Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
$able

BattlEye problems

Recommended Posts

Mr Groch, please scan your system for virus/spyware and check your RAM using a tool like Memtest86.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should remarket BE as a Memory tester, coz it seems to find heaps of PC's with "dodgy" ram..lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you should remarket BE as a Memory tester, coz it seems to find heaps of PC's with "dodgy" ram..lol

There's more general RAM-dodgyness out there than one might think. Though it's not usually a hardware fault - some people don't cool their systems enough, or use RAM from two different vendors in Dual Channel mode etc. Some people overclock too much, because the system appears to be stable. RAM problems can be very "sneaky" though.

$able is right to recommend checking out the RAM.

And it's not just RAM. I personally would recommend for anyone experiencing any kinds of problems with their computer (be it with ArmA or anything else), to test their CPU and RAM with Prime95 and Memtest86 respectively. Overclockers usually do that anyway, but not everyone is an overclocker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On previous page by $able

Quote[/b] ]@mr.g-c: There won't be any fix because it is no bug. Please read what I said above.

Btw, I have heard that some server admins ban for this violation, which is wrong of course. It says nowhere that this is actually a hack, so they shouldn't ban anyone for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be useful to add the BattlEye files to the checkfiles in server config?

checkfiles[]={"BattlEye\BEClient.dll"};

Yours

Crowe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really.

1) The BE Client isn't available on the server.

2) The BE Client dll can change at any time (auto-update).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.

The Arma Liga will introduce BattlEye for the next season. As Part of the Liga-Team I hope it will work.

How fast does it detect any cheats? Will clients be removed immeadiatly or is there a delay?

How can we help participants with dammaged RAM?

Yours

Crowe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ $able

Please could you clarify to us what your position is on the issue of Battleye kicking players due to the 'Corrupted Memory #0'.

At present very few of my members are prepared to use Battleye as many have experienced this issue and are not convinced that they have either bad memory sticks or a virus as has been suggested earlier. Could this issue not be investigated at little further by your development team?.

I respect that you may not be able to discuss exactly how Battleye interacts with the system in any great depth here by the very nature of what it is, but the problem appears too widespread to be attributed to memory hardware faults for every user and I know that people I have discussed this with have no virus problems.

Whilst I very much support the idea of Battleye integration into ArmA I do feel that at present it is not a viable option to have it enabled on our gameserver. As you know the ArmA 1.12b ingame browser filters out non-Battleye servers by default which is going to be a big issue for us and many other dedicated servers if the corrupted memory issue is not explored in greater depth before a final ArmA release patch is made available.

Your thoughts would be welcome please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Crowe: As fast as possible. Clients are kicked instantly.

@Jman2704: I understand what you are saying, but what I said is still valid. As MadDogX pointed out, such problems are not always 100% obvious or even persistent, but that doesn't mean that they are non-existent. Also, it doesn't really matter if people are "convinced" or not that the problem is on their side, all that matters is facts, so they have to try to find out what the problem is on their own (with the methods described). I can assure you, I am always trying to fix problems as quick as possible, but atm I don't see a problem on BE's side here.

Regarding the BE filter, it is actually disabled by default. But there still is a bug that causes it to go back to "Yes" each time once enabled (not saved to config). This has been reported and should be fixed in the next patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People should open their profile file in notepad and manually change the BE-filter to 0 to be able to see all servers by default.

class Filter

{

serverName="";

missionType="";

missionName="";

battleyeRequired=0;

It is either under

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\ArmA

or

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\ArmA Other Profiles\whateverprofilename

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played Soldat yesterday, an 2D-Shooter. (BattlEye enabled)

How come you are getting kicked/BANNED for running Xfire?

Are there in Armed Assault programs that are dectected?

Crowe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at the moment, but probably in the future.

Xfire and other overlay tools manipulate the game's renderer (like some hacks) and are therefore subject to violations.

However, for example, you can still keep Xfire running by simply disabling the ingame-overlay feature for your game.

From what I know Xfire permanently disabled this feature in Soldat, so you won't have any problems with it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seitan, what makes you think this? Alt-tabbing is no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at the moment, but probably in the future.

Xfire and other overlay tools manipulate the game's renderer (like some hacks) and are therefore subject to violations.

However, for example, you can still keep Xfire running by simply disabling the ingame-overlay feature for your game.

From what I know Xfire permanently disabled this feature in Soldat, so you won't have any problems with it there.

Am i wrong or could this possibly lead to conflicts with vga drivers as well.

Maybe some options in vga driver are considered a change of rendering? (I'm totally freewheeling here)

All i can say is that BE acts weird from time to time (kicking me on connect, letting me reconnect, then all is well)

I understand it must be very hard to create something like BE and i bet you guys constantly have to shipper between allow and disallow.

Something must be wrong besides that: I hardware tested my memory (both with memtest AND a dedicated hardware testing tool we use at work) => my memory is fine.

All cpu tests i do are fine.

I do not use overclock.

My voltages are all well within range.

I do not get the RAM error message.

Still BE seems to dislike me now and then.

Funny thing is that it starts to like me when i reconnect about 20 seconds later.

Could it be that there still is some kind of negotiating error or something along the lines of that? To me it seems that BE is getting some kind of timeout (again, completely freewheeling) and considers me as an unthrustworthy client simply because of this timeout.

I hope that if you start disallowing overlay tools that you at least give a decent message showing the user what's causing their trouble. I completely understand that overlay tools would be disallowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at the moment, but probably in the future.

Xfire and other overlay tools manipulate the game's renderer (like some hacks) and are therefore subject to violations.

However, for example, you can still keep Xfire running by simply disabling the ingame-overlay feature for your game.

From what I know Xfire permanently disabled this feature in Soldat, so you won't have any problems with it there.

Fyi, this statement is valid now in ArmA as well.

If you get kicked for "Direct3D Hook", disable such overlay tools (e.g. ATI Tray Tools, Fraps, ...). Regarding Xfire, as I said, just disable the ingame-overlay feature for ArmA in the options. That way you can still leave it running while playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yoma, what violation are you kicked for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yoma, what violation are you kicked for?

Is there any logfile i can check/send you?

I can't remember the exact message.

It was on 1.12 beta, on several servers.

Funny thing was: i was connected, ingame, but after about 10 seconds BE kicked me. Other users where having the same trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason is displayed in the kick message that pops up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, the new BE update adds a packet verification, so that possibly corrupted packets are ignored. Normally, there shouldn't be any packet corruption (UDP handles that), but maybe there are some problems with the ArmA netcode, so it corrupts BE packets in rare cases leading to "Corrupted Memory" or else kicks. This is impossible to happen now, all corrupted packets are automatically dropped.

To those who previously had problems with CM kicks, please tell me if this solves it for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seitan, what makes you think this? Alt-tabbing is no problem.

Got booted by battleye two times last night when i was alt+tabbed at desktop. Then when i stayed ingame it didn´t happen again. Maybe just coincidence as there were many disconnecting because of the BattlEye last night on SES-server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seitan, could you also post the exact reason/violation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Client not responding" something like that. So the BattlEye doesn't like the situation when ArmA is on black screen "receiving..." -state? Which happens every time when you go alt+tab and back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it should work fine in "Receiving..." state as well.

Could you please test the new version?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×