Ok now wth cheats still work online obviously

[Nick (SS) 0]

I've been in the roughnecks for ten years plus and know allot about admin work

but I cant see how you think a hidden private server that no one knows about is bigger and more successfully then public servers as there are simply no facts to support that

I'm just saying that there are working anti cheat systems

PPL don't need to hide their servers to have good games

roughnecks would have died if it we had done that, but instead the members poured money into their own servers and put actual thinking into how the servers are run and had one of the only cheat free public servers in OFP and ArmA

you're supposed to be playing ArmA and elite Realism FPshooter - so hiding while playing with limited players I simply think is counter to the whole point of the game

but then anti cheating and coding is like a game to me now, I seem to play that more then ArmA like some PPL Map or Mod more then play ArmA

PPL need to play with out fear and ask any of the Old members, I've called more PPL cheaters then any one hah (although I usually had proof)

[Nick (SS) 0]

after re reading what I have posted made me think of what my message really should be

Managing a Server is simply no longer some Icon you hit to turn the server on and then play on all day

Its Work, and locking and hiding the server is just another way of avoiding that

I think most here want to do that work and need help so they wont settle for that so telling them to lock every thing is not going to help them or ArmA

[$able 2]

95% of them don't even use battle eye or worry about unknown players but those servers use different anti cheat systems

I might throw in that there are cheats out there undetected by such script anti-cheats (memory hacks, trainers).

So if you want to detect them, you have to use BattlEye.

Also, Nick, might I ask why BE obviously is still unsupported by SquadServer? If there are problems of any kind, please report them. You know that I'm always open to work directly with the people, so feel free to use my time.

[Nick (SS) 0]

All our servers have BE installed, they are just not turned on by the clients (disabled in the cfg) as our anticheat systems are different are actual server side Apps

We have also worked with the BE designer as well during the last few ArmA betas and it does work well but it does not detect all the trainers just like our systems dont catch every thing right away as well.

but my posts were against pass wording the servers to keep cheaters out, theres nothing wrong with running BE

[$able 2]

it does work well but it does not detect all the trainers

It should actually. If you find any undetected ones, please report them! Thanks.

[mr.g-c 6]

No offense, but:

Battle eye is the last ........

Seriously it reduced the server FPS by 30-60% (Linux machine dual-core 2900mhz), created TERRIBLE JIP-Lags, kicked people (with good pings and high bandwiths) for nothing (message like battle-eye client isn't responding) and so on...

It really should get Re-Programmed so that is can use multi-core/thread advantages.

The Arma-dedicated server is obviously and already a bad programmed/optimized Gameserver, but together with battle-eye activated, its getting even way worse.

For what should we "dedicated-server provider" use battle-eye, if the server lags after it, people get annoyed because get kicked for nothing, Servers performance gets so low that nothing works anymore, and so on.

Seriously dear battle-eye developers, if you don't want to loose even more reputation at many many Arma-Players and if you really care "about us", you should consider to rework it (in performance terms) as soon as possible.

There is no-one out there anymore these days without a multi-core CPU running the dedicated server, and since the arma dedicated server uses only one core, or 50% of two cores, there is more than enough performance left.

Best Regards, Christian

[SlipperyJim 0]

walker, I really don't appreciate you suggesting that because I am "whining" about BattlEye that I am a cheater. That is grossly offensive and ignorant.

I only play cooperative games in Arma and would never even think of cheating. A lot of times I play as a medic and spend the game healing, or I spend the time shuttling people in a chopper.

So far I have only seen BattlEye report once that it kicked someone for a "hack" and people on the server reported he was simply using X-fire. Most of the time BattlEye kicks people almost randomly (a lot of time it mass kicks people). BattlEye (or is it the 1.14 patch??) seems grossly unstable and there are constant server and client crashes and disconnects. We can barely play for an hour.

I don't know what is causing this problem but so far I don't see what good BattlEye is doing. Perhaps if I played adversarial kind of games I would see it's benefit but so far I haven't in coop games.

How the heck are we supposed to know which servers have signature checking on? I am absolutely tired of the script kiddies wrecking Arma.

[$able 2]

mr.g-c, this is the first report of that kind. I have never seen or played on servers in 1.14 that suffer from performance problems due to BattlEye. The general lag in ArmA is not any worse with BE enabled, from what I have seen or heard.

Also, the serverside BE is not really doing that much that it could actually decrease the server performance. It is very simple operations to be exact. Besides, BE does not run permanently - it is called by the ArmA code, so the time it runs per frame is very short.

Might I ask how many tests you made? E.g. if the server ran for a day or so (with enough game progress) and you see it is running at a low fps, then restart with BE disabled and the fps goes back up, this doesn't give you much information on what is causing the lag. Also, you have to ensure that other conditions are the same (same CPU usage of other processes running on the server, etc.) - but I guess you know that.

What I'm trying to say is this: It requires more than one test to determine what is the root of the problem. In 1.12 for example, there were people (SquadServer and others) claiming that BE caused a memory leak which was simply not true. After talking to them and trying to examine the problem on a deeper level, they found out that this problem also existed when BE was disabled.

I know very well that my posts sound like empty excuses to many people (which they are not, but anyway), but I have to defend the reputation of BattlEye and myself to some extent, especially when repeatedly seeing false information being spread (I am not saying that each negative post is false information).

Maybe I should also add that the very same (or similar) BE code runs without such problems in other games. It's not like I have been developing BE for only a few months now, I have already gained quite some experience over the years.

So if there are still problems (I know of one) in ArmA, it is very likely that the engine causes them.

If you have already done intensive tests with BE and get the same results, I'd be willing to work closely with you to investigate the issue - please contact me in this case.

[maddogx 13]

The allegations against BattlEye are totally ridiculous in my opinion. Getting kicked for corrupted memory is surely annoying, but it also hints that there is a problem with your system. Kicking for overlays such as XFire is a result of heuristic cheat detection, and I personally welcome it. No overlay program I know of is worth lobotomising an anti-cheat solution, just so it can be used. And as for a loss of server FPS, I personally have not witnessed anything of the sort, nor do I believe that anyone has tested this accurately. If I am wrong, I'd like to see some test results.

One thing I do agree on is the signature checking issue raised by SlipperyJim. It would be extremely helpful to be able to filter servers by whether they allow the addons I have loaded, or at least filter them by general signature checking (on, off or any).

[whisper 0]

One easy way (but ofc not 100% proof) would simply to signal it with the "signed" keyword in the server's name.

[maddogx 13]

One easy way (but ofc not 100% proof) would simply to signal it with the "signed" keyword in the server's name.

That would be the most obvious solution right now, but it would be more ideal if we could filter by it.

Although building upon your idea, if server admins could agree on a short tag, such as -$@- or something similar to indicate signature checking, people could already at filter the server name by that. That way they could get a list of all signature checking servers.

[$able 2]

The allegations against BattlEye are totally ridiculous in my opinion. Getting kicked for corrupted memory is surely annoying, but it also hints that there is a problem with your system. Kicking for overlays such as XFire is a result of heuristic cheat detection, and I personally welcome it.

1.) It seems the packet integrity check (workaround) I added a while ago fixed most of the random corrupted memory kicks - this should not be required, but obviously the ArmA netcode seems to corrupt BE packets in rare cases (formerly leading to these kicks).

2.) Most overlays can be used at the moment, including Xfire.

[maddogx 13]

The allegations against BattlEye are totally ridiculous in my opinion. Getting kicked for corrupted memory is surely annoying, but it also hints that there is a problem with your system. Kicking for overlays such as XFire is a result of heuristic cheat detection, and I personally welcome it.

1.) It seems the packet integrity check (workaround) I added a while ago fixed most of the random corrupted memory kicks - this should not be required, but obviously the ArmA netcode seems to corrupt BE packets in rare cases (formerly leading to these kicks).

2.) Most overlays can be used at the moment, including Xfire.

1) I stand partially corrected.

2) Yes, I remember the discussion in the BattlEye thread about allowing overlays. As long as you can exclude those kinds of overlays from the heuristic detection without opening potential vectors for D3D hacks, I'm all for it. Though I'm pretty sure it will allow radar, ESP and similar information to be overlayed aswell - which isn't too bad for casual coop players such as myself, but competitive PvP leagues would disagree.

[mr.g-c 6]

Well BRIT-XR from Squadserver had the exact Problems like us. I hope he will answer you also here, or please Mr.battle-eye feel free to register at our forums under "Arma-RPG.com".

We are at Arma-RPG.com having two servers (one is forums own, one is Brits from Squadserver (3,5GHz QX)) and the exact same problems.

We are running mainly the script-heavy Mission "Sahrani-Life" which can kill even the fastest Server on this Planet (XR Server wit 3.5GHZ Intel Quadcore).

I can give you an example (we tested it with the same mission and same condition):

1. Sahrani-Life 1.25 at Arma 1.14 without Battle-eye but with Signature-check on... result with 20players: ~10FPS (very minimal Lag at JIP, only 1-2 seconds of LAG).

Result with 32 players (the maximum of that mission) 3-5FPS, server runs still OK but JIP-Lags increased in Time.

2. Exact same Server-conditions (complete physical server restart before start this time), but this time with battle-eye enabled. Sahrani-Life 1.25 with 20 Players playing, Server at ~3FPS, more than 25-26 players was not possible because of heavy, heavy JIP Lags (duration of around 60 seconds or longer at each join) and Server FPS down to ~2FPS.

As soon as the Server hit a certain low FPS (i guess it was under 5FPS, so at around 15 players were playing at the moment), messages appear with "PLAYERNAME kicked off (Battle-eye client not responding)". This is the message i am talking about, not the memory-things @ MadDogX.

The more and more player connected and thus the server FPS decreased, the more often the "battle-eye client not responding" messages appeared and the people get kicked randomized off.

So this is at least 50% lower FPS, i have many co-admins of our server who saw the exact same.

Why not let it spawn as a own thread, so it can use the advantages of Multi-core systems, rather than to be integrated in the Arma-Dedicated Server and thus having the same performance issues?

I would consider this, and i guess its not much work.

[$able 2]

mr.g-c, thanks for this report, but I need to ask again: How many times did you test this actually? From what I can read on your RPG forums, you didn't really use BE more than once for now. Am I wrong here?

Quote[/b] ]Why not let it spawn as a own thread, so it can use the advantages of Multi-core systems, rather than to be integrated in the Arma-Dedicated Server and thus having the same performance issues?

As I said, the BE Server only requires a very short time for its operations (unnoticable) and therefore an extra thread is not needed. Also, a direct integration is used for several other obvious reasons (interaction with ArmA server to get player info, etc.).

[walker 0]

Hi all

In Reply to SlipperyJim.

Not going to get into any flamewar with you.

The sentence I said about you was that you were being vague. I asked you to be specific. A request I repeat.

Tell us which server you say is not running BattlEye and sig checks and equal mod. Then we can all avoid them untill they fix it.

Either you are interested in solutions or you are not.

People can make their own minds up as to my or your motivations in a post. This after all is a public forum.

Kind Regard walker

[ShrubMiK 0]

Mr.g-c...one thing it would be useful for you to clarify, if you can, is whether

a) the server is consuming all the CPU and that leads to BattlEye having insufficient CPU to do what it needs to do reliably, thus leading to people being kicked.

b) BattlEye is itself the cause of the server slowing down.

[SlipperyJim 0]

Not going to get into any flamewar with you.

The sentence I said about you was that you were being vague. I asked you to be specific. A request I repeat.

You sir are already flaming by your suggestion that I was a cheater and then in the 1.14 feedback thread you suggest that I am a liar for reporting back-to-back server crashes.

Quote[/b] ]It has been ammusing seeing all the cheaters getting kicked this week they tend to whine a lot on this forum.

Funny, I was talking about players getting kicked by BattlEye and then you make that statement.

[walker 0]

Hi all

No Cheaters on the servers I use. Just run BattlEye and Sig Check.

It has been ammusing seeing all the cheaters getting kicked this week they tend to whine a lot on this forum.

There are other tools as well that over write cheat files and things like Team Speak and ID checkers to confirm people are who they say they are.

Perhaps a list of servers that SlipperyJim says are failing to run the anti cheats would be useful rather than these vague accusations.

Of course I have always favoured running a public server to weed out the riff raff and a private server for the big missions.

Public servers do a great job of getting lists of cheaters.

Kind Regards walker

Hi all

I quote my own post so people can see each sentence in context and judge for themselves.

I am mocking Cheaters and only cheaters.

Once again.

Quote[/b] ]The sentence I said about you was that you were being vague. I asked you to be specific. A request I repeat.

From my last post with my use of bold in this quote

Making vague posts about about some unamed server that you say has some cheaters and then from this trying to argue all the good servers with no cheater problem or the ones trying to solve their problems are also bad is to say the least a little unfair dont you think?  

Since we are talking about which servers fail to run BattlEye and SigCheck and thus let cheaters in to our community and I am trying to get people to name them so we can either find out why and help them to improve their service or failing that allow the commumity to know so they can avoid them.

And I see nothing wrong at all with pointing out that you are being vague.

Funny, I was talking about players getting kicked by BattlEye and then you make that statement.

This thread is about people who are cheating and what is letting them in. There is a seperate BattlEye bugs thread; cross-posting is always a bad idea in a forum.

Kind Regards walker

[Nick (SS) 0]

No offense, but:

Battle eye is the last ........

Seriously it reduced the server FPS by 30-60% (Linux machine dual-core 2900mhz), created TERRIBLE JIP-Lags, kicked people (with good pings and high bandwiths) for nothing (message like battle-eye client isn't responding) and so on...

It really should get Re-Programmed so that is can use multi-core/thread advantages.

that's funny, thats what I say about linux

there are lots of Window servers that still maintain 48fps with 32 players with or with out BE and the laggy JIP is ArmA problem and has nothing to do with BE

If you see lower Server FPS I would loose the linux cause seriously its not ment for gaming

and we can all ways compare screen shots, I know Brit's XR window server will walk over any linux server on the planet

Also if your not locking the ArmA Server to one CPU on that linux box your screwing the virtual world which needs it to be more stable by running on a faster SINGLE core

[Nick (SS) 0]

Well BRIT-XR from Squadserver had the exact Problems like us. I hope he will answer you also here, or please Mr.battle-eye feel free to register at our forums under "Arma-RPG.com".

We are at Arma-RPG.com having two servers (one is forums own, one is Brits from Squadserver (3,5GHz QX)) and the exact same problems.

Brit and i never really discussed BE testing on that server but then I dont play S.Life and I all I ever saw was massive high FPS screen shots compared to other servers, I'll ask him when i get the chance, but I can say we dont run BE on thos servers as they well protected by our systems and Brits side scanning

[$able 2]

but I can say we dont run BE on thos servers as they well protected by our systems and Brits side scanning

If you read their forums you might get a different opinion.

I am not saying that you are 100% protected when you have BE enabled because everything running on a client can be hacked (including BE), but there are hacks that no script-based or serverside anti-cheat can do anything against.

[deady 0]

I am not saying that you are 100% protected when you have BE enabled because everything running on a client can be hacked (including BE), but there are hacks that no script-based or serverside anti-cheat can do anything against.

As long as you can disrupt most cheats you're doing a good job. If a certain well known cheat groups forum is full of "OMG you suck this cheat doesn't work anymore", i'm happy :P

[Nick (SS) 0]

If you read their forums you might get a different opinion.

lol yea brit sends me the odd forum link for laughs

the last one they claimed linux servers are faster and they were sooo amazed and Brit and I were like huh and I was going to post actual proof windows walks over linux but was not allowed to lol they had posted 25FPS with 16 players where ours has 48FPS with 32 heh

[ShrubMiK 0]

Errr...The FPS is more a function of the client than the server I would have thought?

Besides, if you want to compare the performance of the two operating systems directly, knowing what hardware they are running on and how much else is running on that box at the same time would be useful.