Config.bin modifications

[Reverend L3 0]

Hashing, stirring in a challenge as the seed works well (it's far from infallible though). Server side checks work well also. "Does everything seem to appear fine? Any unusual behavior?"

There are many options which can be tried.

I don't think digital signatures on all the mods is very practical or workable, that is, if you want to have a very bustling or free mod community.

Nothing is impossible, or close to. You just have to try your best to counter any sort of attack which could be performed. It's unfortunate that there are elements in our community who wouldn't think twice about investing time in developing such horrible things.

[Nagual 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Reverend L3 @ Mar. 07 2002,15:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nothing is impossible, or close to.  You just have to try your best to counter any sort of attack which could be performed.  It's unfortunate that there are elements in our community who wouldn't think twice about investing time in developing such horrible things.<span id='postcolor'>

This is just an idea, but if folks can quickly develop tools to get into the opflash code, what if some folks could make a counter-measure program while BIS works on an official solution.

The idea is a client side program that can read the latest config and compare it to the installed one, and check it randomly during a game. It could maybe connect to a server with a message like "xxx use Authorised Config Checker" or whatever, and if it detects config alterations after everything is loaded it would disconnect with "Authorised Config Checker detected changes" or whatever.

In not a program maker, so its just an idea.

[Reverend L3 0]

I'm not sure how OFP handles the config. If it is loaded into memory at bootup or before the mission, stored without removal for the duration, you would have to check the memory itself. This is no easy task, it's even harder when you have no knowledge of where it's being held. You would have to invest the same amount of time and effort as any cheat developer. Infact, you would probably have dedicate more time and effort. Besides, BIS seems to be in a better position to handle all of this. They possess the knowledge, tools, and ability to do all of this. Without reverse engineering the game and breaking the EULA.

All the above is speculation anyways. Another reason why they are in a better position to handle all of this. They already know the answers to most of these questions.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just to be sure we understand each other: There was bug in 1.42 which should be fixed now. Do you think that "modified config" message is not reliable even in 1.45 and later?<span id='postcolor'>

It's currently hard to say as many people are using 1.45 on 1.46 servers and many people are using satchels sound pack. I have seen the message but it could be for a number of reasons. I may of even missed it on a few occassions because like I've said it goes by quickly. I asked this in a thread about a month ago but would it be possible to have the modified config message on the player screen? I think that would help server admins to know who the possible cheaters are on a server. I.e They see player XY getting kill after kill, press P (player screen) and see player XY is using modified config etc. Though that's not a solution to cheating it might help server admins to pinpoint players who they "suspect" are cheating.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One lesson that most developers learned: do not spend your time on making cheating or hacking more difficult. When fighting with cheats, you have to come up with solution that is in the very principle impossible to break, like server side authentification or digital signature. <span id='postcolor'>

I agree, and minutes after I made that last post I realised it wouldn't be a particularly long term solution to the problem. I just saw it as solution that might keep both sides of this argument happy, but it's clear it's not practical

[Taku 0]

I know one guy who used the Dynamic range sound-replacement, and after he installed the patch 1.46, he removed the Dynamic-files as told in the addon´s readme-file. So he went into his BIN-folder and replaced the config-file with the old 1.42 version config.bin file. This issue was the problem, why he got the "uses modified config file" message all the time.

I know that this is his own mistake, but i know few guys, who made this same mistake, so re-installing the 1.46 patch should help in this case.

[BigQEd 0]

In my experience it is working pretty good.

I have watched and whenever someone connects with a different Config than that of the Server it definitely let's you know. However, I have also notcied that it will give false readings with a slow connection (i.e. High Pings and lag situations).

So i would put it at about 98% reliable... just watch the person it reports the config message on. If they have a bad connection did it read out a full message or just that their config was different? If it gives you a path (within the Config.bin) then you should be aware you probably have a cheater on your hands. If it is plain without the path it may just be lag...

[Frag Haus Capt Morgan 0]

Okay Thanks Suma for giving me the answer.

As far as digital signitures for addons. I think bis has better things to then hand out digital signiture for the hundred or so addon makers out there, if not more. Also lets face some facts. The server side is the best way to go. All though some people as in CS have found ways to block or get around these checks it still is a possibility.

Number two option and I was thinking about this last night.  Have a seperate folder for unofficial addons like Ash Arrons and others. *holds back nasty comments*. That if you go into a server that has those addons recognizes them through a file that checks the config or unofficial addon folder. Kinda like a digital signature but more like a file checker.  Also if you try and put them in bis folder Guess what? Wham them with a config error file.  Also not that I am an expert but you could still have the config error.

Or maybe this would take to long and you would spend ten minutes conectting.  Is this a viable option or no. Just asking.

[suma 8]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frag Haus Capt Morgan @ Mar. 07 2002,22:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as digital signitures for addons. I think bis has better things to then hand out digital signiture for the hundred or so addon makers out there, if not more.<span id='postcolor'>

We are not talking about digital signitures for addons now, rather about digital signature for main config file.

[Frag Haus Capt Morgan 0]

okay that is what I thought you meant. but the way some one else was saying it was for addon.

*smacks self in face several times after rereading*

[Wright 0]

This has been a very interesting thread and I think some good ideas are being generated here.  First of all let me appologize to anyone who thinks I helped to open pandora's box here, that was certainly not my intention.

Let me assure everyone that no cheats have been added to the updates I did for Satchel's Dynamic Range sound pack.  

I do realize though that they have been causing some stability issues with 1.46, and in reality it was never meant to work with 1.46.  When I did the update for 1.45,  I only did enough to ensure that the game would launch without errors.  Although this sometimes works with 1.46, there were changes made in the official patch that are not present in my update, and this is what can lead to errors.  I have not yet released an update for 1.46, as Satchel mentioned he wanted to arrange something a little more official, but once again he has dissapeared.  

I think this talk of digital signitures is an excellent idea.  I think the number of addons out there that edit the main config are few, and I don't think it would be too much work to keep tabs on these.

Another idea, which I went into detail about in this thread: see page 4  is that Satchel or I work together with BIS to integrate changable sounds into their main config.  This way authors would have a set template to follow with specific file names and it would be relatively easy to release new "sound packs," while still maintaining a static config that is free from cheats or editing at all.  

It seems to me like people are demanding new sounds in multiplayer, and this would allow some more variety while still keeping things official.  

SUMA,

I'm interested in hearing what you think about these ideas and whether or not they are feasible.  This seems to be a big issue in the OFP community right now and I would like to do my share to try and resolve it.

[Frag Haus Capt Morgan 0]

Wright I don't think anyone accused of anything. I just thing since the satchel addon is a popular addon. Like some of the others that where mentioned. That it was just used as an example.

[suma 8]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wright @ Mar. 08 2002,04:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Satchel or I work together with BIS to integrate changable sounds into their main config.  This way authors would have a set template to follow with specific file names and it would be relatively easy to release new "sound packs," while still maintaining a static config that is free from cheats or editing at all.  <span id='postcolor'>

What you could do now is instread of changing config.bin, you could change sound.pbo as already someone suggested here.

The idea of "template" sounds quite nice- it could be implemented as new separate config that would assign sounds to different "sound action". In main config only references to "sound actions" (instead of sound files) would be present.

While this is possible, I am afraid that work necessary to get it work can be huge.

Also you should be aware that even seemingly innocent thing like changing sounds can be used for cheating. (See my thread about Modified config message for more information).

[Wright 0]

Suma,

I have thought about attempting to port satchel's soundpack over to sound.pbo, but there are a couple issues.  First is that I believe he has added a few sounds to actions that didn't have sounds before.  Second is that he has added in several sounds each for many actions, and a probability factor that allows, for example, a 33 percent chance of playing one of three sounds.  This leads to a little more variety in the game.  So, while it is possible to do a sounds.pbo port, it will not quite live up to the original.  Still, this might be a good "interim solution."  

I am very interested in your idea of a sound action template, and I must say that I'm greatful that you guys are willing to discuss this sort of thing with the community.  

To make this a reality I'm guessing a few things would need to be done:  

1. The main config would have to be changed to include references to sound actions rather than files.

2.  A seperate sound config file would have to be written to associate sound files with the sound actions.

3.  A tutorial would have to be written telling the end user what each sound action referred to in the game.

So while each step would be somewhat time consuming, I don't think it would be an impossible undertaking.  In fact, I'm reasonably certain that given the huge demand for "better" sounds without stability issues, I could put together a team of individuals that could crank something like this out.  If someone like yourself, or another member of your organization would be willing to coordinate with and perhaps assist a team with this project, I think it would end up being a tremendous asset to the editing ( and playing) community.    

I have considered the possibility of cheating through amplifying sounds, etc.  Aside from silenced weapons, I don't really think that much of this would go on.  In my game, I can already hear people coming from quite a ways away, (maybe a bug) and I don't know that boosting footsteps more would really help me much.  Much of multiplayer consists of coop or vehicle usage as well, and I don't know that making vehicle sounds louder or more distinct is really that helpful.  If you could edit what other's heard, then I think you would run into more problems, but that wouldn't be the case with this system.  

I haven't kept very good tabs on the counter-strike community, but I know that their sounds are replacable, and I'd be curious to know if there has been much cheating associated with that. (sounds only)  

In any case, even with minor cheating I feel that the potential benefits would vastly outweigh the potential negatives, and that this is a project worth attempting.  

Let me know what you think.

[kegetys 2]

What I think OFP would need is a "real" mod support. Like you could change between different config/datafiles. If a certain mod is used on a server, it would be automatically activated when joining (if the player has that mod installed). Something like a "mods" directory where config files for modifications would be placed, ie.

default.cfg:

name="Operation Flashpoint"

datadir=./dta

bindir=./bin

addonsdir=./addons

satchel.cfg:

name="Operation Flashpoint (Satchel soundmod)"

datadir=./dta

bindir=./satchel/bin

addonsdir=./addons

Or something like that. This would of course make it so, that if a server uses some mod (like satchels soundmod) everyone who plays there would have to use it too. This might divide players into parts on server, some wanting to use the soundmod and some dont... But then again it might be good if everyone would have the same sounds, as, for example, in the original sounds the difference between the AK and the M16 sound is clearly hearable, but in satchels soundmod they sound pretty much the same (afaik). Plus, when I tried satchels soundmod, I noticed it changes more than just the sounds... For example, it changed the BMP weapon loadout, it replaced the original machine gun with a weapon named "PKT" which was added as a new weapon to the config file. And this caused frequent crashes when the "satchel soundmod" and original sound people played on the same server on missions that had the BMP. I dont know if this issue has been fixed on newer versions of the satchel soundmod though.

Im sure this kind of moding system would also help the total conversion makers (op. vietnam, winter march, etc.) as they could really change the config.bin file too, without doing tricks like "you have to copy your whole flashpoint dir somewhere else and copy these files there". I could imagine though that adding "on the fly" changing of mods now would be hard now, as OFP seems to load alot of stuff at the startup...

[WhoCares 0]

Adapting Kegetys idea, I would split up the user Addons in the server config in one part that should be generally activated (and thus neccessary) in every mission, and another part activated if a mission explicitely uses the addons.

However, one problem with this is, that it multiplies the possibility to cheat, since it would be possible to modify any given addons config and not neccessarily the official one. So, every config of every addon on every client has to be checked against the Servers configs....

[Wright 0]

Kegetys,

that's an interesting idea, and it might be a good direction to go with this evenually.  First an important note:  just because your configs are the same doesn't mean that you are using the same sounds.  Basically the player can take any sounds he wants and put them in the pbo file, and as long as he gives them the right names they will be recognized by the config.  In this way, a player would never be "forced" to use any sound mods.  The system I am envisioning is one where sound references get built into the main BIS config, and have a standard system so that anyone can use any sounds they like, as long as the file names remain the same.  

This wouldn't conflict at all with your idea (because it would basically be the BIS standard config)

Your plan would no doubt be very useful for when more mods start coming out.  Modders could release their configs in Bin format, which reducing cheating and also simplifies things for installation.  

The only problem I see is this:

It is my understanding that the config is loaded before you even see the first splash screen, so we would either have to run some third party program that checked with the server (while in gamespy?) and picked the right config, or something would have to be added to the initial launch of ofp, and I'm not sure how much that would slow things down.  

This is an interesting idea to consider for the future, but before we go asking BIS to rewrite their whole launch routine, maybe we should see if they're willing to make any changes in their system at all.  I imagine that once we get the momentum going it will be hard to stop us  

[WhoCares 0]

Maybe it would be an idea to name all needed addons in the server config file. Add an extra section for generally needed addon and list mission related addons where the mission setup is done (class Missionxx). Now server or client can check whether all needed Addons are on client side. If general addons are missed client can't connect to server (with a message to the client which addons are missed). For mission related addons it would be good to have a little window where missed addons are marked red.

[suma 8]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wright @ Mar. 08 2002,16:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is an interesting idea to consider for the future, but before we go asking BIS to rewrite their whole launch routine, maybe we should see if they're willing to make any changes in their system at all.  I imagine that once we get the momentum going it will be hard to stop us  <span id='postcolor'>

I like idea Kegetys came up with - different "mod" directories, we are also designing a way to provide mission specific addons and sound template seems also to be a nice thing, but I really doubt we will decided to implement this in OFP - mostly because there is no addon loading / unloading on the fly and it does not fit in our currently used internal structures well.

It is very likely we will use somthing like this in our future products, but do not expect it to be a solution that will be available soon. If we want to find some solution that could be ready "soon", we should consider only minor adjustments to the current system, like digital signature.

I hope you noticed we have also some other work to do for you (you name it) and I am sure you will understand this.

[Wright 0]

Suma,

I have no problems with digital signatures. With all of the various mods and addons floating around that modify the main config this is probably a good idea, regardless of what happens with the sound. I do realize that you guys are very busy, not only with fixing ofp bugs but also with other projects, and once again I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this.

Ok so then let me ask you this. Let's say I assemble a crack team who rewrite the main config to use "sound references, "

create a new sound config to go with it and handle the references, and document the procedure for further use. If I accomplish all of this, and test it to death, would it be possible for you to look at this and consider implementing it officially, or does that violate some internal policies?

The main reason I ask is that using the current system, our config would still have to be updated every time you release a patch, and without help from you telling us which values were changed, things will inevitably be missed. On the other hand, if I rewrite your config (with extensive testing of course) to use these sound references, then you can take this config and make any changes you need to for future patches, and everything will still be compatible.

If this is totally unrealistic, then do let me know because I don't want to waste my time. But if you think it is possible, then I would like to undertake it, and do my share for the community.

[Cpt_Robertson 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have no problems with digital signatures.  With all of the various mods and addons floating around that modify the main config this is probably a good idea, regardless of what happens with the sound.  I do realize that you guys are very busy, not only with fixing ofp bugs but also with other projects, and once again I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this.    

Ok so then let me ask you this.  Let's say I assemble a crack team who rewrite the main config to use "sound references, "

create a new sound config to go with it and handle the references, and document the procedure for further use.  If I accomplish all of this, and test it to death, would it be possible for you to look at this and consider implementing it officially.

<span id='postcolor'>

As an active member of the Operation Flashpoint editing community, as well as being the current leader of the Sentinel Online Squad.  I fully agree with a lot of what Wright and Kegetys are suggesting, especially in regards to giving the community the ability to add their own sounds to the game, without modifying the main config file.

Whilst I understand your concerns over people cheating by adding louder sounds to silenced weapons.  I feel that since the majority of players play in cooperative mode or in official Squad Vs Squad matches online, modified sounds would add comparatively very little to those wishing to cheat.  A lot less compared to, for example; people editing the config to increase the damage caused by weapons and the armor values of the vehicles.

If BIS decide to agree to even a small part of what Wright and Kegetys are suggesting, then I believe that it would be a great benefit to the relationship between BIS and their online community - especially after the last fiasco over the release of the Oxygen editing tools, which have caused a lot of mixed feelings among the community.

-- Bruce Robertson, Sentinel Team.

[suma 8]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wright @ Mar. 08 2002,19:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok so then let me ask you this.  Let's say I assemble a crack team who rewrite the main config to use "sound references, "

create a new sound config to go with it and handle the references, and document the procedure for further use.<span id='postcolor'>

Unfortunatelly there is still some more to be done, even if we do have this. Someone would have to make necessary program changes and then spend some time tunning and debugging mistakes (and there certainly will be some, as this is not a small work). I am also not sure how would cooperation between BIS and external crack team work.

I understand the desire for this, but I cannot see any time in my schedule for at least three months from now. I am not sure if it is acceptable for you to wait longer.

[Guest]

This might be a bit offtopic, but I think this would be a really important tool for the modding community. It would save alot of time and messing around with moving addons from folder to folder and generally would be a nice utility to use.

It's SWAT3's mod selecter and I think that something similar could be easily made to work with OFP's addon system as they are very similar.

I have 0 experience with application programming but I'm sure kegetys could make something similar to his launcher (maybe even combine his launcher with a mod selector) fairly easily. An official BIS mod selector similar to this would be nice but I think I think an unofficial one would be just as good. Not too sure how it could be implemented as most games seem to use a simple txt file that contains the mods that should be loaded at startup. Maybe the selecter could just move the pbo's in and out of a temp dir?

Forgot to add. I'm sure this type of program could be used to first of all, back up the original config.bin, then move something like satchels sound addon config.cpp to the bin dir and not only work with the addons dir. Of course none of this helps the cheating by editing the config file but I think this is the sort of mod support alot of people are asking/hoping for.

[kegetys 2]

Suma, going back to this mod issue, would it be hard to add a new commandline parameter that would be used to load the mods, for example -gamecfg=satchel.cfg which would load the mods/satchel.cfg and use the directories mentioned there before the game starts? I understand that on-the-fly changing of the mods would be rather hard to do now... This kind of feature would allow mods, but of course everyone who play online would have to manually select the correct mod, unless gamespy/all seeing eye would make somekind of automation for it...

What would also be nice then is that if you are using the wrong mod, you wouldnt be just booted into desktop with a "addon missing" message (or possibly no message at all) but instead you would get a message in game telling that you dont have all the necessary stuff, and you would go to the "game in progress, wait please" screen. That way someone who doesnt have the mod could ask the people who are playing there where to get the mod, how to use it, etc... This kind of handling for missing unofficial addons would be nice too.

[Placebo 28]

Sounds like a great idea Mr. Armour

[suma 8]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Mar. 09 2002,15:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Suma, going back to this mod issue, would it be hard to add a new commandline parameter that would be used to load the mods, for example -gamecfg=satchel.cfg which would load the mods/satchel.cfg and use the directories mentioned there before the game starts?<span id='postcolor'>

Nice (and easy to implement) idea. I will modify it a little bit, though. Currently all relevant config files files are loaded from bin folder. I think if you will be able to provide alternate path, it will solve the problem. Example:

-mod=binSatchel

-mod=binCammoFace

As you noted, there is no automation. To include some level of automation mod used by server should be reported in multiplayer (I think Gamespy Q&R protocol is able to query for this) and launching application would have to pass it to the client launched. This will not help people connecting via IP, but I think those people are mostly able to select mods manually. I think Gamespy is able to do this (I am not sure - I will check it next week) and you will certainly be able to make creator of ASE to implement this if is not implemented already.

I do not think this is the ideal solution we seek long-term, but it is very easy to implement and will solve many problems (one of them, causing difficulties to many users, is that currently mods replace original files).