Page 1 of 1

Testing new Client --> Account disabled

Posted: 19 Jul 2007, 21:27
by Kaot
Hi all,

i'm testing a new Client and did connect to the Masterserver "taspringmaster.clan-sy.com" and disconnect again many Times. After some Time, the Server rejected my Connection Request with the Error Message "Connection refused". Some time after this, i was again able to build up a Connection, but now if i try to login i always get back the Error Message "Bad username/password". ;(

Is my Account deleted or is the password reseted?
Is there another Way to test the Client?
Is there a Testaccount one can use?
I don't want to create a new Testaccount every Day.

Thanks in advance.

Posted: 19 Jul 2007, 21:32
by Peet
There was a slight problem which is currently being fixed.

Posted: 19 Jul 2007, 21:32
by AF
I'm not sure what you're doing or whats happening.

By new client you mean?

- AFLobby
- Unity Lobby
- Spring Lobby
- An IRC Client (not supported)
- A web browser
- Modified tasclient
- Modified omni
- lobby bot
- php script
- one of iamacups C# test lobbies
- An autohost
- One of your own lobby projects

Also, what're you sending to the server when it does connect? And have you bothered with SERVERMSGBOX or SERVERMSG? If its a custom codebase then not implementing this message means you're erasign a vast quantity of possible error emssages.

Much more information needed.

Posted: 19 Jul 2007, 22:35
by FLOZi
Peet wrote:There was a slight problem which is currently being fixed.
Has now been fixed, but some recently created accounts were accidentally deleted. Just register your account again.

Posted: 19 Jul 2007, 22:40
by Kaot
@Peet: I recognised it, i'm again able to connect and i see again 150 Players at the Server. ;)

@AF
With "new Client" i mean my own Client. I want to test several Techniques like Multithreading and asynchronous Networking. Works good for now. It's fast and responsive and written in C++.
And i want to encapsulate the State of the Server at the Client Side in a Class , so it is possible to switch the Frontends at a Point in the Future. But thats a long Time Goal i guess. Let's see. ;)
I'm using
http://spring.clan-sy.com:8202/lobby/pr ... iption.xml
to know what and how i must send and receive Stuff.

I didn't recognise SERVERMSG for now, because i didn't implement any of the Commands that have SERVERMSG as Response, yet.

Posted: 19 Jul 2007, 22:57
by AF
SERVERMSG commands are sent for other things such as moderator sending a message, bad command formatting, or errors or certain disconnects, or kicks/mutes etc

Posted: 19 Jul 2007, 23:15
by Kaot
Ah i see, i've implemented this Command, so it is displayed noticeable now.
Thanks for the Info.

Posted: 20 Jul 2007, 01:07
by Scram80
and - for testing your own client consider downloading the lobby server and running it on your local machine?

Posted: 20 Jul 2007, 01:17
by BrainDamage
not to sound harsh, but we already have:
- AFLobby
- Unity Lobby
- Unity Lobby rewritten
- Spring Lobby
- tasclient
- Modified tasclient
- omni
- Modified omni
- one of iamacups C# test lobbies
- Kloot's lobby++
do we really need need another lobby project?

couldn't you work to improve a current 1?

may i suggest you to write code as a patch for springlobby? it's coded in c++ and it's reaching a decent level of development

just bear in mind that the webpage is temporanely down due to tecnical issues, a backup page should be up soon
EDIT: the website is back, you can find it @ http://tc.serveftp.net/trac

Posted: 21 Jul 2007, 19:22
by Kaot
not to sound harsh, but we already have
I know that but for me i only have Unity Lobby which worked
I tried AFLobby, tasclient, omni all didn't work.

The main Reason for starting this LobbyClient was to learn new Techniques , Tools and extend some like:
- C++
- Multithreading
- Asynchronous Networking
- Qt Core + GUI Library
- Signal/Slots
- CMake (Much faster and easier than Autotools which i tried before)

I needed a useful Task to play with this Stuff, so i decided to try to contribute to TA:Spring because i like this Game very much.
and - for testing your own client consider downloading the lobby server and running it on your local machine?
I need a populated Server, i guess if i install the Lobby Server at home nobody would join, isn't it?
Or is there some random Live Data optionally generated?

Posted: 21 Jul 2007, 20:34
by semi
Kaot wrote:
not to sound harsh, but we already have
I know that but for me i only have Unity Lobby which worked
I tried AFLobby, tasclient, omni all didn't work.
So did you try SpringLobby?
Kaot wrote: The main Reason for starting this LobbyClient was to learn new Techniques , Tools and extend some like:
- C++
- Multithreading
- Asynchronous Networking
- Qt Core + GUI Library
- Signal/Slots
- CMake (Much faster and easier than Autotools which i tried before)
SpringLobby indeed is much different, basically the only common thing would be C++, so it's understandable that you want to do your own. If I wanted to code something in QT, then joining a wxWidgets project would not be the first thing in my mind either.

I am curious about your claim about CMake though. My box is an athlonXP 2500+ and SpringLobby runs ./configure in 2.3 seconds and when nothing needs to be compiled, make is complete in 0.3 seconds. So what do you mean by much faster?

Posted: 22 Jul 2007, 06:48
by AF
I tried AFLobby, tasclient, omni all didn't work
I dont remember any open ended discussions involving you and a broken AFLobby Beta 2......

Posted: 22 Jul 2007, 07:20
by Peet
Gasp! Someone who didn't submit a bug report! He must be harassed! :o
</sarcasm="epic">

Posted: 22 Jul 2007, 13:50
by Kaot
I am curious about your claim about CMake though. My box is an athlonXP 2500+ and SpringLobby runs ./configure in 2.3 seconds and when nothing needs to be compiled, make is complete in 0.3 seconds. So what do you mean by much faster?
My CPU is only 1,6 GHz, and it took not only 2,3s here. I used KDevelop which created the configure Scripts, so i didn't build the configure.* Stuff myself. Perhaps this made it slower than it would be if one writes the Makefiles on his own. The make command also take longer to build all Stuff.

With CMake i write the CMakeLists.txt Files by my own and the Makefiles, that gets generated from these can be processed faster by make than with Autotools generated Files. The Linking also is faster now. It took very long before, even if only a few Files changed. If nothing needs to be compiled my CPU is finished also pretty fast. ;)