Trying to reverse Catalog.lod

[nicolasg]

Hi, I'm working on a tool to export the data from a lod file, specifically g@migo's catalog.lod. I made my code based on the structure that is in the client (Nov). But apparently g@migo devs changed something, it's not clear to me what he changes, because most of the data is correct, does anyone know anything about it? btw, my code is something like this:

ReadInt32    // ct count

#Loop by ct count

    ReadInt32    // ct id

    ReadInt32    // ct cat

    ReadInt32    // ct price

    ReadInt32    // ct mileage

    ReadInt32    // ct flag

    ReadByte    // ct enable

    ReadBytes(ReadInt32)    // ct name/name length

    ReadBytes(ReadInt32)    // ct desc/desc length

    ReadInt32    // ct items count

    

    #Loop by ct items count

        ReadInt32    // ct item id

        ReadInt32    // ct item flag

        ReadInt32    // ct item plus

        ReadInt32    // ct item option

        ReadInt32    // ct item count

    ReadInt32    // ct icon

[Sickness]

I have previously researched all their newest structures and figured most out, I believe their catalog no longer has names/descriptions in it so I would start there. They moved to a strCatalog_*.lod file for their various regions.

 

[nicolasg]

16 hours ago, Sickness said:




I have previously researched all their newest structures and figured most out, I believe their catalog no longer has names/descriptions in it so I would start there. They moved to a strCatalog_*.lod file for their various regions.



 




Hmm, I don't know if that's really the problem, anyway 2 with the output of my program...

Notes:

1) In some packs Item 43 (Small HP Potion) is added.

2) The order of 'Elements/CT' in the differents cats are wrong.

In my opinion the error is in the IDS of the categories, it seems that they are out of order, I can't find the pattern yet, I don't know if they are displaced forwards/backwards or in some random order

[nicolasg]

After fiddling around a bit I realized that some subtypes that were present in the g@migo client were not present in mine, apparently it is possible that some items in the g@migo catalog are dummies, which simply serve to that the types and subtypes are displayed correctly...