WalkerDown

So you want a serious and detailed message? Good: 1) You didn't resemble a standard environment to perform your test: you could do 10 FPS or 60 FPS with the same settings, on the same hardware, on the same server, but in two different moments. Basically we don't have a benchmark, but apart this you didn't even evidenced the performances you had before this supposed optimization, so how we could figure what's the improvment? 2) You didn't specified your settings, you hardware, or anything that could be compared with other players hardware to evidence the differences; 3) You didn't superimposed the fps you're obtaining during the gameplay, the game could be run at 15fps for what i can see... and this is sub-optimal and not acceptable, however there's no fps overlay so we never know. 4) You couldn't play before and now you can play? ...and...? Good for you! It means nothing for anyone else.

1) Who's "we"... you and..? 2) So you secretely tested VAC on ArmA? Is this another of your universal opinions? :) 3) No, unfortunately BE is far to be "effective" to stop the cheating in ArmA (it doesn't means that other anti-cheat will be more effective tho): stop cheating is different than find/ban cheats and cheaters (please, understand this important difference before replying).

Please read again what i wrote, i said that cheaters (and the methods of cheating) will be probably the same, since the engine didn't changed much, but we can hope on the fact that there won't be a florid key black market due to Steam. So our biggest hopes are not into the best anti-cheat, but we count on the fact that the cheater cannot come back so easy like today. Surely a good anti-cheat would be better than nothing. It will be a fact when you'll be the last human on this planet (technically neither in that case, because there's a probability of other life forms in the universe, with a different opinion than yours). It's one of the additional deterrent, the other argument could be that VAC works better into detecting the non-scripting cheats (ie: memory reading and manipulation), but this is only a speculation, until we try it on ArmA3 we don't know, for now we only know about the VAC ban flagging, that surely exists (despite your opinions). ---------- Post added at 13:03 ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 ---------- DayZ SA will probably have a stripped down script support, or it will be severly limited client-side, so the most of the annoying hacks will gone.. surely we'll continue to have the ESP, auto-aim and shit like this, like in any other FPS. Indeed, we discussed about this already.. but knowing about this situation, shouldn't BE devs (that are working with BIS by a while already) ask them for more support and integration? They shouldn't continue to blame the engine taking what they got.

So you made a video with the zum zum music and titles claiming the awesome FPS improvement.. and the video not only doesn't have any comparision with the previous (supposed lower) fps, but it doesn't even have a damn FPS overlay on it. Are you serious or are you trolling?

As YOU said doesn't count much coz it is YOUR opinion (accompained by a bunch of dubious assumption). While saying that BE bans = VAC bans is simply a lie, and this is not an opinion, it is fact. ---------- Post added at 11:49 ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 ---------- They cannot avoid of using BE, because of scripting and filtering and remote console, since they have no time (or interest) into developing an in-house solution for it. What we're discussion here at this point is to implement VAC as an additional deterrent to the cheaters, since BE apparently is not enough (nor that VAC is the solution, but it cannot cause more damage). ---------- Post added at 11:57 ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 ---------- They are much less disruptive than in a game like ArmA, because of the (scripting) engine. In BF3 there's surely a bunch of cheaters, but you can just switch to another server and there you go, no pain.. it's a matter of seconds. In ArmA it is pretty different: a single kid can cause a lot of troubles, and the gameplay (due to its realism) is much more slow than an arcade FPS like BF3 or COD. A script kid can kill everyone on the server making the server empty (in the long run this could means force the admin to shut down it because of frustration), and the users to restart again from scratch for another run, hoping that this time there won't be any cheater around (a round in BF3 could last "minutes"; a round in ArmA could last hours...). With the proper bypass i could leave absolutely no trace in the logs, i could login into your server and kill anyone repeatly every 2 hours just to annoy your userbase, forcing you to password it or to get rid of it. You have no way to know it was me.. you can only guess it. This is the reality of ArmA2, and it will be the same in ArmA3, the only potential limit to the cheating will be the deterrent of the Steam account (and so the keys), since there won't be a florid keys black market (no more $1 stolen keys), so a ban means tenth of euro lost (hopefully).

pr0n?

Almost.. but not completely. When you get VAC banned, you're Steam account is flagged and so your reputation (even when you play the other games) is "ruined". It won't help with the "serial-cheaters", those will create each account for each game (whenever this operation is legit or not), but it will sure help for the little kid (the majority of cheaters are just little kids, not hackers) that bought the game, played it fair initially, but then raged and started to cheat <<< in this case the VAC ban (and the additional feature of having your account flagged) is a MAJOR deterrent to stop you to cheat.

Excuse me, but windows doesn't decided to reboot (unless you set it to do so), i don't even remember the last time i had to reboot my windows 2008 R2 server. I'm not saying it never happens, but there's certain issues that you cannot solve by the automatization... what if your PSU fails? Do you have a robot installing a new one? ... etc.

Yup, coz BIS is fair, while the other developers are wasting the cpu cycles with fake threads to fake the CPU usage. I'm not sure if it's more invalid his argument (cpu usage = code efficiency) or yours (wasting cpu usage with threads doing nothing). What i know really, is that a game that runs very bad and that barely uses the 30% of the CPU and GPU is surely exposes a very bad coding and optimization, because my car is capable of going much faster than this, but you designed the gas pedal so bad that it cannot be pushed for more than the 30% of its full travelling. Dwarden, here none is complaining about the current situation (at least none with half brain), because it's alpha, but most of us are complaining about the fact that you (BIS) didn't recognized the problem and didn't make it clear on your SITREP. Until this happens publically we can only believe that you do not consider it the first bug to solve (despite what mantis says) or you have no idea how to fix it. We don't need your personal messages here on the forum, we need the issue to be recognized officially by BIS to make it clear it's being worked on TODAY.

I've installed this new beta drivers, and not only ArmA3 FPS received a +250 fps boost, but my bathroom tap stopped leaking too! It ruined my sleep for months, but finally it finally stopped, thanks to the OP.

That's not true: - If i would have to chose TODAY between the two, i would say: let's try VAC because we tried BE already. *BUT* BE atm is handling all the remote console and script logging/restriction (that is something specific of Arma) and removing BE requires the deployment of an in-house solution, and there's no time for it (confirmed by dwarden). So again: changing BE for VAC, is *not technical possible*, it's not a decision, it is a fact that goes beyond the anti-cheating capabilities. But using both seems a fair solution. - My constant negativity about BE is more "my constant negativity about the cheating in Arma2", it isn't just me, anyone can see it every single day. When you are called to "protect" something and you fail, you can blame the engine being broken (and we both agree that BE can't do much about it), but you still fail. You can't say: "i'm doing very good" .. nope: you are doing your best, but unfortunately is far to be enough.

I've tested across multiple servers and for more hours, and the crash ratio with the DEV branch was too high, so i've reverted because there were no way to get a barely minimum fun. If you look at the server list many did the same.

Indeed, but the sentence is not correct anyway: it's the ENGINE to be bad designed .. it's not the CPU to cause the bottleneck. It's like saying you have a road with 4 lanes, all the cars are piled to the first, and the other 3 are completely empty because an idiot put the cones to close em.. are you going to say that my car is slow (bottleneck) because i cannot go faster due to the line? Nope, it's because the road i'm driving on is a badly designed. What's the solution then? Installing a couple of wings on my car? Of course not, it's to ADJUST THE DAMN ROAD! So to the OP again: it's not your CPU, it's the game, we're all suffering the same problem, and BIS recognized the issue. We can only wait for the fix now (if there will ever be one).

Why making it so complicate? $able resumed it in the phrase: "there is no reason not to add it". - Is VAC free? Yes it is for Steamworks games, and A3 is a steamwork game. - How much time and effort it requires? We need a reply from dwarden: he CANNOT lie (for who believe he can invent another "excuse"), because he's a BIS worker, and Valve wouldn't be happy to listen something like: "adding VAC is very hard.. balbabal", from a developer that is actually using Steam as exclusive platform. So, assuming it is easy enough, there's NOT A SINGLE reason to not add VAC together with BE. The cheaters wouldn't be "scared" of having their accounts flagged? Yes many wouldn't.. but many others (the kids with a single steam account, that only occasionally cheats).. will be annoyed of having their "main" account flagged... it is BETTER than nothing. I'm not sure why we need 36 page of a thread, when the solution that would makes anyone happy and apparently provide the best protection is already here. However the thread title should be: "Add VAC to Arma3", and not "Drop BE (...for VAC)".

The game is on Steam, it's not a closed test. We're not talking about me, we're talking about the other millions out there. :)

No, it's not .. VAC bans have the additional deterrent of flag your Steam account as "VAC banned", you can repeat here 1000 times that *IN YOUR OPINION* this wouldn't make much difference, and i respect your opinion, but stop saying it's the same. You also have not a single prove of the effectiveness of VAC used on the Arma engine (script aparts, this game is being hacked like any other game via memwriting). I don't know if you're $able girlfriend, but here we're trying to find a solution, your blabbling is getting annoying, this is not constructive at all. ---------- Post added at 14:13 ---------- Previous post was at 13:58 ---------- VAC is free, probably BE chaps are scared of being put in the corner... this is why some ppl in this thread are fighting against VAC implementation. :) Another excuse will be: "VAC cannot be easily implemented" .. apart that this could be completely false, we should ask Valve, not a random on a forum.

Indeed.. but the DEV atm is too unstable, i recognize the importance of testing, but there must be some fun for the users to play on it... if it crashes every 30 minutes there's nothing to test coz the users will go away.

Yup that's what we proposed: BE to control the scripting side and to have a remote console, and VAC as a traditional anti-cheat and as an additional deterrent (because of the steam account consequences.. small or big they are). We will probably still have cheaters aboard, but it'll be sure better than before.

Look at your CPU usage, and you'll notice that your 720 is barely used, so the answer is: not, it's not your 720 to be not enough, it's the game engine that is not capable of using it (especially using all the core of it). It will be adjusted in the future? We don't know, this problem exists by a decade and they never fixed it, let's hope for the best.

I've heard that washing your hands right before opening ArmA3 will give +30 fps in most cases.

Did they fired Soma after that sentence? lol

Guys there's another patch today (released at 16:30 CET).. are you sure you're talking about the same dev patch?

At around 16:30 CET: branches/development/buildid: 50870 › 51173 Any changelog?

1) I said, eventually, "both"; 2) I've shown the possible differences between the two, AFTER the ban (consequences to your steam account), after the last discussion they are little; 3) We tried BE already, we never tested VAC on arma, we don't know how it will perform, so your "10X more effective" is invalid. 4) I'm fighting to mitigate the unacceptable number of cheaters in Arma, we cannot live in the ghetto forever, with passworded servers and all this stuff, there's a huge number of casual players, and i'm not that egoist to say: who cares about em. The story of "the cheaters cause no harm, play on whitelisted server" is getting old. 5) People here believes this is a war BE vs VAC... lol. We need ubiased opinions, not "fanboysm". Is BE enough to fight the cheaters? No, it's not, and if you negate this evidence, then there's nothing to talk about. A solution exists? We don't know, what's why we are discussing it, VAC (or any other anti-cheat) is one of the many possibilities. Closing your eyes pretending the problem doesn't exists won't help anyone, surely it won't help this game.

Indeed, if you do not deploy your own solution for script logging/handling (assuming there's time). Btw an alternative solution would be to use BE for the scripting part (and the remote console), and VAC as antivirus (memory reading / manipulation.. and so on).