13 replies to this topic

[w0qj]

My favorite mech is MAL-2P, and now MWO is nice enough to provide us with MAL-2P(S)

So how can I painlessly transfer my numerous MechLab builds from MAL-2P to MAL-2P(S)?

This does not work:
In MAL-2P:
[MechLab]>>[Loadout]>>[Export]

This does not work:
Then in MAL-2P(S)
[MechLab]>>[Loadout]>>[Import]

Again, above does not work

[Der Geisterbaer]

Try "save" and "load" instead

[Hobbles v]

Build codes are variant specific, so exporting will not work.

MAL-2P and MAL-2p (S) are considered different variants in export coding. If you build them identical and copy paste the codes there willbe only a few characters difference. But in coding that is enough to screw them up

for example my Warhammer 6D and 6D(C) codes. Builds are identical, codes are different.

A@8820C1|i^|i^|Sd|i^pg0|b?|F@|i^|i^qg0|b?|F@|b?|i^rY0|i^|F@sY0|i^|i^|F@|F@t`0u`0v>0w505050

Ao5820C1|Sd|i^|i^|i^pg0|b?|F@|i^|i^qg0|b?|F@|b?|i^rY0|i^|F@sY0|i^|i^|F@|F@t`0u`0v>0w505050

You best bet, is to suffer through it and build them manually then save the codes to a sheet somewhere for quick switching.

Edited by Hobbles v, 30 December 2021 - 01:52 PM.

[Escef]

According to MechDB, this is the build import code for a stock Mauler 2P:

A8512:f0|dbpd0|3@|1@|[O|[O|LO|LO|[<2qd0|3@|1@|[O|[O|LO|[<2r\0|`?|Y?|i^s\0|`?|Y?t\0u\0vB0wD0D0D0

According to the MWO client, this is the same for the 2P(S):

A@=120f0|dbpd0|[O|[O|LO|LO|3@|1@|[<2qd0|[O|[O|LO|3@|1@|[<2r\0|`?|Y?|i^s\0|`?|Y?t\0u\0vB0wD0D0D0

Now, given that the two builds are identical, it doesn't take much to figure out that the mech code is the first few characters. (The parts of the code that contain O and LO seem to not be order dependent in relation to the 3@|1@ section, because you can see the order of these sections transposed between the two.) After tinkering around, between MechDB and the client, it seems the mech code is the first 3 characters.

In other words, to transfer your Mauler 2P build to a Mauler 2P(S) you have to change the beginning of the code from this:

A85

To this:

A@=

I tested it myself, and it seems to work.

[knight-of-ni]

^ Good idea. I was just going to suggest that.

[Hobbles v]

Escef, on 31 December 2021 - 03:45 AM, said:

According to MechDB, this is the build import code for a stock Mauler 2P:

A8512:f0|dbpd0|3@|1@|[O|[O|LO|LO|[&lt;2qd0|3@|1@|[O|[O|LO|[&lt;2r\0|`?|Y?|i^s\0|`?|Y?t\0u\0vB0wD0D0D0

According to the MWO client, this is the same for the 2P(S):

A@=120f0|dbpd0|[O|[O|LO|LO|3@|1@|[&lt;2qd0|[O|[O|LO|3@|1@|[&lt;2r\0|`?|Y?|i^s\0|`?|Y?t\0u\0vB0wD0D0D0

Now, given that the two builds are identical, it doesn't take much to figure out that the mech code is the first few characters. (The parts of the code that contain O and LO seem to not be order dependent in relation to the 3@|1@ section, because you can see the order of these sections transposed between the two.) After tinkering around, between MechDB and the client, it seems the mech code is the first 3 characters.

In other words, to transfer your Mauler 2P build to a Mauler 2P(S) you have to change the beginning of the code from this:

A85

To this:

A@=

I tested it myself, and it seems to work.

If it worked. It shouldnt. Theres differences i the middle of the codes you posted too. Did you try it with a non stock build?

[Curccu]

Hobbles v, on 31 December 2021 - 05:07 AM, said:

If it worked. It shouldnt. Theres differences i the middle of the codes you posted too. Did you try it with a non stock build?

Yep not same code

A8512:f0|dbpd0|3@|1@|[O|[O|LO|LO|[<2qd0|3@|1@|[O|[O|LO|[<2r\0|`?|Y?|i^s\0|`?|Y?t\0u\0vB0wD0D0D0

A@=120f0|dbpd0|[O|[O|LO|LO|3@|1@|[<2qd0|[O|[O|LO|3@|1@|[<2r\0|`?|Y?|i^s\0|`?|Y?t\0u\0vB0wD0D0D0

edit: well damn actually it is it's just not in same order, but with some throwing around it's almost same




A8512:
and
A@=120
those over this is difference in code rest under this is same part


f0|dbpd0|3@|1@|[O|[O|LO|LO|[<2qd0|3@|1@|[O|[O|LO|[<2r\0|`?|Y?|i^s\0|`?|Y?t\0u\0vB0wD0D0D0

but probably still faster just open MechDB and clicketyclick the build and export to game than start comparing codes.

Edited by Curccu, 31 December 2021 - 06:00 AM.

[Escef]

Hobbles v, on 31 December 2021 - 05:07 AM, said:

If it worked. It shouldnt. Theres differences i the middle of the codes you posted too. Did you try it with a non stock build?

I did indeed try it with a non-stock build. A 2xLB20X, 6xML build. Worked perfectly. The differences in the middle are purely in the order of sections of the code, which does not appear to be order dependent. Kinda' like the difference between saying "big, red dog" and "red, big dog". One of the two is clearly preferred and considered correct, but the other still communicates the same information.

The only other significant difference I saw was in the first 6 characters, but I was able to determine that the initial 3 characters are the mech model.

There's also the odd difference between the 4th through 6th characters: 120 vs. 12:

I'm not certain if those are supposed to be part of the mech specific model code or not, but I'm guessing the zero and colon are interchangeably usable as some kind of separator tag.

If I wanted to devote a few hours to it, I'm sure I could reverse engineer the build codes. They aren't exactly complicated, just lengthy.

[Hobbles v]

Escef, on 31 December 2021 - 06:16 AM, said:

I did indeed try it with a non-stock build. A 2xLB20X, 6xML build. Worked perfectly. The differences in the middle are purely in the order of sections of the code, which does not appear to be order dependent. Kinda' like the difference between saying &quot;big, red dog&quot; and &quot;red, big dog&quot;. One of the two is clearly preferred and considered correct, but the other still communicates the same information.

The only other significant difference I saw was in the first 6 characters, but I was able to determine that the initial 3 characters are the mech model.

There's also the odd difference between the 4th through 6th characters: 120 vs. 12:

I'm not certain if those are supposed to be part of the mech specific model code or not, but I'm guessing the zero and colon are interchangeably usable as some kind of separator tag.

If I wanted to devote a few hours to it, I'm sure I could reverse engineer the build codes. They aren't exactly complicated, just lengthy.

Ah thats interesting.

My guess is the middle code would effect weapon placement. My warhammers left torso specifically put the weapons on in the order LPL, ERML, then LPL again to force the LPLs into the two slightly higher mounts.

[knight-of-ni]

Shouldn't there be API documentation that explains how to interpret the import codes? One would think this is needed for third party applications, like MechDB, to properly import and export them.

[Escef]

Hobbles v, on 31 December 2021 - 06:33 AM, said:

Ah thats interesting.

My guess is the middle code would effect weapon placement. My warhammers left torso specifically put the weapons on in the order LPL, ERML, then LPL again to force the LPLs into the two slightly higher mounts.

That's a distinct possibility, and not one I had yet considered.

knight-of-ni, on 31 December 2021 - 06:36 AM, said:

Shouldn't there be API documentation that explains how to interpret the import codes? One would think this is needed for third party applications, like MechDB, to properly import and export them.

I've not looked into it. Maybe there is? No sense in reinventing the wheel, right?

[w0qj]

I wish that we can all color-code our forum posting, especially for coding that is the same, as in the case below, for easier work collaboration
https://mwomercs.com...ng-code-xx-code

Thank you everyone for their very useful suggestions

Curccu, on 31 December 2021 - 05:50 AM, said:

Yep not same code

A8512:f0|dbpd0|3@|1@|[O|[O|LO|LO|[<2qd0|3@|1@|[O|[O|LO|[<2r\0|`?|Y?|i^s\0|`?|Y?t\0u\0vB0wD0D0D0

A@=120f0|dbpd0|[O|[O|LO|LO|3@|1@|[<2qd0|[O|[O|LO|3@|1@|[<2r\0|`?|Y?|i^s\0|`?|Y?t\0u\0vB0wD0D0D0

edit: well damn actually it is it's just not in same order, but with some throwing around it's almost same


A8512:
and
A@=120
those over this is difference in code rest under this is same part



f0|dbpd0|3@|1@|[O|[O|LO|LO|[<2qd0|3@|1@|[O|[O|LO|[<2r\0|`?|Y?|i^s\0|`?|Y?t\0u\0vB0wD0D0D0

but probably still faster just open MechDB and clicketyclick the build and export to game than start comparing codes.

Edited by w0qj, 31 December 2021 - 07:08 AM.

[knight-of-ni]

Escef, on 31 December 2021 - 06:51 AM, said:

I've not looked into it. Maybe there is? No sense in reinventing the wheel, right?

I hopped over to the MechDB discord channel and asked the question. According to K2B, the MechDB author reverse engineered the codes, so no documentation. Bummer.

For giggles, I'll ping mwo support, but I don't expect to get the answer we want to hear.

[knight-of-ni]

For those interested, I found the following documentation which describes the export format:
https://mwomercs.com...-documentation/