-
Posts
-
-
I think you should check the video more carefully you missing something very important 😛 -
.thumb.png.b8c670f34de56a5b725691b17807071d.png)
Im responding to an anonymous account with 3 posts, almost no background, and practically zero useful information added to the discussion. On top of that, the topic title is misleading calling it "Lucera Source Code" gives a completely different impression from what is actually being presented. I didn’t say anything different. Therefore, I have no clue how his process produces the same desirable result. And here you are creating drama. Your topic title clearly says "Lucera Source Code," which is not actually the case, or at least that’s how it looked when I first clicked on it, so I don’t think I was completely off. There’s also no significant information about your process like what difficulties you faced, what tools you used, or anything else meaningful. Yet you still expect others to provide value based on what? I’m not talking about your project itself which, by the way, good job. I’m talking about the topic itself as a source of value for this forum, because right now it doesn’t really offer much in that regard. So regarding the semantics, yes, wording does matter. -
You are funny guy! 😄 😄 😄 I was working with Lucera long before “AI apps” became fashionable. This was not something I generated in one day with a prompt. It took me years of work, testing, debugging and fixing broken decompiled code. Of course a decompiled source is not the original private repository with the original comments, history and developer structure. Nobody said it is the same Git repository. But saying it is only “guesses” is also wrong. When you decompile, rebuild, fix thousands of compile/runtime issues, restore broken logic, reconnect scripts, fix bad casts, repair database calls, compile it again and run it in-game, at that point it is no longer just a guess. It becomes a working reconstructed source base! The important part is not whether it is byte-for-byte identical to the original private source. The important part is that I can now work directly inside the code, change core logic, rebuild scripts, fix bugs and continue development without being locked behind closed binaries. Does it compile? Yes. Does it run in-game? Yes. Can I modify core systems directly? Yes. Can I continue development independently? Yes. So call it reconstructed, decompiled, cleaned, restored or whatever name you prefer. The result is still the same: I have a working source environment that gives me control over the lucera2 project. And that was exactly the goal! 🙂
-
You clearly have no idea who you're talking to. I've been working in the cheat industry for years and have developed cheats for multiple games, including projects that operate at kernel level and bypass protections far more advanced than anything Lineage 2 has ever had. Compared to that, Lineage 2 is low tier and technically simple. As for the topic title, it's perfectly fine. The only thing I forgot is that this forum hasn't changed after all these years. It's still full of people who would rather argue semantics and act like experts than contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. Whether you call it reverse engineering, reconstruction, or educated guesses doesn't change the fact that the result works and achieves its purpose. Honestly, I don't think there's any reason for me to keep posting here. Most of the replies add nothing of value and only prove why many experienced developers stopped sharing their work on this forum years ago. Nobody said Lucera is a bad product. In fact, the reason people spend time decompiling it is because it is a good product and has value. What I find funny is that everyone openly acknowledges that Lucera gets decompiled, yet when someone actually discusses the technical side of it, people suddenly act like it's some impossible or mythical process. Reverse engineering software is nothing new. It has existed for decades and happens in every industry, from games to operating systems to commercial applications. Lucera is no exception. I never said Deazer is a bad developer. Quite the opposite, he's a skilled developer and Lucera is one of the most stable projects I've worked with. My only criticism is that, as a customer, you're heavily dependent on him. If he's willing to help, you'll get an answer quickly. If he's not interested in the issue or simply doesn't feel like dealing with it, then you're left to research and solve it on your own. That's not necessarily a technical problem with Lucera itself, it's just one of the downsides of relying on a closed source project where a lot depends on a single developer. From a stability standpoint, though, Lucera has always been among the best files available in my experience.
-
-
Topics
-
Recommended Posts