LEAVU development phase, coding MPCD graphics

[3Sqn_Sven]

Development of security for this is like developing another LEAVU ... in terms of effort. It can be done, but at which point will people consider it 'beyond reproach?'. It isn't like things can't be circumvented, so how do you convince non-technical people that it is 'safe enough' and 'if they can do this, they've probably already done something else'?

 

Yeah you can't. As I said, it will never please everyone. Can only do your best.

[Panzertard]

Development of security for this is like developing another LEAVU ... in terms of effort. It can be done, but at which point will people consider it 'beyond reproach?'. It isn't like things can't be circumvented, so how do you convince non-technical people that it is 'safe enough' and 'if they can do this, they've probably already done something else'?

 

how about;

1. Remove the p2p datalink code until "sufficient" protection can be achieved. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=793905&postcount=350

2. Sufficient can be decided by the community / authors.

3. Realism can be evaluated by the authors / community?

4. Ask ED to get involved and try to make changes like this;

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=794037#post794037

5. When changes have been achieved - together with "sufficient" protection from the authors - re-evaluate the feature, re-introduce the features?

[RvEYoda]

People who want realism and only refer to more avionics/systems is missing some very important points. IRL systems are not 100% all the time. Take RWR and IFF in LO. Both these systems are flawless. You never get an wrongly indicated guy on the radar scope. Even at 60nm, you still have perfect IFF. Same goes for RWR which never misses a single signal in it's field of view.

 

These two systems alone kinda screws the realism in LO. What worries me is that when you start adding even more of these flawless systems, you'll end up with some very overmodeled planes which are not simulating RL.

 

Adding DL to the planes isnt really making things more realistic (quite the opposite if used in certain aircraft), only easier to fly and cooperate... When you create mods which tunes down systems, thats when we can start to talk about realism, until then, please dont ;)

 

You have your opinion of realism, but don't presume everyone else's is the same.

Some systems are very underpowered, while some could be overpowered.

 

Also don't just base judgement on "Discovery Gulf war dogfights". Do you think they would make

a TV show on people who got their kills on their first shot? They of course pick the exceptional

occurrences. Or maybe we should ways "Fox 2, splash", which could be a very large part of

the time in the show :). Some missiles are surprisingly lethal if deployed correctly irl.

I think the British achieved something like 0.8 Pk with their Aim9Ls (predecessor to 9m) against Argentina.

 

Some choices can also be for fun. Who wants to play a game where half the systems go

down every other flight :). Allied Force has one way of doing it, they impose probabilistic

failure rates on almost everything, missile seekers, engines, etc. You could

have a missile fired going straight for the ground etc.

 

I dont know the percentages but they probably match RL quite good.

Personally I find such features mostly irritating. But I can see how some could find them

realistic. However as a whole, adding such features to lockon for just some of the systems,

at this point, would imo just feel wierd. I understand ur opinion but I dont agree

that it would be a reasonable change to lockon at this point.

 

IMO It's basically like this. Most systems are highly classified, so we can only get data on them

with maybe 10-30 % accuracy ( and that is very good data! ) . Then introducing a random

factor event of 5% on these 10-30% would be utterly pointless imo, but thats just me.

Edited December 4, 2009 by =RvE=Yoda

[GGTharos]

People who want realism and only refer to more avionics/systems is missing some very important points. IRL systems are not 100% all the time. Take RWR and IFF in LO. Both these systems are flawless. You never get an wrongly indicated guy on the radar scope. Even at 60nm, you still have perfect IFF. Same goes for RWR which never misses a single signal in it's field of view.

 

Radars can have false targets, but we don't know the per-minute false target hits.

RWRs probably do miss signals, but they miss then on such a scale that you'd never know - an RWR scans the airwaves pretty darn fast and often and are reliable in electronic environments so saturated it would boil your eyeballs. You'd need an LPI radar to fool it.

 

These two systems alone kinda screws the realism in LO. What worries me is that when you start adding even more of these flawless systems, you'll end up with some very overmodeled planes which are not simulating RL.

 

Adding DL to the planes isnt really making things more realistic (quite the opposite if used in certain aircraft), only easier to fly and cooperate... When you create mods which tunes down systems, thats when we can start to talk about realism, until then, please dont ;)

 

Yeah, which uh, happens to be the very, very real point of datalink systems ... increasing cooperation.

[Frostie]

I can't believe the ignorance of what is going on here, i've no doubt the creators have every intention of using this online as to fly offline is a non event for these guys. This is were the lack of balance is, for those that don't seem to understand the term balance it doesn't relate to gameplay fairness it relates to REALISM BALANCE. Sort of pitching a pee shooter disguised as an AK-47 against a real live M-16. One aircraft can't have uber realistic features were another doesn't this is the imbalance. In Falcon you have ONE plane so the mod relates to all. All this talk about realism is just down to the individuals ideal and has no scope to suit Lockon. This is not Falcon.

 

You can call this an F-15 datalink all you like because its dressed up to look that way, but it could be put in a to a pink frame with flowers around the outside and be called a Game Radar Modifier if you like.

The fact is it is not part of lockon it is actually taking information that is not avaliable to you in game and presenting it to you in game format. Absolutely nowhere near in comparison as sharing information through the use of human speech, you know the natural thing we are all blessed with for social contact. TeamSpeak/Ventrilo doesn't take game code and present it to you so you can see what you shouldn't. This claim is ridiculous.

 

While in theory this is a wonderous idea in fact its an abonomation. If I created a Nuclear attack application, which I claim as realistic, this would then allow me to log into servers hit the button and kill every aircraft in the server, all in the name of realism. Then when everyone got fed up with me constantly Nuking them they move onto another server which I would just pop in their and rinse and repeat. What utter BS. I wouldn't dream of creating such an unbalancing mod because it would be immoral. But if I had intentions for my own selfish pursuits to have my realistic fun without being labeled a menace or whatever I would need to release this to the community with their approval that I was doing this in the interest of realism, and then I could have my fun unhindered. What joy.:doh:

[X-man]

Yeah, which uh, happens to be the very, very real point of datalink systems ... increasing cooperation.

Yes, but not necessarily the realism of the combat environment, which seem to be a very prominent argument in this thread...

Edited December 4, 2009 by X-man

[RvEYoda]

I can't believe the ignorance of what is going on here, i've no doubt the creators have every intention of using this online as to fly offline is a non event for these guys. This is were the lack of balance is, for those that don't seem to understand the term balance it doesn't relate to gameplay fairness it relates to REALISM BALANCE. Sort of pitching a pee shooter disguised as an AK-47 against a real live M-16. One aircraft can't have uber realistic features were another doesn't this is the imbalance. In Falcon you have ONE plane so the mod relates to all. All this talk about realism is just down to the individuals ideal and has no scope to suit Lockon. This is not Falcon.

 

You can call this an F-15 datalink all you like because its dressed up to look that way, but it could be put in a to a pink frame with flowers around the outside and be called a Game Radar Modifier if you like.

The fact is it is not part of lockon it is actually taking information that is not avaliable to you in game and presenting it to you in game format. Absolutely nowhere near in comparison as sharing information through the use of human speech, you know the natural thing we are all blessed with for social contact. TeamSpeak/Ventrilo doesn't take game code and present it to you so you can see what you shouldn't. This claim is ridiculous.

 

While in theory this is a wonderous idea in fact its an abonomation. If I created a Nuclear attack application, which I claim as realistic, this would then allow me to log into servers hit the button and kill every aircraft in the server, all in the name of realism. Then when everyone got fed up with me constantly Nuking them they move onto another server which I would just pop in their and rinse and repeat. What utter BS. I wouldn't dream of creating such an unbalancing mod because it would be immoral. But if I had intentions for my own selfish pursuits to have my realistic fun without being labeled a menace or whatever I would need to release this to the community with their approval that I was doing this in the interest of realism, and then I could have my fun unhindered. What joy.:doh:

 

Well you said it best your self. This claim is ridiculous :).

Who said there was realism balance to begin with. The Ru birds are far more accurately modelled. Why? I dont blame them. From what Ive heard the 15 was a late addition to lo in

the first place, cause some company wanted a more interested western market.

The only balance that existed before is the player's own interpretation of how the game is

to be played. This is up to every player for himself to decide, not you, not ED. The inventor of Chess

was hardly its master. You may have whatever opinion you wish on the matter but dont say everyone must think like you do, cause they dont.

 

"One aircraft can't have uber realistic features were another doesn't this is the imbalance."

- you cant be very happy with FC2 then since you can fly on servers together with BS.

 

Why so closed minded?

Why not learn from mistakes and strengths of all games instead of turning a blind eye to something

like falcon? It is today's most high fidelity sim of fighter a2a combat. Claiming different then I dont think you understand it.

Sure it has flaws, and this is exactly my point. Dont ignore 100% of a subject if 10-20% is wrong.

Learn from all of it. Learn from those you dont like, learn from those you like. Connect the dots and make

your own picture. This is also the entire deal with "bananas are yellow". Don't quit eating bananas just

because you hate the color yellow, or ... "stick to the subject"...same thing really

 

I must say your nuclear parallell is awesome :). I havent laughed so hard in a long time.

I dont make LEAVU for the sake of realism..i make it for fun. More realism is just a side effect.

Reality is the reference from where we gather things that make the game more fun. There is no fun in harrassing players

until they leave servers imo. It is actually possible to make this nuke mod you are talking about if you wanted to know ;)

But I want to play a game where I can have as much immersion/competitiveness/consistency as possible. A framework for extracting instruments so I can touch them myself on separate screens is for me a great step in the right direction,

especially if they are interactive. Datalink is a feature most fighters have had for quite some time,

and something id love to fly with, and ive had it in lockon for my eagle with LEAVU 1.0 a long time, together

with many others and LEAVU 1 was also released in public. Weve had loads of fun in coops and online

like tis. It is only fair to try to implement such features as close to the original as we are able to.

 

Oh, and btw. I repeat myself again. LEAVU2 has nothing to do with F-15. There is a module for LEAVU

that displays F-15 instruments on separate screens, like touch buddy. If you want to make a module for

su27, fine, do it.

 

The datalink is the same. It can run regardless. The datalink has nothing to do with the graphics. The used instrument

module decides what datalink information should be used or not.

Edited December 4, 2009 by =RvE=Yoda

[Groove]

Yoda, you should have started LEAVU with a russian bird, this would have cut the debate in here to max 20 pages ;)

[Breakshot]

and ive had it in lockon for my eagle with LEAVU 1.0 a long time

So in other words you flew against those who had no idea u were using this "tool" to gain an unfair advantage? I hope that was not the case... Im sorry but I can only wonder what other things you "had in you lockon for a long time"... hehe

 

With your above statement I for one would have serious doubts if i am flying and knowing you were around...

 

 

@Groove: I somehow doubt that... especially since we all now know it can work with any aircarft, even say with a Mig-29A

Edited December 4, 2009 by Breakshot

[Frostie]

Yoda, you should have started LEAVU with a russian bird, this would have cut the debate in here to max 20 pages ;)

Not true, I don't want to use this, to be vilfied by the hundreds of non elitist pilots who won't be able to use this unfairly online.

The accusations of foul play are already at an unbelievable level, this directed at squads who actually use fair means and hard work to co-ordinate.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Frostie

[Groove]

From posting #410 on all Off-Topic replies will be deleted.

 

Personal attacks or insults will result in warnings and bans.

 

A technical debate about LEAVU and possibilities of LUA exports are allowed.

 

You can always use the PM system if you feel to say something OT to eachtother.

[RvEYoda]

I think this more nuanced concept has merit, as it doesn't necessarily leave the folks with home built cockpits, etc. completely out in the cold. I don't know how feasible it would be for E.D. to implement with the current export .lua file system.

 

It occurs to me, that perhaps E.D. should examine the possibility of splitting the current client export.lua file (hope I got that right) into several files that would allow a more granular approach, which could enable a more selective control at the server. Perhaps something like:

 

cockpit_export.lua For handling status of switches, lights, etc.

ownship_export.lua For handling datalink of the user's position data

target_export.lua For handling datalink of detected target position data

 

The server could then enable just the first one, to allow folks to use their homebuilt pits, TouchPal, TouchBuddy, LOVP, BSVP, etc., without enabling data linking. OR, the server could enable the first two, to allow data linking without target sharing occuring over the data link. Enabling all three would open up the whole ball of wax.

 

The above is meant to illustrate the concept, not necessarily the particulars of how it should actually be divided up. I realize that it would require E.D. to re-write some of the core code. Whether it is worth the effort versus the estimated benefits to MP play is better judged by those in the know.

 

It would also have fallout on the 3rd party side of things. Homebuilt pits, TouchPal, TouchBuddy, LOVP, BSVP, etc., would all be affected, and need to tweak their code to reflect the new file structure. As a potential benefit though, they could potentially see more MP servers that allow their use online.

 

CB sends

 

I think it is a good idea, but it needs a bit more detail.

For example some of us want to put up RWRs and Radar displays on separate monitors.

In this case it can be useful to have lua export the actual graphics texture.

( Right now I build my own ). This would allow servers to configure dlink-noDlink

while at the same time allow players to have Radar on a separate monitor.

 

DCS has built in texture export function, so... maybe we can get lucky? :)

 

Now if we got get a texture IMPORT function,... That would be completely awesome,

as I then could render my MFD graphics to the ingame mfd position...

Edited December 4, 2009 by =RvE=Yoda

[104th_Crunch]

So then, just so everyone is clear…

 

The debate is over about whether or not LEAVU should be created / released. In my opinion there were valid concerns, however, since each server will have the option to not allow clients to connect with modified files, players that don't like LEAVU, or the possibility of similar applications, can choose to fly on a server that does not allow modified files.

 

Ok Yoda, now spend your time having fun creating stuff again :)

Edited December 4, 2009 by Crunch

[Moa]

It seems to me that some of the fans of Russian birds are upset that LEAVU2 doesn't show MFD in a Russian style. Yes?

 

Can't program to fix it yourself? That's cool. In that case please post what (non-copyright, non-classified) information, pictures you have and someone might get around to implementing it. Better yet, you could take the time to learn how to Gimp/Photoshop the textures etc yourself.

 

An excellent example of this is the post Panzertard made. There he provided useful references that meant that some developer with the motivation to do the Russian birds gets a good starting point. It takes sooooo much time to do any of this development that any help is appreciated.

 

It is a far more useful to provide references of how things work in the real-world than complain that LEAVU2 doesn't work the same way as the picture in your mind. An example of this is the radio line-of-sight debate. Lots of argument on how broken things were but were missing one crucial point. Fortunately Yoda pointed out (I couldn't my router was broken) that satellite can be used and so line-of-sight doesn't always apply (although it might sometimes when satellites are overloaded as they have been in the two Gulf Wars).

[Moa]

^^^^

 

Ahem. There is no cheating going on here, nor are there cheaters. Back on topic.

 

There are a couple of topics I'd like to add:

 

The LEAVU2 software uses a binary protocol for communication. Yoda has given me clearance to add a SOAP webservice interface. This would make hooking up external stuff easier (since SOAP webservices are standardised). Now I just have to find the time to do it ....

 

I want to re-iterate. The real-time TacView software I'm using it for statistics purposes and because I can't run TacView on Linux after a battle (whereas my Java TacView-esqu software will run on platform). However, I feel the need to state that I do not use the display in flight, ever. Not for training, not for ordinary flight, not for tournaments (similarly to what etherealN pointed out about himself, I'm more interested in air-to-surface and my a2a also sucks). I would love to publish the source code for others to use since I don't want them to waste the time I've already spent developing it but I just can't trust that if I put it out there it won't be abused. I'm happy to share with any other developers on request though.

 

Back to the security debate. I did want to point out that the client side of the system can never, ever be trusted. If the client gets the information then there is always some way of breaking into it.

 

However, there is a way to fix that that is too much hassle for event the most talented cheaters to break. That is to get the server to encrypt the (small) packets of data streaming from it. You have to request the the server's one-time decryption key or the data makes no sense to your application. Therefore the server is in the driver's seat and controls who sees what.

 

Sounds ok, but won't the performance suffer? No it won't since most folks have at least two CPU cores and even with DCS/BS many have two busy and two idle. Simply run the decryption in real time on another core. Even if another core was not available the time to decrypt the small packets is completely negligible compared to the 50-300 ms network latency to the server. Only down side to this is that it has to be done server side in the data originating from the server (since the server is always a point of trust), and would require ED to do it (hint, hint). Could also encrypt different levels of data with different keys (allowing some data to be decrypted by some people and not by others [admins]).

 

Also, can I put in a feature request? Would be lovely if a LockOn server could have different settings than the clients. For example, it is nice to have external view or map on server (so you can watch someone for cheating) even when you want to force clients to have external views off. Before someone pipes up and says "that'll allows admins to cheat" - well, if you have a dishonest admin you're buggered anyway, so let's instead just make it easier for admins to catch the real cheaters please.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Moa
Sorry for typos, hard to type with external distractions

[Moa]

Yoda's work, and the fact that he has done it in broad daylight, has done us all a favor (yes, even those who will not use LEAVU), for it has revealed a vulnerability. Better yet, it was done *before* LOFC 2 came out, which allows some time for the potential problems to be addressed beforehand.

 

Not only "broad daylight", LEAVU2 is Free Software (more than Open Source) under the Gnu General Public License v2 (or later). You can read the source code yourself at any time at:

http://kenai.com/projects/leavu2

http://kenai.com/projects/leavu2/sources/subversion/show

 

No more "heaped coals" for Yoda please.

 

Enjoy,

Moa

[Groove]

Posting #411 still applies folks.

 

OT postings in this thread will be punished from now on. It seems like i didn't made myself crystal clear in #411!

[RvEYoda]

I was always wondering what I was going to do when I got back to Sweden.

 

something like this above the game screen :

 

 

Maybe this to the right of it

Edited December 4, 2009 by =RvE=Yoda

[Grimes]

export.lua can be added to the list of fingerprinted files, just like in Black Shark.

 

What does this mean regarding implementation of a lua stats engine or tac view recordings?

[GGTharos]

It means they will not work unless you run a track after the fact I suppose. Alternatively everyone has to have the same export.lua as you do.

 

What does this mean regarding implementation of a lua stats engine or tac view recordings?

[Sanch0]

But if the server side will have modified export.lua (not match the original file) and client will have the same copy of modified export.lua then everything will be ok? Right?

[GGTharos]

I believe that this is the case, yes.

[Mugatu]

You don't need to use the export.lua file for stats, same lua files as the mission manager we're running, server/event.lua etc. You can always add the trackview lua file to the server export.lua as well...

[Grimes]

I havn't messed too much with the lua files or anything like that. But whats the probability that everyone will have the exact same file?

 

After a clean install sure, they should all have identical files. But even then, if it checks the export.lua file character for character there are countless possibilities of it screwing up. In Blackshark its on by default yes? So one could theorize this would be true to FC2. So in order to play in a server with the check added, a player would to go in an change it themselves? You could forget a space or screw something up and be unknowingly unable to connect to a server. What about mods? Do any mods alter the export lua file? Yet another possible way for discrepancy to show up.

 

Again, having lua exports on or off seems to be the stop gap . With it on so many cool pieces of software can be used... atc, tacview (in a time efficient way), the positive uses of Leavu, lua based stats. But on the other hand people can use that information to their advantage, or modify leavu to be used to gain an informational advantage that would not otherwise be there.

 

We need punkbuster, or other similar application, so we can have the advantages and positive aspects of export.lua = true and keep the people who misuse it out of game servers. Or even unchangeable player IDs. Well... I guess there is always the IP ban hammer for the game servers.

[RvEYoda]

Thanks for that analysis Grimes :).

This is probably the kind of stuff we need.