Inventory 80 Limitations aren't real, heres why.

[saevel]

From what he's been saying unless I'm reading it wrong extra parallel storage aren't possible. They can't be accessed contiguously or even chain accessed.

You've been putting your hands over your ears and refusing to understand. Instead you just invent things and attribute that to what the other person said if you don't like what their saying. You might want to talk to a doctor about that.

Additional storage "containers" are easy to implement though each is a small ID number. Server side you can hold as many items as the server database has space, many thousands and thousands are theoretically possible. The problem is the client communicating it's desires to the server. The client must know the items actually exists and is valid before it can communicate to the server the command to equip it. To do this whenever you hit a macro the client does a quick search through your inventory, it's just a list inside memory, and pulls the item ID from whatever text you typed. If there is no item in memory with that text it considers it invalid and skips it. Once it has the ID it then sends the command to the server to equip that id into the slot id you specified. Something along the lines of "EQ 45732 12" to equip item #45632 into position 12. If that item doesn't exist inside the clients memory then it has no way to tell the server what to do.

That's the crux of the issue, the item info needs to be in memory in order for the client to manipulate it and the client only has a finite limited space for that item info, 160 to be exact. To create more they would first have to drop something in the auto-translate, reduce the number of zone ID's, reduce the number of displayable objects, ect. We're talking scrapping bytes here but with only 32MB of memory there isn't much to scrape. It doesn't load windurst's music when your in jeuno, thats a very stupid way and proves you know absolutely nothing. I loads jeuno's BGM when in jeuno, and it loads windy's BGM when in windy. In fact every different zone has a list of zone textures and resources that need indexed in memory, they don't actually need to be loaded but the client's engine needs to know they exist and where to find them if it does need them. It loads those lists whenever you zone into a different zone. Item modules OTH are different as the client must be expected to render any model on any character at any point in time, so it must keep the model list in memory at all times. At five races each model has at least five entry's.

See it's very logical why the inventory limits exist. Not some secret cover up, no it's just an engineering problem. Get rid of the PS2, or separate PS2 from PC / 360 accounts and it goes away.

[Mifaco]

I repeat: Unless a Windower dev comments here, or someone specifically explains how inventory works in a programming context with proof, this really is pointless speculation.

[Arcon]

How the in hell would the client know what to tell the server to equip? It has ZERO idea if the item's ID isn't already inside memory. You have your current inventory and whatever the last "storage" container you opened inside memory, a total of 160 entries. You client can not reference more then 160 items at once, don't know how to make that anymore clear.

I can't say how exactly the PS2 handles it, but for PC this definitely isn't true. All items are in memory, at all times. I'm somewhat sure this applies to the PS2 as well.

There's two different types of item data. One is storage data, largely invisible to the player. This containts stuff like the item ID and certain item flags (whether or not it's rare, exclusive, equippable, auctionable, sellable, tradeable, augmentable, which jobs/races/levels can equip it, which slot it goes in, which skill it corresponds to, etc.). The other data is display data, which contains the item name, image and a description text, as well as all the previous information. Thus displaying an item costs a lot more than storing the item. All items can be stored in memory very easily, even 480 items (all item locations maxed out) wouldn't cost much more space than displaying only a few items.

I do still want to know more about how they're getting around the limitation. Since they made that statement it questions the limits that they say are there.

Where and when did they say then?

I repeat: Unless a Windower dev comments here, or someone specifically explains how inventory works in a programming context with proof, this really is pointless speculation.

Repeat all you want, it's still wrong. This thread is pointless for an entirely different reason.

[CapriciousOne]

SE says that the reason is that it would take forever to farm 99 of some items so that you could list on the AH. Which imo is a great reason to start just allowing people to list items in whatever quantity they want and allowing buyers to purchase in whatever quantity they want. However, that would probably require them to make a lot of changes to the algorithm that determines which sellers item gets purchased. All in all worth it if you ask me.

Well there isnt much of an algoritm needed to do so as i've seen on other games. There need not be an algorithm at all to determine anything at all to be honest. just put up a listing of the items, the quantitiy, and the asking price and just let us peruse the list and PICK which stack WE find reasonably priced to purchase. I dont need an algorithm to do that FOR me do you? Make the sellers compete for buyers more directly.

For example,

Light crystal 12 3600g(300/crystal)
Light crystal 36 7200g(200/crystal)

Obviously you would by the stack of 36 in pursuit of a stack of 99. And yes you would be correct it would require an overhaul of the AH in its current state to accomplish that level of efficiency. None the less would be awesome but so would being able to list more than 7 items since there are 10 slots in the ah sell list.

[CapriciousOne]

People who do not understand the underpinnings of programming should not be trying to speak with authority on this. It's a memory limit on the PS2, there is only a finite amount of memory and that memory needs to contain EVERYTHING that is needed at that moment in time. This includes animations, sound and music data, zone data, character data, npc / player data, map data along with the engine code itself. That all has to fit within a 32MB allotment, go over and you'll trigger an exception which crash's the code. To facilitate the demands of a MMO on a console with limited resources SE has hard coded limits on everything. Each line is a couple of bytes, not much really but when your looking at such tight memory limits you realize they would have to remove something else before they could extend it.

This has nothing to do with sever limitations, inventory data is so tiny and is only loaded once when you zone. Get rid of the PS2 and suddenly your memory hard limit becomes much manageable.

See for me it is this bolded state that is MY reason behind anything I've stated, and probably others as well. How many ppl are still playing this crap on an ACTUAL PS2 at this point? Do they even still manufacture those these days? Most people I know that still play this game are playing on either a PC, Xbox360, or PS3 which has way more ram and processing power then the ps2. I am one of those playing this on my PS3 that if memory serves me correctly came with like 1GB DDR3 Ram as well some other memory too and I upgraded my hard drive from the standard 2.5inch 60GB to a 2.5 inch 500GB hard drive. So for me all i'm hearing in terms of SE is a bunch of excuses to support a bunch of lazy and cheap a$$ PS2 users when PS3 are so much cheaper than the 600 I paid for mine when I got it back in 2007.

[Mirage]

1 GB RAM in a PS3? I wish.

[oliveira]

See for me it is this bolded state that is MY reason behind anything I've stated, and probably others as well. How many ppl are still playing this crap on an ACTUAL PS2 at this point? Do they even still manufacture those these days? Most people I know that still play this game are playing on either a PC, Xbox360, or PS3 which has way more ram and processing power then the ps2. I am one of those playing this on my PS3 that if memory serves me correctly came with like 1GB DDR3 Ram as well some other memory too and I upgraded my hard drive from the standard 2.5inch 60GB to a 2.5 inch 500GB hard drive. So for me all i'm hearing in terms of SE is a bunch of excuses to support a bunch of lazy and cheap a$$ PS2 users when PS3 are so much cheaper than the 600 I paid for mine when I got it back in 2007.

Sheesh all that vitriol is baseless, useless and will not cause SE to drop the PS2.
Square Enix stopped putting the blame on the PS2 and decided to fix things properly.

Every time people talk about the game problems, the PS2 is the culprit. Every single time.

[Sarick]

Sheesh all that vitriol is baseless, useless and will not cause SE to drop the PS2.
Square Enix stopped putting the blame on the PS2 and decided to fix things properly.

Every time people talk about the game problems, the PS2 is the culprit. Every single time.

People who hate the horse and buggy shouldn't complain because others use them. It's not going to make the the road crews repave the roads for highway use if they outlaw them on low traffic public roads.


Directed at PS2 haters who blame everything on old hardware.

Why do people keep doing this its because they want a 2001 game to be updated to a 2012 game and see the consoles as a threat. It's obvious that the easiest solution is get rid of consoles. Hate to break it to you people but this game is old too. You talk about people still using old PS2's yet you play a game that was created around the PS2 about the same time. You're playing something originally created 10 years ago telling people MOVE on is hypocrisy. A few of the newer systems have trouble playing this game right because it's so old. So, should those players be told they should move on because their system is too advanced?

hypocrisy at it finest.

As for them saying all our storage woes comment I think a rep starting with C said that on the FAT Chocobo topic. Makes you think doesn't it? NO I don't know the link half the people wouldn't see/accknowlege it even If I did.

[Sarick]

See for me it is this bolded state that is MY reason behind anything I've stated, and probably others as well. How many ppl are still playing this crap on an ACTUAL PS2 at this point? Do they even still manufacture those these days? Most people I know that still play this game are playing on either a PC, Xbox360, or PS3 which has way more ram and processing power then the ps2. I am one of those playing this on my PS3 that if memory serves me correctly came with like 1GB DDR3 Ram as well some other memory too and I upgraded my hard drive from the standard 2.5inch 60GB to a 2.5 inch 500GB hard drive. So for me all i'm hearing in terms of SE is a bunch of excuses to support a bunch of lazy and cheap a$$ PS2 users when PS3 are so much cheaper than the 600 I paid for mine when I got it back in 2007.

This is why people have these misconceptions is stupid post like this. The PS3 loaded FFXI has no real techical advantage memory wise over the PS2. The PS3 are either using PS2 chips, Partal emulation or full emulation of the FFXI client.

You are playing the exact same client as the PS2. Also, the PS3s with Backwards compatibility are no longer being produced. I suppose you should follow your own advice and UPDATE that outdated hardware with a spiffy new slimline model. After all, you're one of the reasons (IN YOUR OWN TERMS) SE makes excuses to support a bunch of lazy and cheap a$$ PS2 users.

Also PS3 doesn't have 1 GB of ram. It has 2 separated banks of 256MB one is fast ram the other is slower. Details aren't needed just look up the frenken specs.

[Sarick]

You might want to talk to a doctor about that.

Such anger, so much rage it tickles me. You might want to talk to a doctor about that.

Additional storage "containers" are easy to implement though each is a small ID number. Server side you can hold as many items as the server database has space, many thousands and thousands are theoretically possible.

No kidding I think you realize why I made this topic. I already made it clear why this wouldn't work in some situations but the limit isn't the PS2 short comings. It could still chain check each item or buffer them in a swap file but it'd be much slower. You tend to only think inside the box you can't possibly grasp everything if you think in such a linear manner.

That's the crux of the issue, the item info needs to be in memory in order for the client to manipulate it and the client only has a finite limited space for that item info, 160 to be exact. To create more they would first have to drop something in the auto-translate, reduce the number of zone ID's, reduce the number of displayable objects, ect. We're talking scrapping bytes here but with only 32MB of memory there isn't much to scrape.

More linear thinking.

We can still have a sach that hold more then 160 items if they are stored differently. A storage container doesn't need to be referenced full time if your simply holding items in it.

32 Megabytes Windows 95 had a requirement of 4 megabytes and it didn't even need a gigabyte to install it.

See it's very logical why the inventory limits exist. Not some secret cover up, no it's just an engineering problem. Get rid of the PS2, or separate PS2 from PC / 360 accounts and it goes away.

Are you willing to openly admit to hacking the PS2 client to backup your evidence? I've given examples to back up my reasons. You've said this. >>

Additional storage "containers" are easy to implement though each is a small ID number. Server side you can hold as many items as the server database has space, many thousands and thousands are theoretically possible.

Technically you admitted you are wrong about containers. Perhaps you realized that a few post ago. Woosh. Now you need to think outside the box and approach the limitations differently so you can bypass them. Present them differently and they won't take up the space you've been complaining about. Psst, a little secret the action house does this already.