Zlobomir

Hello, Since more and more Russians are addicted to Apex, here is a small guide: http://www.t-net.ru/dcpp.html Right, it is for DC++, but IMHO it is better than nothing and it can be reworked for our needs... P. S. 1: I kindly ask some of our Russian users to translate the topic, so it will be 100% error free and easy to be noticed. P. S. 2: Please delete the P.S.es after P.S. 1 is done. :)

@Kulmegil: So how many files you have in these 1.4TB? Even 10MB per FL is acceptable, and for sub-FLs size should be far smaller.

This is one and the same, i. e. if you add new files to a smaller share it will become your larger one, and the first "edition" will become a subset. May be more dificult for coding, but there should be some way to do that. I mean, best case is to have one BIG share with FL for most hubs, and smaller FLs for exceptions. :thumbsup:

I strongly recommend you to press Ctrl+F5, the javascript has changed.

May be Ctrl+F5... @All, please clear your cache! Worked for me.

Please provide details about your hardware and programs running.

Yes, but to be real, the FL should require a Hashindex/Hashdata? Will 5 FLs be able to use parts and references to the existing Hashindex/Hashdata, or they will require a separate couple for each FL? :thumbsup: P. S. I am having a problem with the Quote button, left to Reply. Using Firefox 2.0.

I am more concerned about the disk space these filtered lists will eat up. Will it be like 5xYourNormalList, when having 5 FLs?

When emulating DC++, better use a custom, more ordinary description in Fav Hubs>>Properties. The "No Tags" script is put by the OPs on purpose, so if you lie, lie to the end. Is SDC++ allowed on this hub? If ALL segment-downloading clients are banned, you may try to convince not only the OPs, but also the majority of the users. Even for a larger hub it wouldn't be hard, if the ones alredy persuaded continue your mission. And when more and more of the users see the advantages of Apex DC++ and segment downloading, the OPs will not have much of a choice. :)

This has been discussed, and yes, it may be possible with ADC, but for now it's not very easy to implement.

No, I believe it may be alive, somewhere in the developer's minds. They just don't like to give empty hopes. :)

For this reason I said "crappy". You better avoid using both clients in one and the same hub simultaneously. If you want to completely solve the problem, ask your ISP for a second IP for the second client, but that is just ridiculous.

OK, in next version I meant. :fear: :)

Hmmm, I just can't agree so easy with this. THEY ARE THE LEECHERS. THEY SHOULD GO AWAY FROM DIRECT CONNECT. WHY (the hell) WE SHOULD TOLERATE THEM? And the argument for OP clients doesn't count much, since OPs should care for filelist more, and they can't get it from us now. Note: I do not have any problem with this at all, so I'm pretty sure I am fair and impartial. P. S. Lee, I am seeing the calm down advice, but there is too much text to rewrite in Sentence Case. Please read accordingly. :)

But actually first you removed (changed) something from (in) the client, and for this reason Strong DC++ 2.0 is incompatible with oDC, right? Hubowners did not do anything. @Ð.Sp!dér - The crappy "fix" is to run some secondary oDC compatible client for downloading from oDC. The only shortage is the twin hashing and place for hash data.

i. e., it will not be present in 0.4.0 and all will be OK.

Most likely this particular hub is (temporarily) offline. If you can not connect to any hub, or you get the text in random intervals, your internet connection times out.

I see what you mean, it was even discussed. Probably it can be made *Test* = Test and **Test** or * *Test* * = *Test* . And similarly for Italic and Underline. But since our devs are very busy with many other features, it's not wise to give any terms for this...

Same here, although we receive just one month free, and in case of slow speed we can freely report, ask or quarrel. They do not care what we do, as long as we pay. :)

Hey, in NMDC now I guess that we can with 99% exactness distinguish users by NickIP[Description]ExactShareSize... And even e-mail, etc... It's not very likely all these to be the same, yet if they are it should be one user with 2 clients/instances (who IMHO can be treated as one user)

Hmmm, is there some exceptioninfo.txt in Apex install directory?

What is the client at the opposite side, or it is some emulation? Have you spoken with the user?

Nice idea, but won't it be in conflict with slot number in setting general settings? Or you mean the number in GS to be some top limit, which to be distributed with "per hub" settings?

IS it possible to make 2-3 staged test? I mean, if http://connect.majestyc.net/ fails, the checker turns to other site, if negative again, to third one, and then to report "TCP failed"?

Right, it is not worth the trouble. On a sidenote, ipsend is a command letting you to message someone only knowing his/her IP, via DOS Prompt. Format should be like: C:\Blabla\>ipsend Hello x.x.x.x , but I can't make it work. So if smo can, please share your experience. Smth like http://www.worldminer.com/ipmessage.htm , but not for such nasty purposes.