Cheat Engine

Uzeil · Moderator Reputation: 6 Joined: 21 Oct 2006 Posts: 2411

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrripripripripripripripriprip

appalsap · Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:13 am Post subject:

Nothing wrong with being CE compatible, it was the best thing to do for people who want to convert, they could immediately reuse the scripts they made in CE in MHS and vice versa.

Labyrnth · Moderator Reputation: 10 Joined: 28 Nov 2006 Posts: 6300

L. Spiro · Cheater Reputation: 0 Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 29

To relieve people of speculation, I will explain fully.

I have been planning my own label-enabled assembler for a very long time, as I (and others) have been unhappy with a few of the quirks in the current one. Label-enabled assembly is more the standard now, and I needed it to be able to copy kernel functions to new locations (which is something I was discussing with Dark Byte over a year ago, and our discussion included label-enabled assembly).

I had many plans before ever glancing at the one in Cheat Engine 5.3, but I also realized that, as mentioned above, compatibility would be important.
So, for example, I could have had a command named Lab() to declare a label, but by simply changing the command to “Label” instead I could get the compatibility people would demand.

At no point have I gone around telling people to start using my software instead of Cheat Engine because my Auto-Assembler is compatible. People will use whatever one they like, but it is certain that people will be happier if their scripts work in both.

I am on good terms with Dark Byte and often share my resources/knowledge with him, just as well as he does with me.
We are both planning to upgrade the compatibility between our software by being able to load each other’s save files, even though neither of us has actually done it yet (or at least I haven’t yet).
We also plan a standardized format that can allow people to copy/paste stored values from MHS to Cheat Engine and vice-versa. I need to take the time to write this when I can, and it may even be used with ArtMoney if their creator agrees. This would allow copying/pasting values between all 3 software.

I have my own ideas for Auto-Assemble and plans for extra features, but I feel it is important to get as much compatibility as possible as well.
It isn’t a rip, but more of a recognition that this is a quality feature that was previously lacking in my own software, and borrowing some of the formatting (by the way I didn’t know Cheat Engine’s Auto-Assembler was text-formatted; this must be new to the next release right?) should be taken more as a tribute.

L. Spiro