Rogueci5 0 Posted January 17, 2008 I am playing BF2 dont ask me why maybe because there is no Australians playing on decent games this time of night LOL but I am. Any way I get TKed a couple of times by the same guy and so I swap sides, then hes hunting me down like he has Radar, so I think I will capture his butt on Video and guess what http://img525.imageshack.us/img525....MG] http://img341.imageshack.us/img341....MG] I start up an image cap program and I am then kicked, so I want to pop over and tell them, but no! you have to give your ISPs email well SHAG that, spam city, and dont say they dont. PB total CRAP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1124 Posted January 17, 2008 perfectly valid reason because same method could be used to load D3D cheat ... wanna better anticheats? ... blame MS for not implementing sort of API into DX or directly on kernel level Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sickboy 13 Posted January 17, 2008 wanna better anticheats? ... blame MS for not implementing sort of API into DX or directly on kernel level Right, let's blame MS for Everything; A billion dollar corporation who's main concern is Gaming and the silly cheating nature of mankind... What Universe did you get born in Dwarden? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1124 Posted January 17, 2008 wanna better anticheats? ... blame MS for not implementing sort of API into DX or directly on kernel level Right, let's blame MS for Everything; A billion dollar corporation who's main concern is Gaming and the silly cheating nature of mankind... What Universe did you get born in Dwarden? same universe where MS failed to bring DX10 on XP platform then cried about industry not adopting it 'enough fast' ... irony of life because of NVIDIA's driver coding result was that final DX10 is compatible with XP memory handling (original plan for final DX10 was to use Vista and onward compliant model only) same universe where MS failed to deliver physics into DX10.x API and delayed it till DX11 same universe where MS claims VISTA to be ultimate PC gaming OS and same universe where You can go and ask AC developers what would they love (answer is very close to be "part of kernel" anyway my reaction was to what original poster said that PB suck ... any widespread anticheat which detects D3D hooks, replacements etc. will complain about this at least ... most likely only VAC does nothing because they got huge whitelist (which may be abused backward too) ofc he can always blame EvenBalance Inc. for not 'whitelisting' GameRecorder but then question remain why not also blame ZDsoft for inferior code (unable get around PB) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sickboy 13 Posted January 17, 2008 I wasn't aware that this was the Microsoft's Failures list thread. What I meant was that Microsoft isn't responsible for cheaters, they have something better to do anyway. IMHO it's not Ms'es responsibility to supply anti cheat stuff, otherwise you could go as far back as saying that Hardware Builders are responsible for anticheating , so with that reasoning I deemed your remark as unjust IMHO the responsibility lays otherwise: [*] Cheaters themselves; Grow up [*] Server Owners; Setup Measures for Anti-Cheat [*] Software company who created the game [*] Software company, either free or making money, on creating anti cheat solutions In case of Consoles, I would deem MS responsible for anti-cheating on the Microsoft Network. But I would deem Games Developers responsible for anti-cheating on the Sony Network. The difference is that you pay for using MS Network, and the network is closed. While Sony's network you don't pay for and the network is open and more custom per game (developer). To come back on your MS-Bash list: [*] "The ultimate Gaming OS", well, last night I was watching TV and they told me about "The Ultimate Vacuum Cleaner", "Better than all others in the world". Get my point? [*] So DX10 is not so great, or a complete failure because they made the memory handling less strict and XP like? [*] They didn't finish physics for DX10. Moved it to DX11. This is a problem or a let down how exactly? Im sure that when they build it in, we get the other Ms-Bashing group on the tail; Damn monopolists, incorporating everything in windows But this is far off topic, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1124 Posted January 17, 2008 huh i not said it's MS responsibility to supply all-in-one AC solution (tho it would be nice to see and laugh over new lawsuits) but just to give easier API to handle such functions ... (e.g. as part of DX pack tied more to OS kernel) about the DX10 ... no it mean it can be easily ported to XP if MS want ... but they don't (need Vista sales) (i personally would like to see DX10 in XP SP3 while DX10.1 remain exclusive for Vista SP1) considering DX11 is like 2009 showcase and implemented in "7" which is MS next OS i doubt we see games with it before 2010 that was my grip about just another physic implementation delay i use windows, i sell windows and i'm very aware of what MS done or not done , right or wrong nor i'm nix fanatic or else ... atm nix fails with something capable offer same ease to use as DX SDK so Windows simply wins there IMHO i only listed that i think these things were MS mistake combined with Vista one year too early and so on ... guess you misunderstood what i tried to say ... and we are now way off the original point of blame one anticheat for something (tried yet BattlEye with GR? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SWAT_BigBear 0 Posted January 17, 2008 I start up an image cap program and I am then kicked Do you get kicked if ZD Soft is launched before BF2? Fraps works fine, as long as it is launched before a game is launched. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sickboy 13 Posted January 17, 2008 @Dwarden: I havent tried BattleEye because I need nothing surrounding anti-cheat. Im a server admin who goes for quality as opposed to numbers, as you know, I only run (accessible) private servers I guess I catched you wrong on the responsibility thing then... "Blame MS for not..." was what put me on that path (when you blame someone, you account him for responsibility, imho) Anyway... DX10 for XP, maybe you are right about "Vista Sales", on the other hand; Getting DX10 on XP isn't so easy. Many of the h/c-rackers said they "almost had a working version" and what not, but as far as I know all those projects bleedd to death, and nobody actually had anything really working. But who knows what kind of conspiracy theories we can think of for this one The problem IMHO is not just "Vista Sales" the problem is also the amount of work and money that goes together hand in hand with the porting and supporting of DX10 on XP. (from MS's point of view). I am no specialist in economics and administration but I don't think it's a weird choice, as a commercial company, to not change, update, maintain and support a new feature in a previous product. But make it available in the new product. In all other branches this is considered normal behaviour. Why not in the software branch? Or particularly the Microsoft corner? IMHO it's the good old (and loved by 90%) MS bashing. Let's follow the herd Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1124 Posted January 17, 2008 sure these projects DX10 died because they were just work of 'fans' but proven it's not impossible task ... but if there is no official will then it lead nowhere plus these projects were usually closed source so doomed from start ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rommel 2 Posted January 17, 2008 Nothing wrong with OFFTOPIC in the OFFTOPIC thread is there? Anti-cheats are a waste of time, just get less servers and more admins. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-ZG-BUZZARD 0 Posted January 17, 2008 I've read somewhere once about some game that there were some cheats that overrode admins, even permitting cheaters to throw out the admins from their own game, so I'd say: password-protected servers with admins online all the time (meaning, no gaming session may start without the presence of an admin) would be a better solution... The best would be to only let players whose trust in decency has already been proven (in public servers?) to be able to play on the reserved servers - but I bet that's being done already anyway... With regards to Punkbuster, I must say I also hate it because it used to work well for some time whilst I played Bf1942 and DC and the game's Starwars mod, but suddenly it wouldn't auto-update anymore and after having to update it MANUALLY twice (which is a screwed-up thing to do, I tell ya, could really have been done more user-friendly... had to do it via command prompt et al) I just stopped playing online BF - well at least it allowed me to adhere to the Planetside Reserves program  ) . As for Dwarden, our pleas for an alternative to M$ OS's whilst hoping for something nicer than Linux may be the new version of MacOS, Leopard... I've heard rumours they're working on a version of it that's supposed to be compatible with IBM PC hardware, at a 100%, out of the box... Supposed to debut at this year's CeBIT...  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rogueci5 0 Posted January 17, 2008 I start up an image cap program and I am then kicked Do you get kicked if ZD Soft is launched before BF2? Fraps works fine, as long as it is launched before a game is launched. Must admint I didnt try that, it was late I will check iit out tonight And I cant wait to see the first law case around the argument that "My child Cheats at school because its ok to CHEAT on a computer game!! They (the pc game creaters) do not do anything about it!!! I am gonna sue EA for failure to protect my childs ......................and it goes on! Cant wait its bound to happen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shinRaiden 0 Posted January 18, 2008 perfectly valid reason because same method could be used to load D3D cheat ...wanna better anticheats? ... blame MS for not implementing sort of API into DX or directly on kernel level That is the wrong way to go, and would expose the system to more hacks, not less. You're right though that the anti-cheat apps rightfully flag intercepts to the DX api, as genericly that's the same way wall hacks are introduced. If you want the ability to have the user manipulate the rendering parameters (aka dxdll) you also must accept opening your rendering system to manipulation. More appropriately, a 'safe' way would be for the video device mfgrs to put in frame buffer capture on the output side, and make a user-mode method of retrieving those frames. However, that is a violation of license restrictions they have because of movie copyright protections. That's the intent of DX10, it's not to make gaming prettier or anything else, the purpose of the new graphics API and libraries is to unify the graphics system so that DRM can be enforced. All of you who bought into the shiney scams of DX10 games are directly to blame for your own misery in being stuck in this mess where you can't view your content from your PC on your monitor because of HDCP chaos. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-ZG-BUZZARD 0 Posted January 18, 2008 All of you who bought into the shiney scams of DX10 games are directly to blame for your own misery in being stuck in this mess where you can't view your content from your PC on your monitor because of HDCP chaos. Heh, I don't even have a DX10 graphics card (too many good old games seem to have issues with those DX10 Cards... Â - a 7950GT does it for me ) nor am I EVER going to install Vista on one of my PCs... after WinXP I think will come either Linux or the IBM-PC version of Leopard MacOS... Â Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sickboy 13 Posted January 18, 2008 @OffTopic: Something is OffTopic when it is unrelated to the topic that was created. No matter where the thread was posted. But who cares in the OffTopic section anyway :P @Shinraiden: Quote[/b] ]All of you who bought into the shiney scams of DX10 games are directly to blame for your own misery in being stuck in this mess where you can't view your content from your PC on your monitor because of HDCP chaos.I might misunderstand you ... but weird, im running here with 22" CRT Monitor, and with 52" HDCP compatible LCD Hdtv. I can run any DX10 game on both of them. What are those restrictions about exactly?Also, I find it hard to believe that a gaming platform (DX), would require DRM. Aren't you confused with the new driver model and/or Vista's virtualization of about every hardware aspect? @Buzzard: Aren't you one year behind mate? Latest Mac OS actually runs on x86 (ibm pc) hardware. It's just not sold without an Apple supplied PC afaik. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-ZG-BUZZARD 0 Posted January 18, 2008 @Blizzard:Aren't you one year behind mate? Latest Mac OS actually runs on x86 (ibm pc) hardware. It's just not sold without an Apple supplied PC afaik. The name's Buzzard btw, but AFAIK no MacOS runs out of the box so far on an IBM PC... Though I'd be happily proven wrong by you... Links to references to your statements that MacOS can be installed on x86 PCs with the ease of WinXP for instance, please? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sickboy 13 Posted January 18, 2008 BUZZARD @ Jan. 18 2008,12:05)]@Blizzard:Aren't you one year behind mate? Latest Mac OS actually runs on x86 (ibm pc) hardware. It's just not sold without an Apple supplied PC afaik. The name's Buzzard btw, but AFAIK no MacOS runs out of the box so far on an IBM PC... Though I'd be happily proven wrong by you... Links to references to your statements that MacOS can be installed on x86 PCs with the ease of WinXP for instance, please?Buzzard, sry. Where are your sources anyway? http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10.5.1 http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10.5.1/Desktops http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10.5.1/Portables http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10.5.0 http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10.5.0/Desktops http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10.5.0/Portables Not as out of the box as Windows XP, agreed. Possibly some more infos: http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page http://www.macosx86.com/ http://www.xplodenet.com/newsite/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-ZG-BUZZARD 0 Posted January 18, 2008 My sources are only RUMINT from tech-savvy friends, so I can't provide links ( don't know their sources... ) but according to them Apple is finally going to bring out a version of the MacOS X that's supposed to be able to be installed out-of-the-box on IBM PCs... Let's keep our fingers crossed! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shinRaiden 0 Posted January 19, 2008 @OffTopic:Something is OffTopic when it is unrelated to the topic that was created. No matter where the thread was posted. But who cares in the OffTopic section anyway :P @Shinraiden: Quote[/b] ]All of you who bought into the shiney scams of DX10 games are directly to blame for your own misery in being stuck in this mess where you can't view your content from your PC on your monitor because of HDCP chaos.I might misunderstand you ... but weird, im running here with 22" CRT Monitor, and with 52" HDCP compatible LCD Hdtv. I can run any DX10 game on both of them. What are those restrictions about exactly?Also, I find it hard to believe that a gaming platform (DX), would require DRM. Aren't you confused with the new driver model and/or Vista's virtualization of about every hardware aspect? @Buzzard: Aren't you one year behind mate? Latest Mac OS actually runs on x86 (ibm pc) hardware. It's just not sold without an Apple supplied PC afaik. Not confused at all. WHY the new driver model? WHY the virtualization aspect? That's because Microsoft couldn't get Windows 95's performance on NT without putting hacks into the executive, instead of cleanly keeping the operating system safely in user-space. As a result, starting with NT 4.0, they deliberately broke the model in laziness or stupidity. That allowed user-space applications the 'license' to muck around in executive space, so that executive space was then unprotectable. As a direct consequence, DRM was also unmaintainable. The only way to guarantee DRM, and get the crucial licenses from the entertainment industry, was to fix that hole. That's what DX10 does. It's not about the shiney, it's about the wrappers. There's plenty of new shiney in Direct3D 10, but the DirectX package is aimed at keeping your fingers out of the video card. That's not primarily about wall hacks, though that's a nice benefit. It's primarily to keep you out of the frame buffer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
