ArmA Effects

[cross 1]

KH will definitely host your signature..

without the private key i dont think it is possible for anyone to create your signature for the .pbo.

The good thing is servers are responsible for keeping the most updated signatures..

If sth bad happens you can create a new private signature, resign and put most updated info to you thread and servers update themselves.

PS..required addons approach is only needed is server missions include these items forex addon choppers, weapons etc..

[Maddmatt 1]

As Server Admins must pick the keys they want to allow on their servers anyway... I think they also can create a requireAddons section that actually requires the ArmAEffects for everyone on the server etc?

I don't know much about ArmA servers. I guess the addon should still have a signiture to make sure a modified version isn't being used.

Quote[/b] ]Anyone see anything that could be used as a cheat?

Would more likely say the oposite. I mean, atm when i use this in MP, when a tank explodes i need to wait engaging the close perimitor of the tank as the smoke blocks my view. Some when buildings are beeing destroyed. But you don't hear me complain, realisme for the win.

The only 'cheat' in effects might be the fact the smoke plumes can be seen from a huge distance (higher then the stock smoke plumes afaik)...but that isn't a direct cheat imho.

->You get my vote.

Yea. Since that doesn't give people an advantage I think it's fine.

But I have reduced the smoke trail behind manually guided missiles such as the TOW. This might make them easier to use. I know I never mentioned this before. Anybody have a problem with this? The smoke is still there, it just doesn't obstruct the view as much. I may remove this change in a signed version if people don't like it for MP. I don't think it's a big deal though. If nobody complains, I will leave it as-is.

KH will definitely host your signature..

without the private key i dont think it is possible for anyone to create your signature for the .pbo.

The good thing is servers are responsible for keeping the most updated signatures..

If sth bad happens you can create a new private signature, resign and put most updated info to you thread and servers update themselves.

PS..required addons approach is only needed is server missions include these items forex addon choppers, weapons etc..

Good to hear

[dmarkwick 261]

As Server Admins must pick the keys they want to allow on their servers anyway... I think they also can create a requireAddons section that actually requires the ArmAEffects for everyone on the server etc?

Hmm, this is of interest to me, as large smoke effects are the opposite of a cheat they hinder the player's view.

[sickboy 13]

PS..required addons approach is only needed is server missions include these items forex addon choppers, weapons etc..

As the subject was 'unfair situations created by some players NOT having certain addons (e.g. smoke) vs some players DO having them', server admins might want to force the use of certain addons, this was my point FOR actually signing all addons, as it's in the hands of the server admins to decide what's fair and unfair and how they want it on their servers

[.kju 3244]

The signature system is meant actually quite different (as far

as my understanding goes of course).

Every addon which can be used in MP should have a public

signature from the original author.

The signature should be bundled to the addon (in the download /

zipped file) itself or only be available on trusted sites (gathering

CRC sums for signatures would be a good idea IMHO to verify

the authenticity of the signature file. Maybe OFPEC would be a

good place for gathering those).

Now with the signature file every server admin can dedice

whether he wants to explizitly allow the addon/every file signed

with the given key on his server (by putting the key on his

server) or not (by not doing it).

Via server side scripting one should be able to do additional

logic on unsigned data, like "if addon name == xyz, no action,

else kick user" etc.

(onUnsignedData - params: user id, file name)

---

So from my understanding a few thoughts:

1) If an addon maker signs his xxx different addons with the

same key, they can be allowed and disallowed only as a whole.

So it seems better to have one key pair for every addon.

2) Once you update an addon, you could just use the original

private key to sign it again. However this sounds like a bad idea

to me. If you sign the addon with a new key, a server admin

could disallow (= not allow // not having the key file on the

server) outdated versions of an addon and allow only the latest

version of the addon.

3) Based on the patching topic a nice addition to the system

would be a disallowKey folder on the server, where an admin

could move the outdated keys of outdated addons.

By this one could handle any addon specificly. Otherwise for now

the system works on not putting the key file on the server and

disallow every unsigned addon or use server side scripting for

that (if its possible at all). So this idea would help to manage

outdated and unwanted _signed_ addons very much!

reference:

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Server_Side_Scripting

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Addon_Signatures

PS: We haven't done testing on this yet. So this is just

assumtion on my side based on the info available.

No guarantee on my statements though!

Sorry for any unlogical or bad thinking on my side.

PSS: Certain aspects of best cheat protection and handling is

still to be developed.

[dmarkwick 261]

Once you update an addon, you could just use the original

private key to sign it again. However this sounds like a bad idea

to me. If you sign the addon with a new key, a server admin

could disallow (= not allow // not having the key file on the

server) outdated versions of an addon and allow only the latest

version of the addon.

This sounds like a good idea and a bad idea to me

I can see how updates to some addons can vary quite a lot between versions, even causing quite dramatic differences in what each players see.

However I don't think we need a situation where rapidly developing addons constantly need to generate new keys for each new version.

I wish there were a system of key + version number perhaps. I think we need a separate thread for this topic

*edit*

Signature thread

[cross 1]

key-version combination as actually means creating multiple signatures.

create a sig as matt-effectsv1.bikey

then matt-effectv2.bikey

and servers take the first one out and use the second one or keep both if they are happy.

But this would be sig-whoring as Q said..

another pro to this is a server may not want to use some other addons from Matt.

So the best thing i guess would be to create multiple signatures like..

matt.bikey (universal)

matt-effectsv1.bikey

matt-effectsv2.bikey (latest)

matt signes all his addons with matt.bikey

matt signs relevant addon with relevant bikey.

So..matt issues 2 signatures (for his effects addon) signed by 1)matt.bikey and 2) matt-effectv2.bikey

and any server who is wlling to accept anything that might come from matt would put the "matt.bikey" (bc matt would sign all his addons with this)

or just puts the "matt-effectsv2.bikey" if wants to limit to the effects only..

[Maddmatt 1]

...

I think any mods that affect gameplay or gives players an advantage should be given a seperate key to ones that don't. If I make an addon that makes such changes, I will give it a seperate key to this mod. Right now I am trying to avoid messing with gameplay. One key should be enough for now.

Still, your idea could be useful for some mod makers. The ones that make a variety of small mods.

[-Puma- 2]

shit if ur gonna use signatures, its time to give our server admin a hint to include it in our server config. a database would be good too to check and dl singatures, without the need to browse all these threads

[Prydain 1]

Hi Madmatt, I am not sure how to use this with Chammys sound mod at the same time. Do I just place the ArmA:Effects files in the same folder as CSM?

[rowdied 44]

Yes , that's what I did and it works fine.

[cross 1]

Hi Madmatt, I am not sure how to use this with Chammys sound mod at the same time. Do I just place the ArmA:Effects files in the same folder as CSM?

This is not exactly related to Madmatt's addon.

Pls search the BI-wiki and troubleshooting for

-modfolder method

-arma\addons folder method

for using multiple addons at the same time..

[AimPoint 0]

Hi Matt

Would be possible have better smoke granade effect? the dafault one is really bad,it's the same as OFP.

love your work keep it up

[Maddmatt 1]

Hi Matt

Would be possible have better smoke granade effect? the dafault one is really bad,it's the same as OFP.

love your work keep it up

Thanks. I haven't bothered with smoke grenades yet, they don't even block AI sight anyway

Maybe I'll do something with the smoke. The AI is still gonna see you right through it though.

[Makake 0]

Hi, your FX mod is just awesome. It works now fully with 6th Sense tracers (tank muzzle flash now working). I tried to use yours with DM Smoke FX, but I don't like the smoke it uses (looks like painted in water colors, no soft transitions), so I prefer your mod alone. One question though: do you intend on putting some ground plume FX into your mod (as in DM Smoke FX's mod)? I like to see those brown rocks fly into the air when you hit the ground with a shell.

[Maddmatt 1]

One question though: do you intend on putting some ground plume FX into your mod (as in DM Smoke FX's mod)? I like to see those brown rocks fly into the air when you hit the ground with a shell.

I might do that. I've started to work slowly on the next version. Haven't got much done yet. Mostly just ideas right now. Still need to make some scripted effects.

[Maddmatt 1]

I've been working on the next update. Got a few new things in, such as what I posted in the photography thread:

Harriers shot down by shilkas over Rahmadi:

It's a new effect for aircraft that are destroyed in the air. Before they would just look burned out and fall without any effects. Now, you get what you see in the screenshot

I'll upload the new version when I've finished it, hopefully within the next few days.

[Apache-Cobra 0]

I've been working on the next update. Got a few new things in, such as what I posted in the photography thread:

Harriers shot down by shilkas over Rahmadi:

"]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums....mg]

It's a new effect for aircraft that are destroyed in the air. Before they would just look burned out and fall without any effects. Now, you get what you see in the screenshot

I'll upload the new version when I've finished it, hopefully within the next few days.

Looks great. Have you touched standard vehicle fire effects yet? *prays*

[Spy17 1]

The shot down plane looks great!

Can you make it so that the plane disappears with a big explosion when hitting the ground?

It looks so unrealistic to have these plane wrecks bouncing over the ground.

[Apache-Cobra 0]

The shot down plane looks great!

Can you make it so that the plane disappears with a big explosion when hitting the ground?

It looks so unrealistic to have these plane wrecks bouncing over the ground.

That would be pretty cool, but sounds kind of difficult to do.

[Maddmatt 1]

Looks great. Have you touched standard vehicle fire effects yet? *prays*

Maybe

Quote[/b] ]The shot down plane looks great!

Can you make it so that the plane disappears with a big explosion when hitting the ground?

It looks so unrealistic to have these plane wrecks bouncing over the ground.

Deleting units affects gameplay, I want to keep this mod visual only. Would look odd if the plane completely disappeared. Would be better to do a new wreck object to replace it with, but that would make this incompatible in MP. Best left to a bigger mod like WGL where all players + server would be required to have it.

[sickboy 13]

Wow ... Matt, excellent job once again, can't wait to see this in action!

[Spy17 1]

Quote[/b] ]Would look odd if the plane completely disappeared

Here an example what you find after a F16 crash:

)F16 crashsite

There is not a lot left...

But I understand your decision to keep up MP compatibility.

Hope BIS can do it in a patch.

(they should include some of your effects also  

[ArmaVidz 0]

That's insanely awesome dude, great work!

[Apache-Cobra 0]

Would look odd if the plane completely disappeared.

When a plane crashes, all that is left is a few parts scattered around, a crater/mound of dirt, and sometimes some fire.