LEAVU development phase, coding MPCD graphics

[Vault]

What I want to know is will ED devs give LO:2.0 server owners the choice of completley locking off Leavu and other 3rd party exploit software from exploiting LO via Lua. I for one don't and wont have someone else's opinion of how they think things should be forced up on me.

[159th_Viper]

Viper, do you really think the discussion would be another...

 

Quite Sure :)

 

As I said - If Realism is Modelled, embedded in the Engine and Tweakproof, then how can argument to the Contrary possibly stand to succeed?

 

One must be careful not to Confuse Realism with Balance. At present, and having due regard to my OP in this thread, I am still woefully unsure as to how LEAVU measures up to 'Realism', a question that begs response. Till then, Balance stands to be addressed another day....

[Groove]

Realism and Balance hate each other :D

[Case]

People are missing some critical points here.

 

First, the debate about LEAVU is not if it is realistic or not.

 

Second, LEAVU is not specified to a single aircraft. The MPCDs that are available now are in the style of the F-15/F-16, but if you were flying a RUSFOR aircraft you could still share data between players in your coalition, you'd just get it displayed in a NATO like manner.

 

The problem is not even LEAVU itself.

 

The problem is that Lock On allows players to access certain pieces of data, like their own airspeed, altitude and position. Apparently in FC2.0 players will also get access to information about the contacts they see on radar. If this ability exists in FC1.12, I do not know.

 

With the access to such data, software like LEAVU can be used to share it between players in an automated fashion. This would greatly hurt multiplayer gameplay, because you would not know who is sharing data with who, be it using LEAVU or some other piece of software.

 

In my opinion, Lock On would need a setting that specifies if the player can have access to his own data through LUA. If that setting forbids the player to see his own data, software like LEAVU can't share it with others. This setting should be set by the hosting server, just like it sets whether labels are on or off, or whether external views are allowed.

 

I hope I have made myself clear, and I people will agree with me on this and start a lobby to try to have ED implement such a feature. Only if such a feature exists can LEAVU be used without any doubts about people using it to gain an advantage over others. Server administrators can just decide if they want LEAVU to work on their server or not.

[Sanch0]

Only one thing we need is possibility to enable or disable all lua export.

[159th_Viper]

Realism and Balance hate each other :D

 

So True :D

 

 

This isn't god-mode......

 

Have I then erred in my analysis as per the following post?

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=793811&postcount=311

 

Apologies If I seem to be harping on the same issue, But until I find the answer I seek I'll just keep on Chippin' away :)

[3Sqn_TomAce]

Yoda what port and protocol does the link system run on?

 

And agree with Case that's the core of the issue!

Edited December 4, 2009 by 3Sqn_TomAce

[Vault]

^^ I agree with Case

[eldiablo155]

... Server administrators can just decide if they want LEAVU to work on their server or not.

I got your point , and I agree with you Case

[Groove]

In my opinion, Lock On would need a setting that specifies if the player can have access to his own data through LUA. If that setting forbids the player to see his own data, software like LEAVU can't share it with others. This setting should be set by the hosting server, just like it sets whether labels are on or off, or whether external views are allowed.

 

I hope I have made myself clear, and I people will agree with me on this and start a lobby to try to have ED implement such a feature. Only if such a feature exists can LEAVU be used without any doubts about people using it to gain an advantage over others. Server administrators can just decide if they want LEAVU to work on their server or not.

 

I will point your idea to the appropriate people over at ED. No promises though.

[Case]

This isn't god-mode and it is my understanding that the server can be set up such that you cannot gain omniscience through this application.

From what I understand this is not the case. There is a difference between serverside LUA exports that export all data (the stuff which Tacview uses), or client side LUA export which exports only data referring to the client (I think this is the stuff that LockOn Virtual Panel uses). Now apparently FC2.0 also exports data the clients radar sees, basically the position, altitude, speed and coalition of the contacts. LEAVU uses this information to display on the MPCDs, but also has the ability to share it with others. This client side LUA export apparently is available regardless what is set on the server. And here is the problem. This should be set through the server, cause only then can you create a server where you can have no doubts what so ever that people are sharing data through software like LEAVU or otherwise.

[RvEYoda]

Alright, right there... if you say it yourself that this can be used to cheat how can anyone be surprised if we are compaining about it?

:doh:

 

I wrote "chat" server. not "cheat" server...

[Kuky]

I wrote "chat" server. not "cheat" server...

 

ah damnit... you're right :doh: deleted that post

[A.S]

You dont understand it Yoda, do you?

 

You just announced a tool which can be externaly used to gain more informations as meant to be from the core itself.

In every other game this is considered a CHEAT-Program !

 

All this has a good side though...it shows DCS what to improve so things like that wont work.

 

Is datalink part of the game=? if so ...great=? Is someone else hacking the net to get datalink=? if so...cheat !

 

Get over it.

Edited December 4, 2009 by A.S

[Groove]

Is sharing information of what you see on your radar with someone over TeamSpeak a cheat too? I mean, it's not implemented in the game to share this information and you use a external tool!

 

As far as i know there is no ingame voicetool avaible so using a external tool for this is a CHEAT?!?!

 

It wouldn't be a cheat if there would be a simulation of all the radio equipment in the game, right?

 

Im a lonewolf flying around on a server and there are others using voicetools to coordinate their attack on me, sharing the info of their radar between them. Are they cheaters?

Edited December 4, 2009 by Groove

[EtherealN]

A.S, so is Teamspeak and Ventrilo cheat applications? They allow players to share information in a way not supported by the "core itself".

 

Case, my point is that this...

Now apparently FC2.0 also exports data the clients radar sees, basically the position, altitude, speed and coalition of the contacts. LEAVU uses this information to display on the MPCDs, but also has the ability to share it with others. This client side LUA export apparently is available regardless what is set on the server.

 

...is not omniscience. You don't get the positions of any and all units that exist. If the server is set to not allow generalized export, thereby limiting it to sending and receiving what the players themselves can see. That's my point. In order for the information to be shared one of the players must light up their radar and see the target.

 

So in my opinion this is pretty much equivalent to the difference between using the in-game feature of text communication and using Teamspeak. There are serious advantages to using voice communication, but the game itself does not have any such features. Indeed, it has radio features but they are keyboard-based.

 

This "cheat" is even worse in DCS, where in-game radio is affected by line of sight but those that use Teamspeak or Ventrilo actually evade this game function in an unfair manner.

 

Note that use of TeamSpeak and Ventrilo grants functions not supported by the simulator (the simulator doesn't support voice communication even though the real aircraft does), and it evades the restrictions placed upon the in-game radio features (line of sight).

 

And there is no way to lock people from using those third-party cheat apps through the server!

 

So it seems to me that those who are yelling about "cheating" and using arguments about the third-party nature, untraceability, and non-internal nature of the application really should have gone through this dance a long time ago about Ventrilo, TeamSpeak, Skype, Mumble and whatever else such applications are out there. Hell - I don't know if the other team I'm flying against are sitting on a conference call in order to avoid the line-of-sight radio restrictions in DCS!

 

Why is no-one upset about that?

 

This application adds a function that is extant in the real thing.

Ventrilo and Teamspeak circumvent actual simulated restrictions.

 

For my own part I don't have a problem with either. I see the point of this application and hopefully it'll have modules coded for all aircraft soon. I also see the merits of Teamspeak since voice communication really is vital for cooperation, so I decide to turn a blind eye to the fact that it violates simulated restrictions simply because it aids my gameplay.

 

If LEAVU2 is a cheat, Teamspeak is a cheat.

 

EDIT: Damn you Groove, you went ahead and thought of the same issue I did but was faster in typing. Naughty! :D

[topol-m]

You dont understand it Yoda, do you?

 

You just announced a tool which can be externaly used to gain more informations as meant to be from the core itself.

In every other game this is considered a CHEAT-Program !

 

All this has a good side though...it shows DCS what to improve so things like that wont work.

 

Is datalink part of the game=? if so ...great=? Is someone else hacking the net to get datalink=? if so...cheat !

 

Get over it.

 

 

It seems you don`t get it. He released a tool that could have various uses, even if one of those uses is cheating. And yes he can release a strictly cheating tools if he likes. So long that he`s not doing something illegal. I can imagine the title: an "OMGWTFPANIC know everything - kill anything approved by Mary of Nazareth" Cheating mod. And it still will be ok, just because it`s not forbidden to do such things and the game/servers allow such tools/mods to be used. As i said it`s not Yoda`s work to make the game cheat-proof.

[Kuky]

erm... Groove with Comms I think they are definitely not a cheat because they are used in real life and on both sides... with this datalink it might be available for the F-15 and so be it but unless other aircraft are on same level it's unrealstic advantage... and also the code of it has to be secured, which is not right now, right?

[3Sqn_TomAce]

As a mod should you not be neutral?

 

Everyone ask youself a question: what makes you come to Lomac and more importantly what makes you leave angry, not wanting to come back?

Edited December 4, 2009 by 3Sqn_TomAce

[EtherealN]

Kuky, with DCS TeamSpeak evades the line-of-sight restrictions implemented in the simulator for radio. That is a cheat. Isn't it?

 

As a mod should you not be neutral?

 

We moderators are allowed to have opinions. Our job is to make sure people behave (and this thread was borderline quite a few times). Note that a "moderator" on a board like this is not the same as a "moderator" at a live TV presidential debate. :)

[Groove]

My point is that i dont see where LEAVU is a cheat besides giving players which are not playing for years in one team the chance to close the gap between people flying together on daily basis and being able to share informations showed on their radars with others in two or three seconds.

 

Yoda stated several times that only informations from your client are used and NOT the one of other players (OPFOR). Otherwise the tool wouldn't be able to work with server lua exports being turned off.

[A.S]

Is sharing information of what you see on your radar with someone over TeamSpeak a cheat too? I mean, it's not implemented in the game to share this information and you use a external tool!

 

As far as i know there is no ingame voicetool avaible so using a external tool for this is a CHEAT?!?!

 

It wouldn't be a cheat if there would be a simulation of all the radio equipment in the game, right?

 

Im a lonewolf flying around on a server and there are others using voicetools to coordinate their attack on me, sharing the info of their radar between them. Are they cheaters?

 

Oh i see you are distracting the core-issue by drifting into analogies.

Nice to see you support NON - DCS 3rd party tools careless and almost

with dazzled view, and that as Moderator....omgs.

 

Keep your replies to me straight and clean please...i posted often enuogh before in this thread that i appreciate his work but the risks have to be taken care of. Read before you reply. Im not going to go into this further.

[Grimes]

Its a game.

 

I thought I might reiterate that because it seems the intelligence levels of declaring what is a cheat and what isnt a cheat has seemed to have lowered quite abit.

[EtherealN]

A.S, there's an actual point in there. And the point is that the objections raised so far would apply to TeamSpeak, especially with FC2 and DCS, since the DCS-generation TFCSE includes line-of-sight restrictions for radio (DISCLAIMER: at least I assume FC2 has the same thing due to the engine shift - I'm not on that testing team so my word is not gospel :( ), and TeamSpeak is a third-party application that EVADES that restriction.

[Panzertard]

Hi guys, It's been a healthy debate so far ;)

I'll try to be as short as possible.

 

IMHO the data-sharing (p2p) outside the gameengine is what opens the can of worms here.

Finding a good balance in MP environments will be almost impossible with the current points "realism" vs "game-balance" as long as the code exist in the wild - which includes the p2p datalink capability.

 

My suggestion would be to;

- Disable the p2p connection outside the game-engine. Code removal.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

Realism;

- In all fairness there are several Datalink modules for the F-15, but not so much about the capabilites.

It's understandable that the features of the Datalink has been included.

http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/bae_prod_eis_mids_fdl.html

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/products/gov/airborne/fighters/f15/index.html

http://www.datalinksolutions.net/dls/product_line/index.asp

 

Balance;

- In all fairness, allowing LEAVU to p2p would probably ruin an already limping MP balance.

- WIP/BETA/"Code in the wild" have only one airframe modelled, balance cannot be achived for "both sides" (yet).

 

Further unexpected code variants;

Without having looked at the code - there's nothing preventing me or anyone else from making a module for SU/MIG family and using the very same MFD?

- What prevents us from creating a D/L SU-27 beeing fed data from a SU-30, and by using the F-15 MFD/Radar modules?

* If this is possible, then "realism" will have big issues.

 

Remove the p2p D/L?

The code is already out there. But is it too late?

Maybe you can save bits of the MP community by restricting this part of the code sooner rather than later.

Optional hardcoded function; If MP Then LEAVU.Disable Else LEAVU.Enable

 

What do you get with a p2p-less LEAVU?

The p2p-network may be removed and what remains is the new and improved MFD functions - which may be enough for most F-15 jockeys (or someone else developing similar MFD's for the Eastern planes)

 

And what if it worked in SP only?

- It certainly WILL benefit SP pilots / pitbuilders or not.

- It certainly WONT hurt MP.

 

Short Term - Other workarounds;

For Server-Balancing - until you can control the use of LEAVU from a server-perspective there is another option;

- Remove the aircrafts that have this ability from your missions. (Deny people flying the aircraft that have the capability).

- Add same amount of aircrafts with similar capabilities to both sides - in equal numbers. Both sides can enjoy the datalink capabilities.

 

Long Term - Server control;

It absolutely *must* be a goal that the features of the p2p-datalink can be controlled server-side.

ED or LEAVU team - or both together.

But releasing the code before this has been achived is a bit shortsighted in my opinion. (Nothing personal, guys) :) I guess you didnt see all the pitfalls. Fair enough.

LEAVU team should also take responsibility in this matter. It would be the proper thing to do.

 

It's imperativ that there's a way server admins and players can choose to (allow) play against LEAVU enabled oponents.

 

~S!

- Panzer

Edited December 4, 2009 by Panzertard