Jump to content

DCS 1.5.4...New integrity check system*


Recommended Posts

Posted

Today we'll release DCS 1.5.4 to Open Beta for open testing.

 

DCS World

Multiplayer. New integrity check system*

 

Anybody shed any light on this as one report shows Starways textures now causing and integrity failure....

 

What is this function there to do ?( other than check the integrity duh:doh:) I thought that the repair tool would do this if there was a problem- yes it was a manual - oh DCS not working step one...run the repair tool!

 

 

thoughts

 

P

Posted

Hey. I have a question. Are there going to be any exceptions for files (tracers, gun sounds) or everything will have to be vanilla on each server.

 

And secondly, is it going to automatically kick or ban players on the server, or just prevent you from joining untill you revert to standard files?

 

Thx :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

 

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.

My channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Posted

From my experience, its just a temporary block to server until you meet the IC criteria. All mods will be blocked by IC until they implement the system to make a mod "official" with its own IC registered files.

Posted (edited)
From my experience, its just a temporary block to server until you meet the IC criteria. All mods will be blocked by IC until they implement the system to make a mod "official" with its own IC registered files.

 

So you have experience with a system that you've never used? That's interesting...

 

According to c0ff himself the system will accept whatever modifications the server owner configures it to.

Edited by sobek

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Posted

* Installed payable campaigns can prevent multiplayer game access if server uses new Integrity Check option.

 

This just don't make sense to me.

  • ED Team
Posted
* Installed payable campaigns can prevent multiplayer game access if server uses new Integrity Check option.

 

This just don't make sense to me.

 

Due to a build configuration oversight the campaigns were not signed in the build.

Dmitry S. Baikov @ Eagle Dynamics

LockOn FC2 Soundtrack Remastered out NOW everywhere - https://band.link/LockOnFC2.

Posted (edited)
So you have experience with a system that you've never used? That's interesting...

 

According to c0ff himself the system will accept whatever modifications the server owner configures it to.

 

Its the same system, or at least appears to be, the same as on the 2.0 alpha build which has been out awhile.

 

 

Here is where it was discussed previously for the IC in 2.0: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=164917

 

Has it changed that much since then? I don't think so.....

Edited by Shahdoh
Posted

@c0ff

 

Is it possible to get the player's plane animation argument (like in MissionEditor) from the export.lua?

Currently we (SimShaker) are using a method which requires modification of the DCS installation which of course interfear with the new integrity check system ...

Posted

In multiplayer my modded Devrim English Su-27 cockpit was not allowed to fly with the server running. Integrity check was on. So, I guess the mods are out. Won't be flying MP as much if this will be the future.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted (edited)

It will be possible to use properly constructed & agreed mods with the integrity check system.

 

Details on how to arrange can be found in this thread :

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89164

 

 

 

There are no plans to disallow mods.

However, there will be some changes in modding methods, to make them more refined and structured than the current "just change the game files" fashion.

Edited by Weta43

Cheers.

Posted

I, like almost everyone else, use many mods which are now not IC compliant (Starways, english cockpit, Mig21 factory new cockpit etc) but this is a desperately needed addition to MP.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Posted

Reason for my integrity check failure:

 

mods/campaigns/a-10c - basic flight training qualification/dcs_manifest.x86_64

mods/campaigns/su-27 - the ultimate argument/dcs_manifest.x86_64

 

Paid DLC content = cheat. Nice logic!

I come here to chew bubblegum and kick-ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum. :D

Posted
Reason for my integrity check failure:

 

mods/campaigns/a-10c - basic flight training qualification/dcs_manifest.x86_64

mods/campaigns/su-27 - the ultimate argument/dcs_manifest.x86_64

 

Paid DLC content = cheat. Nice logic!

 

mods/campaigns/su-27 - the ultimate argument/dcs_manifest.x86_64

 

i got that as well. don't think you have to go this far, but i deleted the game did a reinstall, not installing that campaign.

 

Then i realized to fix my issue all i needed to do was delete my saved games dcs folder to stop the black screen options.

Intel i9-9900K 32GB DDR4, RTX 2080tiftw3, Windows 10, 1tb 970 M2, TM Warthog, 4k 144hz HDR g-sync.

Posted
Reason for my integrity check failure:

 

mods/campaigns/a-10c - basic flight training qualification/dcs_manifest.x86_64

mods/campaigns/su-27 - the ultimate argument/dcs_manifest.x86_64

 

Paid DLC content = cheat. Nice logic!

 

6 posts up from yours, all you need to do is read it. It is not unreasonable for things to go wrong in a beta build.

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Posted
6 posts up from yours, all you need to do is read it. It is not unreasonable for things to go wrong in a beta build.

 

I usually don't engage in such discussions, but given your tone.... I've read it and I still felt like making my point and I don't feel like I need your approval to post it.

 

I think it looks bad when you can't list all your pay content and make sure you don't issue version that blocks something that was paid for. It's just bad business...like selling car without a wheels would be.

 

Cash paid for content did not come with partial payment clause with full release upon final version of the game.

I come here to chew bubblegum and kick-ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum. :D

Posted (edited)

You'd have a point if they hadn't explicitly stated in the changelog that DLC campaigns trigger the IC for this build. You are angry, we get it, but in this case, you asked for it when you installed the update.

Edited by sobek

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Posted
Its the same system, or at least appears to be, the same as on the 2.0 alpha build which has been out awhile.

 

 

Here is where it was discussed previously for the IC in 2.0: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=164917

 

Has it changed that much since then? I don't think so.....

 

You're right, i forgot that it is already in 2.0, my bad...

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Posted (edited)

Wouldn't it be more easy and user friendly to make the integrity check allow all mods that the server is running. So if you run a server with mod this and that it will add that to the integrity check. And compare those mod files with the client mod files to see if they have been edited. And maybe something like a signature file like ARMA has. Than everybody has total freedom to run whatever they want on their server. And to block whatever mods they don't want on it by default. If i understand correctly from the discussion this is not the case right now.

 

My question on this is.. Why would you not do it this way? Why was it decided to do it the way it's implemented now? Is there any advantage to that? The kind of system described above would at least save a lot of complaining on the forums. And save a lot of extra work. Cause right now all the addons from the most simple to the most complex ones need to be checked and approved. So time, man power and website space is saved by letting the players decide what and what not is acceptable on their server. Or am i seeing this wrong and i'm missing a big security flaw in a system like that?

Edited by winchesterdelta1

Go in close, and when you think you are too close, go in closer.

Posted

Its a work in progress, not fully implemented yet. Eventually mods will be able to be made "official" or however you want to term it and be allowed on servers and clients connecting will need to have those same mods.

 

We just need to be patient.

Posted

Or this system might have been chosen so the entire Mod community can be controlled this way. Example: If Mod scenery texture 1 made by some random dude is way more popular than the official one, than you simply don't allow it trough IC, so money can be made on the official scenery DLC's. But this is off course total speculation on my side. And the IC doesn't work like that at all. I'm just trying to understand. And this IC is WIP off course. So we probably didn't see even half of it's functionality.

  • Like 1

Go in close, and when you think you are too close, go in closer.

Posted
Wouldn't it be more easy and user friendly to make the integrity check allow all mods that the server is running. So if you run a server with mod this and that it will add that to the integrity check. And compare those mod files with the client mod files to see if they have been edited. And maybe something like a signature file like ARMA has. Than everybody has total freedom to run whatever they want on their server. And to block whatever mods they don't want on it by default. If i understand correctly from the discussion this is not the case right now.

 

My question on this is.. Why would you not do it this way? Why was it decided to do it the way it's implemented now? Is there any advantage to that? The kind of system described above would at least save a lot of complaining on the forums. And save a lot of extra work. Cause right now all the addons from the most simple to the most complex ones need to be checked and approved. So time, man power and website space is saved by letting the players decide what and what not is acceptable on their server. Or am i seeing this wrong and i'm missing a big security flaw in a system like that?

 

Maybe so the dedicated server can run a mod that none of the players are allowed to use ?

(use your imagination)

 

Or this system might have been chosen so the entire Mod community can be controlled this way. Example: If Mod scenery texture 1 made by some random dude is way more popular than the official one, than you simply don't allow it trough IC, so money can be made on the official scenery DLC's. But this is off course total speculation on my side. And the IC doesn't work like that at all. I'm just trying to understand. And this IC is WIP off course. So we probably didn't see even half of it's functionality.

 

Oh you did use your imagination - and went straight to conspiracy theory :)

 

E.D. have already said they'll release the tools to register mods, so if someone builds a scenery mod, registers it and has it become popular, the community will be able to use it....

 

The intent is to make online play better, nothing more nefarious than that.

Cheers.

Posted

Ed is trying to make the multiplayer as fair as it can be done. I love mods and use but I know there are some who enjoy more on how much they can cheat. I appreciate what Wags is trying to do here. Put the pitchforks down and lets see how this will eventual play out. I am sure they will tweak this to make the community ok with it. Will it make 100% happy. That can never be achieved on any topic.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted

The IC is to prevent cheating and it is really good at just that right now. If you like mods and stuff then just shut the IC off.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...