Runes of Magic support

May 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM

As RoM and WoW use the same development API and very similar frame construct, is there an easy and/or feasible way to port this IDE to use with RoM? Thanks!!

May 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

While I'm here...

There is technically little reason why the same basic fucntionality couldnt be used with ROM.  Yes its possible, just as it would be with RIFT and many, many others.

For active development and up to date versions see: http://www.wowwiki.com/AddOn_Studio_2010 

May 28, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Are there any plans to include other games in future releases of this tool?

May 29, 2012 at 6:58 AM
Edited May 29, 2012 at 7:04 AM

Hmmm....  I'm not affiliated with these two older versions, or their creators.  I can't speak toward any plans they may still have.  I know they are very busy and that the general circumstance reguarding the original imputus for the product has changed.

That said, I think the original intent is solid. And, I wouldn't rule out any further efforts by others in creating other systems for other environments, like other games or other Lua or similar language based runtimes. 

I do think it still serves a good purpose for everyone, in lots and lots of ways, as I'm sure that the originators and their supporters at the time had imagined.

May 29, 2012 at 7:00 AM
Edited May 29, 2012 at 7:01 AM

Feel free to file a ticket with any requests at the AoS 2010 Support Site.

May 29, 2012 at 7:39 AM
Edited May 29, 2012 at 9:03 AM

While on the subject of future plans, and support for chunks of other technologies...  There might be an issue with any future Git support, and support of other components, and possibly in the general case for everyone.

I'm not a lawyer, but someone might need to ping someone at Microsoft, who might want to ping one of several projects for Git SCC extensions, and possibly others using GPLv3 on CP, and let them know they are offering the extensions and other loadable components with stock "unamended" GPLv3 licenses.  I don't think the amended version is offered as an option in the CP drop-down, which I would hope could be easily fixed by the right set of people with the proper dilligence.  I'm being a bit vague on how this applies to Git support for AoS, but there are others who should understand where im going with this line of reason, and the possibly long thread it might pull.

So, I percieve that I'm in a pickle on this one, and have to stay away from all of them. Most dont have the resources, or time, if they were unlucky enough to get pinged or implicated in a letter from FSF. And as a further example using Git, general support for Git as compared to SVN on Windows and .Net is fairly immature. There are a few c/c++ dll projects, a port of a Java version of Git for Mono in C#, and so forth, but the ones I could find are missing critical features. So for this issue one would have to go into business of rolling Git, and not get to do the other things, as things stand now, and as I understand the GPLv3 thingy.  :)

On the other hand, it seems there is a boiler plate GPLv3 extension provided by FSF, that allows a GPLv3 module to "conveyed" wiht intent of being loaded "in the same process" for a non-GLP host.  The current commonly believed theory in the general developer community, as I understand it, is that the unamended version does not permit "conveyance" without full compliance for GPL's definition a "tightly bound" module, in a non-GPL host.  And thusly, peridoxically, prohibits "conveyance" and puts the "conveyer", which I believe also includes any entity or process doing delivery including VS, in the "dont deliver" mode for compliance.

I could be wrong about all this or fundementally misunderstand these things, but I just wanted to gently 'poke'. :)