbol-table>" would have accomplished this "fix" much more cleanly - it'd make it stop complaining about unknown versions, and the absence of any defined addresses would have just caused all plugins to fail to do anything (or crash as a result of trying to access null pointers).

Well excuse me for contributing information, starting at the beginning.  Jerks.

Edit: If you really want to demonstrate how superior you are, post a working copy.  I've posted a working ini for one version of DT.  I didn't go around saying anyone else was doing worse than nothing for trying to work it out for themselves.

[ab9rf]

Well excuse me for contributing information, starting at the beginning.  Jerks.

Edit: If you really want to demonstrate how superior you are, post a working copy.  I've posted a working ini for one version of DT.  I didn't go around saying anyone else was doing worse than nothing for trying to work it out for themselves.

The people you just called jerks are the people who are working right now on producing a working product.  And what they had to say is accurate: your suggestion will not yield a working DFHack, it'll just make it not crash immediately.  You're free, of course, to make DFHack useless for people, but don't act like that by offering instructions to make it useless, you're providing some sort of useful service.

DFHack needs a lot more information discovered from each version of DF than DwarfTherapist does, so it takes longer.  And DFHack is less tolerant of incorrect offset information than DT is.  So you'll pardon us for taking a bit longer to do the job right.

In any case, an updated symbols.xml has been available for at least the past seven hours now.  All courtesy of the very people you are being so jackassed towards.

[IamanElfCollaborator]

Is Dfusion working? Seriously, I honestly don't care what jackassery you people have been spouting, but I just want to know.

[Greiger]

Quietust and Japa are right.  bypassing safeties is not making DFhack Work.  Thats like going up to a circuit breaker and disabling the tripping mechanism so that your power works.

I'm not a coder, but even I know that using those methods to get DFhack 'working' will do nothing in the best case, outright crash DF in the second best case, or corrupt data and by extension saves in the worst case.  Telling DFhack to use the previous version of DF's offsets is completely un-advisable and borderline stupid. 

Some versions are similar enough for the only difference in versions is a checksum.  If this was one of those versions DFHack would already be updated.  Don't post a modification that will break stuff, and call the people actually trying to update it jerks.

EDIT: Hmm, seems Slink is not actually the one posting the bypasses.  Sorry for the confusion, but the folks who this is aimed at know who they are.