Has Arta stated that this is the new official BnetDocs? Until he officially says that, you should stop advertising it as official, and from what I've seen, he hasn't.

[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=17003.msg172239#msg172239 date=1188759205]
Has Arta stated that this is the new official BnetDocs? Until he officially says that, you should stop advertising it as official, and from what I've seen, he hasn't.
[/quote]

[quote]official

adjective
1. having official authority or sanction; "official permission"; "an official representative" [ant: unofficial]
2. of or relating to an office; "official privileges"
3. verified officially; "the election returns are now official"
4. conforming to set usage, procedure, or discipline; "in prescribed order"
5. (of a church) given official status as a national or state institution

noun
1. a worker who holds or is invested with an office
2. someone who administers the rules of a game or sport; "the golfer asked for an official who could give him a ruling"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.[/quote]

Arta does not decide which version of Battle.net Documentation website is official. Nor do I. The only person/organization that could even deign to make a particular website THE official site is Blizzard. And they have made no such move in that retrospect.

Since Arta's version of BNETDocs has been down for quite a long time, and what mirrors exist of it are extremely crippled versions, I even saw a wiki version of it, and that one didn't quite make it. The people were asking for alternatives.

Since Battle.net is copyrighted to, owned by, and operated by Blizzard:

[quote]Battle.net®
©1996 - 2002 Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. All rights reserved. Battle.net and Blizzard Entertainment are trademarks or registered trademarks of Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries.[/quote]

BNETDocs has never been, per se, authorized to be THE official BNETDocs. BNETDocs Redux has not been authorized either in that aspect. The community chooses for themselves which version they prefer. I merely offer a viable alternative. I gave full credit to Arta:

http://bnetdocs.dementedminds.net/?op=legalism
[quote]BNETDocs©, BNETDocs Redux©, The Demented Minds©
The original BNETDocs site is copyrighted to Arta. BNETDocs Redux is copyrighted to the Demented Minds, and to Don Cullen AKA Kyro.[/quote]

http://bnetdocs.dementedminds.net/?op=credits
[quote]BNETDocs: Redux software written & maintained by Don Cullen AKA Kyro.

Initial BNETDocs content compiled by Arta and Skywing.[/quote]

Any packet generator will include the following:
(Example: http://bnetdocs.dementedminds.net/?op=generatecode&gid=all&lang=vb)
[quote]' PacketID Constants for Visual Basic 6.0
' Generated by BNETDocs: Redux on September 3, 2007
' BNETDocs: Redux software written by Don Cullen AKA Kyro
' Original BNETDocs content compiled by Arta & Skywing[/quote]

EVERY page ANYONE accesses, regardless of which page the viewer is on, has a footer containing the following:

[quote]Site scripts and design copyrights reserved to Don Cullen.
Contents copyrighted to Blizzard and their parent corporation, Vivendi.
[u]Main credits for contents goes to Arta. View the rest of credits.[/u]
Demented Minds copyrights reserved to Don Cullen 2003-present.
Copyright infringements will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Please view our legal disclaimer and terms of service.[/quote]

As you can see, I went to great lengths to ensure that Arta received full credit as per due.

http://bnetdocs.dementedminds.net/?op=legalism
[quote]BNETDocs Redux is copyrighted under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License. Creative Commons License [/quote]

As you can see, the particular license BNETDocs Redux is currently using ensures two things:

1. That the content/data cannot be copied and sold for profit, thereby adhering to Blizzard's TOS.
2. That all content/data are public domain and that everybody is welcome to copy, modify, use, etc.

For more information on the license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

To summarize, what I'm saying is basically:

1. Since only Blizzard can authorize any specific version of Battle.net documentation site to be "official", and has not yet done so, there is NO official version out there. Versions exist, but they're simply versions. Whether the community prefers a specific version over another is entirely up to the community. BNETDocs is the original. That being said, it is still a version, and also obsolete. It as of now is inaccessible, has been for quite a long time. I never claimed BNETDocs Redux to be the original, BNETDocs Redux is an alternative version that intends to be around for the long haul.

2. As shown by the site's CC license, the site intends to ensure the content/data stays noncommerical and in the public domain where it belongs. In other words, the content/data belongs to the community, and it is ultimately their choice what to make of it.

If the community decides they'd rather make use of crippled copies of the original BNETDocs, hoping the original BNETDocs will eventually come back online, that's their choice. If the original BNETDocs comes back online, kudos to Arta, I'll fully support his efforts to bring it back. If he requests my assistance, I'd be more than willing to assist him. But regardless of what happens now, and in the future, BNETDocs Redux is around for the long haul, whether or not the original comes back. I also believe in excellent uptime, so there should be no downtime as I'm paying quite considerably for the services.

What I'm about to state is entirely my own belief, and not the community's; if they share in the belief, then more power to 'em. I believe the original BNETDocs project has been abandoned by the creator, that at no point in the future will the creator resurrect the project. If I'm mistaken, I would openly welcome Arta to correct me. I'd be quite happy to hear he hasn't abandoned the project, and intends on bringing it back. Until then, the original BNETDocs, in its abandonment and the website's current inaccessible state, has been rendered obsolete, and useless. What copies that exist out there are crippled in their interactiveness-- they're basically read only. No interactiveness or anything of the like whatsoever. The only other viable version that I know of is the BNETDocs wiki (not sure who it was hosted by), and that seems to be offline. If the community decides they prefer those versions over BNETDocs Redux, again, that is their choice.

To conclude, I have never at any point made the claim nor advertised that BNETDocs Redux is THE official BNETDocs, and would never aspire to make the claim, especially all the more so since there is NO official BNETDocs, and will never be unless Blizzard decides otherwise as per within their authority. Arta would not be ever able to make that claim either, not without Blizzard's explicit authorization.

I think the issue here as I see it is that you're calling your project "BnetDocs."  Now, this isn't a registered trademark as far as I'm aware, but it is generally frown upon in any online community to use the names of other well-established projects for your own projects.  It just causes confusion.  So I think it's in everyone's best interest that you change the name, or keep it if Arta says it's fine (since he came up with the name in the first place)

Spht, JoeTheOdd, I spoke to Arta via email. I hope his response will be enough to put your concerns to rest.

[quote]Don,

Thanks for your email. I appreciate you getting in touch -- sorry for
not replying to your first message; I should have found the time.

You have my support. BnetDocs isn't dead persay but I don't seem to have
found the time to deal with it, so I suppose it is in practise. [...] I
have a lot of affection for BnetDocs and I'd like to remain involved in
it, but obviously, I don't have the time to give it my all. It would be
a disservice to the community not to support someone else's efforts to
fill the void.

[...]

Do let me know your thoughts. In any event, yes, you have my
endorsement. Feel free to put Joe's mind at ease  :)

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Harry/Arta[/quote]

In response to JoeTheOdd's comment, BNETDocs Redux now has Arta's full endorsement to be a replacement for the original BNETDocs. While I stand by my belief there can be no "THE official BNETDocs" since that claim can only be made with Blizzard's approval, that's pretty much as close to "official" as BNETDocs Redux can get. Hope that satisfies your concerns.

In response to Spht's comment, since BNETDocs Redux now has Arta's full endorsement, BNETDocs Redux will not be changing its name.

In any case, I hope this puts any and all concerns to rest.  :)

The parts snipped out [...] were snipped out by me, mainly because they have to do with the surprise both Arta and I have for the BNETDev community. Arta has some very cool ideas I think you all will appreciate. Look forward to be seeing some very cool changes in BNETDocs Redux thanks to Arta.  ;)

[Edit: fixed typos]

[quote author=Don Cullen link=topic=17003.msg172265#msg172265 date=1188841500]
The parts snipped out [...] were snipped out by me, mainly because they have to do with the surprise both Arta and I have for the BNETDev community. Arta has some very cool ideas I think you all will appreciate. Look forward to be seeing some very cool changes in BNETDocs Redux thanks to Arta.  ;)
[/quote]Is it cookies?

[img]http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/2000074618272338887_rs.jpg[/img]

You calls yours BnetDocs and it says Arta administrates it...but I doubt he does.  This is confusing.

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=17003.msg172276#msg172276 date=1188851342]
You calls yours BnetDocs and it says Arta administrates it...but I doubt he does.
[/quote]

Where does it say Arta administrates the new BnetDocs? I must have missed something.

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=17003.msg172276#msg172276 date=1188851342]
You calls yours BnetDocs and it says Arta administrates it...but I doubt he does.  This is confusing.
[/quote]

He doesn't actively administrate it. He does have administrative abilities however if should he ever desire to administrate it. Arta also has stated he desires to continue his involvement, however limited it may be.

[quote author=Newby link=topic=17003.msg172277#msg172277 date=1188852088]Where does it say Arta administrates the new BnetDocs? I must have missed something.
[/quote]

He's referring to the credits. Here's link:
http://bnetdocs.dementedminds.net/?op=credits

Ahh. I see. My mistake.

EDIT -- I'm curious, I remember certain individuals speaking of "hidden" information on Arta's BnetDocs. i.e. stuff that only approved people could view. The only reason I remember this is because at a point I wanted access to it.

Doesn't this defeat the point of BnetDocs and sharing all this information with the public? Does this section exist in the new one?

[quote author=Newby link=topic=17003.msg172280#msg172280 date=1188853556]
Ahh. I see. My mistake.

EDIT -- I'm curious, I remember certain individuals speaking of "hidden" information on Arta's BnetDocs. i.e. stuff that only approved people could view. The only reason I remember this is because at a point I wanted access to it.

Doesn't this defeat the point of BnetDocs and sharing all this information with the public? Does this section exist in the new one?
[/quote]

Stuff that can harm public gaming, BotNet administration stuff, Cd Key stuff, uhh can't think of anything else in general. How many times have stuff been released and turned hazordous? i.e. floodbot source codes

CDKey stuff hasn't been publicly released?

EDIT: or do you mean generating keys, not hashing them?

I've only just noticed this post! I guess I should check the forums more often.

Anyway. I have been reticent in not getting BnetDocs back up in a timely fashion. Don has obviously put a lot of work into Redux and the fact that he has spent his time on it and given due credit places him leagues above other people who have ripped the site off as their own. It has my support. I'm looking forward to working with Don to make BnetDocs better -- something I've wanted to do for a *long* time but have lacked the time to do properly. Some of you will remember my BnetDocs v2 post and will undoubtedly get the point. I'm looking forward to working with Don to make BnetDocs better and more reliable!

With regard to "hidden" material: I have addressed this point before but I will do so again here, comprehensively, and hopefully, finally. Way back when in ye olde times of yore when BnetDocs started, there was indeed hidden material on it. Essentially, there were a couple of messages that vL members could see, but that others couldn't. Seriously: it was never more than a few, and there were no uber-juicy-secrets. This policy was in keeping with the prevailing attitude of the time: that people should figure stuff out for themselves. It was always my position that this was broadly a good idea, but that enough information should be public for people to be able to make a decent start. That was the original purpose of BnetDocs. With that in mind, I'm sure most of you will understand the reasons for keeping some things private. There was never anything there that an intelligent, determined person couldn't have figured out.

Over time, the community evolved. More people became interested in the subject. The general attitude of bot developers swayed away from reverse engineering, and toward implementing better functionality for Battle.net users. This changed seemed, and seems, natural to me, and BnetDocs' policy changed with it: the hidden material has long ago been removed, or published: removed in the case where the original contributor requested, and published otherwise. The only material that was "hidden" on BnetDocs when it went offline was material with "draft" status: that is, a collection of random odds and ends; observations that were neither reliable nor, taken alone, useful. My feeling was that documentation should be authoritative. Draft material did not meet that standard.

Seriously: no one was missing out on anything cool. This forum contains a lot more material that could be considered "draft" than BnetDocs ever did.

Anyway. As Don said: I have some ideas about where I'd like BnetDocs to go. I hope we can make them a reality.

But seriously....is it cookies?

Anyway, I really hope Redux turns out well.  I remember trying to make an updated BnetDocs once, and I remember it being a whole crapload of work.  Good work :D

"If this is indeed the will of the council... then Gondor shall see it done."
[me=Andy]signs up and gets ready to fix corrections![/me]

Speaking of which, how does one become an editor?

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17003.msg172295#msg172295 date=1188875073]
"If this is indeed the will of the council... then Gondor shall see it done."
[me=Andy]signs up and gets ready to fix corrections![/me]

Speaking of which, how does one become an editor?
[/quote]

By asking. If someone is a known contributor to the BNET Bot Development community, and they request to be an editor, usually there's no issue of making them an editor.

Speaking of which, done. Welcome to the editor team. If you have any ideas on how I can improve BNETDocs Redux for editors, I very much would welcome them.

Wootz. Expect all your "raw" packets to be correctly formatted very soon :D (and my list of corrections to be applied).

BTW. WildBlue is run by evil flip-switching monkeys.

(Edit: yes, I realize it's supposed to be switch-flipping. It's intentional.)

Edit #2: MCP packets complete. Note that I've made some changes to the original information. Said changes are:
C>S MCP_CHARCREATE - Added warning about sending ladder flags for non-ladder settings.
C>S MCP_CHARLOGON - Added warning about attempting to log on to an expansion character from D2DV.
C>S MCP_GAMELIST - Added information about the previously unknown STRING value, which turns out to be an unused (by the official client), fully functional game search system.
S>C MCP_CHARLIST and MCP_CHARLIST2 - I've removed the "Flags" field, as it's actually just the first two bytes of the character statstring (post nomen [after the name]).

Edit #3: When is the Document Editor going to work correctly?
Edit #3.5: Looks like you've got an issue here...
<form method="POST" name="quickjumpform" action="/?op=packet"> when it should be op=doc :P

Edit #4: SID_SYSTEMINFO isn't defunct!

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17003.msg172300#msg172300 date=1188890909]
Wootz. Expect all your "raw" packets to be correctly formatted very soon :D (and my list of corrections to be applied).

BTW. WildBlue is run by evil flip-switching monkeys.

(Edit: yes, I realize it's supposed to be switch-flipping. It's intentional.)

Edit #2: MCP packets complete. Note that I've made some changes to the original information. Said changes are:
C>S MCP_CHARCREATE - Added warning about sending ladder flags for non-ladder settings.
C>S MCP_CHARLOGON - Added warning about attempting to log on to an expansion character from D2DV.
C>S MCP_GAMELIST - Added information about the previously unknown STRING value, which turns out to be an unused (by the official client), fully functional game search system.
S>C MCP_CHARLIST and MCP_CHARLIST2 - I've removed the "Flags" field, as it's actually just the first two bytes of the character statstring (post nomen [after the name]).

Edit #3: When is the Document Editor going to work correctly?
Edit #3.5: Looks like you've got an issue here...
<form method="POST" name="quickjumpform" action="/?op=packet"> when it should be op=doc :P

Edit #4: SID_SYSTEMINFO isn't defunct!
[/quote]

Wow. You're certainly going into it with quite alot of gusto!

The document editor is based on the packet script, so you'll be bound to see some similar stuff in there. The document editor isn't done, but will be done today. As for SID_SYSTEMINFO -- I was going to change it from defunct to normal, but it seems you beat me it to it. :P

What can I say, I like proofreading and fixing things.

"They're taking the Hobbits to Isengard!"

Can I be an editor too? And thanks to everyone for getting this cleared up. I'm eager to see what becomes of all this when BnetDocs v2 (finally) comes to fruition.

[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=17003.msg172436#msg172436 date=1189203120]
"They're taking the Hobbits to Isengard!"

Can I be an editor too? And thanks to everyone for getting this cleared up. I'm eager to see what becomes of all this when BnetDocs v2 (finally) comes to fruition.
[/quote]

I'm assuming you're Tech-InsaneJoey. If you are, your account has been made editor. Thanks for contributing. :)

If that isn't your name, please let me ASAP what your name on BNETDocs Redux is, so I can correct it.

i noticed something missing, before arda's bnetdocs would show you the order of which you send BNCS login packets. may wish to add this as it at one time was helpful to me.

The order was incorrect in many areas. I'm working on getting a correct order listed.

i don't even remember the order lol!

The order shouldn't matter to the average bot writer, as programs should be written in a non-linear, event driven format, anyway. Meaning each packet should be looked for and responded to all the time. Otherwise, if something comes in the wrong order, your program will choke.

[quote author=-MichaeL- link=topic=17003.msg172476#msg172476 date=1189291127]
i noticed something missing, before arda's bnetdocs would show you the order of which you send BNCS login packets. may wish to add this as it at one time was helpful to me.
[/quote]

http://bnetdocs.dementedminds.net/?op=doc&did=10

There you go. While it still needs to be updated, it's there if you need it for now. Andy, hope that saves you some effort. :)

I'll add more later. Right now I'm going through all the SID packets and formatting them up a bit.

Edit: I also updated a lot of info on this page.

And I'm wondering, do we need to say "This message's official name is not known, and has been invented."?

Edit #2: Add links back in! I need to link to the GetComputerName and GetUserName APIs on MSDN for SID_CLIENTID, as well as some stuff for SID_AUTH_INFO, and I can't :(

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17003.msg172493#msg172493 date=1189300515]
I'll add more later. Right now I'm going through all the SID packets and formatting them up a bit.

Edit: I also updated a lot of info on this page.

And I'm wondering, do we need to say "This message's official name is not known, and has been invented."?

Edit #2: Add links back in! I need to link to the GetComputerName and GetUserName APIs on MSDN for SID_CLIENTID, as well as some stuff for SID_AUTH_INFO, and I can't :([/quote]

1) Looks good.

2) No, that's not needed. But if we by some means find out the official name for a packet that was assigned by Blizzard programmers, use that name as the official name. Otherwise, if the official name isn't known, go ahead and make up one. If the battle.net community disagrees with the informal name for it, they can always dispute it and we all can agree on a more appropriate name for the packet. In short, no, "This message's official name is not known, and has been invented." isn't necessary.

3) Add links back in? Is there a problem with links? Last I checked, editors could add links... Could you explain where you're having problems adding links?

[quote author=Don Cullen link=topic=17003.msg172515#msg172515 date=1189382715]
3) Add links back in? Is there a problem with links? Last I checked, editors could add links... Could you explain where you're having problems adding links?
[/quote]
I add a link, and when I save the change, the link isn't there. What else can I say?

Example: http://bnetdocs.dementedminds.net/?op=packet&pid=244

I have the URLs below the API names. The API names should be links to the given URLs. When I try to make it that way and save, it doesn't show as a link, and editing it shows no <a> tag.

[hr]

Edit:
Got a question. Some packets, such as SID_FRIENDSLIST are only officially used by STAR/SEXP/WAR3/W3XP, but work for any client. Should the 'Used By' field include only what is officially used, or what clients can use the packet?

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17003.msg172516#msg172516 date=1189383080]
[quote author=Don Cullen link=topic=17003.msg172515#msg172515 date=1189382715]
3) Add links back in? Is there a problem with links? Last I checked, editors could add links... Could you explain where you're having problems adding links?
[/quote]
I add a link, and when I save the change, the link isn't there. What else can I say?

Example: http://bnetdocs.dementedminds.net/?op=packet&pid=244

I have the URLs below the API names. The API names should be links to the given URLs. When I try to make it that way and save, it doesn't show as a link, and editing it shows no <a> tag.

[hr]

Edit:
Got a question. Some packets, such as SID_FRIENDSLIST are only officially used by STAR/SEXP/WAR3/W3XP, but work for any client. Should the 'Used By' field include only what is officially used, or what clients can use the packet?
[/quote]

1) Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Should work fine now.

2) For used by, put down officially used by. For rest of games that can use the packet, mention in remarks that it can be used by the additional games, etc, etc.

Right-o!

Edit: Just finished formatting all SID packets!

And when are you gonna make it so packets are one line each for send and receive?

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17003.msg172518#msg172518 date=1189386679]
Right-o!

Edit: Just finished formatting all SID packets!

And when are you gonna make it so packets are one line each for send and receive?
[/quote]

Your perseverance is mind-boggling and impressive! Thank you.

As for them being on one line-- well, you can see a discussion thread between me and one of the editors on that topic:

http://bnetdocs.dementedminds.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11

The issue here is: if I combine it into one line, it'd cause the side navigation menu to take up too much room horizontally. So the problem here is: do we push it horizontally or vertically? Or is there a way to avoid doing both? Especially without resorting to frames?

I still don't see what your problem with frames is. This is a perfect example of when they SHOULD be used, and you're not taking advantage of a feature designed exactly for this purpose. The width of the side is already not enough, and many of the packet names already exceed the size of the space you've alloted them.

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17003.msg172523#msg172523 date=1189395551]
I still don't see what your problem with frames is. This is a perfect example of when they SHOULD be used, and you're not taking advantage of a feature designed exactly for this purpose. The width of the side is already not enough, and many of the packet names already exceed the size of the space you've alloted them.
[/quote]

I added one more line to the dark.css file. I see you're using the dark theme, so you should be seeing the changes. Anyone else using different themes will not see the changes unless they use one of the provided pre-set themes. This is an alternative to using iframes. Go to the site, expand one of the packet groups, and you'll see what I'm talking about. I don't like the solution as it's ugly, but it'll have to do for now. Best of both worlds, basically.

As to when I'll modify it so it'll display it in that format, I'll do it after I finish the commenting script. You can see it's already on my to-do list. :)

Going through the D2GS packets real quick and de-rawing some.

I flagged these packets as research, since some fields are unknown:
0x1E D2GS_SETWORDATTR (see below)
0x1F D2GS_SETDWORDATTR (see below)
0x26 D2GS_USEBELTITEM
0x38 D2GS_NPCTRADE
0x49 D2GS_WAYPOINT
0x51 D2GS_WORLDOBJECT
0x7A D2GS_LOGONRESPONSE

Various problems/questions:
On 0x49 D2GS_WAYPOINT, what does 'Level' mean?
The 'protocol headers' document is missing.
The 'sizes and types' document is missing.
The D2GS packets are out of order by ID. :-\
On 0x1E D2GS_SETWORDATTR, is the first field supposed to be a WORD? I've marked this as research until someone fixes it.
On 0x1F D2GS_SETDWORDATTR, is the first field supposed to be a DWORD? I've marked this as research until someone fixes it.
When you click the [nobbc][+][/nobbc] next to [s]W3GS[/s] anything, you get a 404 error.

[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=17003.msg172529#msg172529 date=1189401766]
Going through the D2GS packets real quick and de-rawing some.

I flagged these packets as research, since some fields are unknown:
0x1E D2GS_SETWORDATTR (see below)
0x1F D2GS_SETDWORDATTR (see below)
0x26 D2GS_USEBELTITEM
0x38 D2GS_NPCTRADE
0x49 D2GS_WAYPOINT
0x51 D2GS_WORLDOBJECT
0x7A D2GS_LOGONRESPONSE[/quote]

Thanks.

[quote]Various problems/questions:
On 0x49 D2GS_WAYPOINT, what does 'Level' mean?[/quote]

I assume Level refers to which level the player is on? I barely even played Diablo 2, but from what I remember, there would be several levels to specific areas of the game, such as the catacombs -- they were accessed via stairs. Perhaps Level refers to something else? I'm not sure. But I agree more elaboration on that term is needed to avoid obscurity.

[quote]The 'protocol headers' document is missing.
The 'sizes and types' document is missing.[/quote]

Actually, they're not missing. They just haven't been added. You can add them yourself since you also have ability to add documents. I did not have access to the original database for the original BNETDocs, so I was forced to harvest based on the html of the mirrors of the original BNETDocs, and my code only harvested the packet data, not the documents. So as a result the documents have to be re-added manually.

http://bnetdocs.dementedminds.net/old/

You can view the original documents/packets there and compare them against the current ones if you notice missing documents/packets/data.

[quote]The D2GS packets are out of order by ID. :-\[/quote]

Ahh... Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed.

[quote]On 0x1E D2GS_SETWORDATTR, is the first field supposed to be a WORD? I've marked this as research until someone fixes it.[/quote]

No, it's supposed to be a byte. Refer to the second field, it's a WORD, as the packet alludes to.

[quote]On 0x1F D2GS_SETDWORDATTR, is the first field supposed to be a DWORD? I've marked this as research until someone fixes it.[/quote]

No, it's supposed to be a byte. Refer to the second field, it's a DWORD, as the packet alludes to.

[quote]When you click the [nobbc][+][/nobbc] next to [s]W3GS[/s] anything, you get a 404 error.[/quote]

Interesting. Do you have javascript disabled?

I don't think you understand. I don't want an IFrame, nor sidescrolling. That's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is reloading that ENTIRE list every time I view a page is a big annoyance.

My bandwidth is now maxed out, so I'm on a slowed-down connection now, at 16 KB/s MAX, and half the time my HTTP requests are lost. Loading one page on your site now takes an average of 15 seconds. As such, I won't be doing any more editing for the next month (that's how long it takes for the restriction to go away). If you used frames, it would only have to load the content, instead of EVERYTHING each time. Not only that, but you could have a vertical scroll on the packet list so you wouldn't have to scroll away from the current content to see other content. Does this sound like I'm repeating what I said earlier? I AM -.-

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17003.msg172535#msg172535 date=1189411882]
I don't think you understand. I don't want an IFrame, nor sidescrolling. That's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is reloading that ENTIRE list every time I view a page is a big annoyance.

My bandwidth is now maxed out, so I'm on a slowed-down connection now, at 16 KB/s MAX, and half the time my HTTP requests are lost. Loading one page on your site now takes an average of 15 seconds. As such, I won't be doing any more editing for the next month (that's how long it takes for the restriction to go away). If you used frames, it would only have to load the content, instead of EVERYTHING each time. Not only that, but you could have a vertical scroll on the packet list so you wouldn't have to scroll away from the current content to see other content. Does this sound like I'm repeating what I said earlier? I AM -.-
[/quote]

Your bandwidth is maxed out? What did you do to max it out? What connection are you on (cable, dial up, dsl, satellite, etc)? I'm guessing dial up since you're downloading at 16 KB/s.

Edit: maxing out your bandwidth, on a dial-up, would be very abusive of any ISP. I suggest switching to a different ISP provider that isn't restrictive. When I was on dial up (after first moving to Fremont, cable hadn't switched here yet and Comcast was taking a long-assed time to switch), I was using NetZero's $20/mo unlimited access plan. Never had a problem with bandwidth, and my sole complaint was that it was so damned slow. But then that's what I get for using dial up (56k modem). It was heaven when cable finally switched on.

It takes me about one second to load BNETDocs Redux. The site is served off a virtual dedicated server, so the site isn't local for me. Still takes about one second to load. That's on a 6 Mbps cable connection.

Ah, you're right. NoScript was blocking JavaScript, so that's fixed now that I've set it to allow. Still, you might want to give a "JavaScript Disabled" error message instead of the 404.

Tangent, but dialup runs at 56kb/s (lowercase kb), which equates to 7KB/s (uppercase KB). Personally, I use HughesNet Satellite since that's all that's offered in my area, and they have a FAP (Fair Access Policy) which limits me to 375MB per day (200MB with the default package), and after exceeding that limit, I'm restricted to about 3KB/s.

Back on topic, could you also hide the Generate Code sections when you hide the packet lists? That'd be useful.

In 0x09 SID_GETADVLISTEX, is it possible for Conditions 1 and 2 to be a DWORD, and 3 and 4 to be a QWORD, hence 2 and 4 being null? Also, what is sent for the three string fields? Since list count is a DWORD, couldn't you specify to list 0xFFFFFFFF games?

[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=17003.msg172542#msg172542 date=1189434777]
Ah, you're right. NoScript was blocking JavaScript, so that's fixed now that I've set it to allow. Still, you might want to give a "JavaScript Disabled" error message instead of the 404.[/quote]

I'm not sure why it's giving you a 404. The hyperlinks are supposed to direct to #, if clicked. In other words, nothing should happen if you click on the [ + ] link since javascript is disabled. I disabled javascript in my browser to test it, and nothing happened, which exactly is what it should be like if javascript is disabled. I'm surprised your browser attempted to actually obtain the # file on the server... :P

[quote]Tangent, but dialup runs at 56kb/s (lowercase kb), which equates to 7KB/s (uppercase KB). Personally, I use HughesNet Satellite since that's all that's offered in my area, and they have a FAP (Fair Access Policy) which limits me to 375MB per day (200MB with the default package), and after exceeding that limit, I'm restricted to about 3KB/s.[/quote]

Damn, pardon my language, but that's bullshit. I'm surprised they'd limit your bandwidth. I've downloaded over 2 gigs in one day, and Comcast didn't even smack my hand for it. Thanks for that lil' info. Good to know.

[quote]Back on topic, could you also hide the Generate Code sections when you hide the packet lists? That'd be useful.[/quote]

Hmm, I don't see why not. Will do.

[quote]In 0x09 SID_GETADVLISTEX, is it possible for Conditions 1 and 2 to be a DWORD, and 3 and 4 to be a QWORD, hence 2 and 4 being null? Also, what is sent for the three string fields? Since list count is a DWORD, couldn't you specify to list 0xFFFFFFFF games?[/quote]

I would look at the packet content now, but the server is down right now for maintenance. When I'm finished updating the server, I'll take a look at it. It'll take me about 20 minutes to finish maintenance.

The reason my ISP would limit my bandwidth is because Satellite internet is like one big huge pipe that everyone is sending their stuff through. If I'm sending too much of my stuff through the pipe, there isn't enough room for everyone else's stuff, so I need to be stopped.

EDIT -
By the way, the server is still down. What gives? :-\

[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=17003.msg172553#msg172553 date=1189443427]
The reason my ISP would limit my bandwidth is because Satellite internet is like one big huge pipe that everyone is sending their stuff through. If I'm sending too much of my stuff through the pipe, there isn't enough room for everyone else's stuff, so I need to be stopped.

EDIT -
By the way, the server is still down. What gives? :-\
[/quote]

Yea, I know how bandwidth works. I'm a web host. :P I'm just surprised they restrict that much bandwidth, most other broadband ISPs have a much higher cap on bandwidth. Perhaps their bandwidth capacity is much more limited that I had presumed.

As for the site still being down--  I finished most of the maintenance. The details of the maintenance are:

wipe server, reinstall everything (necessary because some files were missing/corrupt, preventing me from properly upgrading to php5/mysql5 -- upgrade goes fine, but plesk breaks). i just finished wiping everything, and am nearly done reinstalling.

One unfortunate consequence of doing this is the ip address of the nameservers that the site uses has changed. The end result is, it'll take about 12 to 24 hours for the nameserver ip addresses to propagate throughout the internet. The maintenance itself however is finished. I'm doing all I can to speed up the process.

[quote author=Don Cullen link=topic=17003.msg172515#msg172515 date=1189382715]
In short, no, "This message's official name is not known, and has been invented." isn't necessary.
[/quote]

Why would you remove that message? It's informative.

[quote author=Don Cullen link=topic=17003.msg172554#msg172554 date=1189446131]
One unfortunate consequence of doing this is the ip address of the nameservers that the site uses has changed. The end result is, it'll take about 12 to 24 hours for the nameserver ip addresses to propagate throughout the internet. The maintenance itself however is finished. I'm doing all I can to speed up the process.
[/quote]

[offtopic]
Many ISPs run DNS servers that cache addresses for two weeks. There's nothing preventing a DNS from caching for even longer (except that it breaks standard procedure). It's not safe to say that the IP address will propogate throughout the internet within 24 hours, although most users will see it within that time period.
[/offtopic]

Server is back up, maintenance is nearly finished, but everybody can go ahead and use Redux. Thanks for your patience. :)

If you're unable to access it, go to the command line (Windows, I'm not sure what the Linux or Mac equalivent is) and type without the quotes: "ipconfig /flushdns"

If even after that, you're still unable to access it, give it time. The ip address has to propagate to your area for it to take effect. It usually takes 12 hours or less to propagate nationally, 24 hours or less to propagate internationally.

[quote author=Camel link=topic=17003.msg172555#msg172555 date=1189447439]
[quote author=Don Cullen link=topic=17003.msg172515#msg172515 date=1189382715]
In short, no, "This message's official name is not known, and has been invented." isn't necessary.
[/quote]

Why would you remove that message? It's informative.
[/quote]

I didn't remove it. He asked if he was required to add that as a footnote. I said it wasn't required. It'd be appreciated if it was used, but it isn't mandatory. The general rule of thumb is: if the official name is already known, use it. Otherwise, invent one for reference use in the meantime until otherwise known.

If you feel it is necessary, feel free to append that footnote to the ones whose name isn't officially known.

As for those rogue servers that feel the need to break standard, nothing I can do. :P

I'm on WildBlue Satellite, which (according to my research) has the best of the FAPs, at 12 gigs every 30 days in a rolling total (whatever you use is removed from the total 30 days later). I max it out a lot. About every 15 days. It's retarded.

Anyway, how is the official name message informative? It really seems pointless to me, so I've been removing it from the packets I've edited. The names are pretty much used by everyone who uses names, and they don't really matter anyway!

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17003.msg172558#msg172558 date=1189448924]
Anyway, how is the official name message informative? It really seems pointless to me, so I've been removing it from the packets I've edited. The names are pretty much used by everyone who uses names, and they don't really matter anyway!
[/quote]

The official names could be discovered later on (IE, StarCraft II disassembly) and the unofficial names replaced.

EDIT -
One step you could take to speed up the process is to tell me the IP. :P

I doubt they'll make SC2 any easier to disassemble (and get names from), but if they do, just replace the names. Saying "this name isn't used by bnet, but any bots that use names use it" to a bunch of bot creators doesn't make sense.

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17003.msg172558#msg172558 date=1189448924]
Anyway, how is the official name message informative?
[/quote]

Are you serious!? Find a dictionary, and look up the word information, and tell me that message isn't information. Why do you insist on destroying information? If BNetDocs is supposed to be a useful reference, it's stupid not to put as much information as possible on the site, especially when the justification is that one person didn't care about it.

Also, FWIW, I doubt they'll make the same mistake that they did in the one SC patch that we got the packet names from.

...It informs you of pointless information. That's not informative -.-

BnetDocs was created with the vision of being a true documentation of Battle.net's protocol, and if you put incorrect packet names on there, you're not being true to Blizzard's protocol specification. The least we can do is state that we know we're not being true.

Anyhow, could someone resolve the address for me?

We have the numbers. The official clients apparently don't use the names anymore, so the "true" documentation technically shouldn't either.

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17003.msg172569#msg172569 date=1189458015]
We have the numbers. The official clients apparently don't use the names anymore, so the "true" documentation technically shouldn't either.
[/quote]

Having never seen their actual code, I can still say with confidence that they do. They released a patch for SC with a battle.snp with some verbose debugging information. They fixed the mistake in the following release. They use constants, which don't appear as text once compiled.

What do they appear as then? Just the numbers?

72.47.201.88 is the site ip address, but if you attempt to access it, it'll resolve to dementedminds.net... I can't access bnetdocs redux either. It's extremely annoying.

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17003.msg172572#msg172572 date=1189458957]What do they appear as then? Just the numbers?[/quote]Yes.
The reason some names are know, is because in older versions of SC/D1 there was debug info:
debug::log("Got 0x00 from [SID_ENTERCHAT]");
Shit like that. An actual string literal of the packet name was found in the compiled program.
Thats not done anymore, I assume they simple have a compiler if in there (#if debugBuild) and make sure to toggle that flag before they compile every release. (since its a compiler if, it is just overlooked in public releases)
~Hdx

bnetdocs redux is back up and online. domain resolves fine for me.

http://bnetdocs.dementedminds.net

Edit: Users now can comment on packets and documents. Editors and administrators also now have ability to delete comments. Enjoy.