LUA Export control

[RvEYoda]

Thank you wed. If there are any special instruments you would like to see in LEAVU

for US or RU planes, please let us know.

 

If you know good algorithms for certain situations for transferring this or that, that is also

very welcome.

 

Post that in the leavu thread please and I can see it fastest :)

[Mugatu]

Or better still put some fake data in there hehe.

 

 

But how would you access the luaExprotFunctions

 

Likely LO does something like

 

function LoGetMySpeed....[definition] -- make functions visible
dofile(export.lua)
LoGetMySpeed = nil ; -- functions no longer acceessible

If you write your code in other export files it has not effect, because the

functions are just nil.

This is at least what i experienced when testing it

[104th_Crunch]

I know I mentioned this in the LEAVU thread, but just to clarify, will it be possible to run something like Tacview even if export.lua is added to integrity check? I mean for example, the export.lua file on the server contains tacview, so the client runs the server's copy.

 

The file integrity check is checking that the server and clients file are the same, and the client is always using the server's version of export.lua?

 

Thanks

[Grimes]

I think they answered it somewhere in there. From how they stated it you can't have "live" tacview where tacview is recording as you enter a game. Rather you must record a track and then replay it locally with tacview later.

 

 

So when export.lua is added to the checksum and a player fails the test as they enter a server they simply can't join? Or is a temporary export.lua added that matches the server used?

 

If not is there enough time before the patch comes out to make that possible *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* *say no more*

 

It would certainly ease the use of connecting to different servers with different requirements.

Edited December 6, 2009 by Grimes

[EtherealN]

As far as I know they simply can't join the server. The system is intended to protect against people who have payload hacks and such things and basically denies connection to any client that fails the integrity check.

[RvEYoda]

I know I mentioned this in the LEAVU thread, but just to clarify, will it be possible to run something like Tacview even if export.lua is added to integrity check? I mean for example, the export.lua file on the server contains tacview, so the client runs the server's copy.

 

The file integrity check is checking that the server and clients file are the same, and the client is always using the server's version of export.lua?

 

Thanks

 

I think the client will never run the servers copy.

It just checks if clients and servers have the the exact same file contents.

If they are identical then the client is allowed to join the server, and the client

runs his own (identical) file. The server doesn't export a file to him.

 

For this reason I posted in the wishlist thread and asked ED to allow us to connect

to their server which tells what game servers are online. This would allow us to

create our own server browser with chat functions and more importantly MOD

statements for each server.

 

For example you click 104th server and you get msg :

"This server uses mods A,B,C. To play on this server you must have them installed."

and if they are just lua then "do you wish to activate mods A,B,C?", like an automatic,

per-server mod manager. Cause diff servers will for sure have diff settings. And this

method would solve _all_ such issues :)

 

ED doesn't have to do anything for that to work except allow us to download the server list.

Edited December 6, 2009 by =RvE=Yoda

[Kuky]

I don't think this will feasible as if people start using tackview, leavu and make other changes pretty much no one will have same files and if we all wanted the ability to join most if not all servers we all have to have same files... this leaves only one option, everyone must have default game only with no mods, changes etc.

[EtherealN]

Kuky, what I think Yoda is hinting at there is that if a 3rd party application was able to connect to the master server and get a server listing, it would be possible to implement a 3rd party server browser that can do those settings for you. For example if you have a bunch of mods installed and is about to connect to a server that doesn't want them running, the server browser would see this and it could collect acceptable settings (export.lua f.ex) from the server, make a backup of your own settings and replace yours with what the server wanted, and then you can connect to the server and pass it's integrity checks.

 

Such an application would theoretically be able to make you run a completely standard DCS install without you having to manually remove or deactivate any of your mods. And when you disconnect it would have the ability to revert your settings to whatever you had before.

 

The whole point then is that it doesn't matter if people are using TacView, LEAVU or the latest aimbot - the browser will change your configuration on-the-fly to comply with the server's requirements.

[Kuky]

would that pose security issue when so many files are being forced from the server onto clients machine?

[EtherealN]

I can't see how. If a server wants to replace your executable or flight.dll I would wonder why the hell it would want to do that (and decline connecting to that server) but aside from that I have a hard time seeing what it could do. Properly written there shouldn't even be a risk of it breaking your install since it should keep backups of everything it changes (á la Modman) to comply with the server.

 

Remember, the settings are LUA, not compiled executable code. If worried, just make sure to run 7 or Vista and don't give it administrative priviliges.

 

Possible hurdle might be transfer times, but then again if people start forcing hundreds of megabytes of mods they need to have their head checked anyhow (and their server will be so deserted that they'll soon come to better thoughts). Most likely the amount of transfer that would happen would be smaller than the mission download anyhow, since you don't need megabytes of files to force a given export setting.

[Breakshot]

So first it was "Impossible" to turn LEAVU datalink off, then now suddenly it became possible and oh so easy with the FC 2.0 file checker control... I am confused...

 

Some say it doesnt need export.lua because they tested it (and even wrote comments on it in the file) some say it does need it after all... :S

 

It does look like we might be having a LUA nightmare come 2.0, with some server running this, some that... and no one will be able to tell what works and why they cant join a server... :S

Edited December 7, 2009 by Breakshot

[EtherealN]

Some say it doesnt need export.lua because they tested it (and even wrote comments on it in the file) some say it does need it after all... hmmm, i wonder who is trying to pull a fast one here?

 

As has been said by the author in a thread discussing that (see how much easier it is to get clear messages when people leave their tempers at the door? ;) ) that was found to be erroneous and he just forgot to remove the comment in the code. (EDIT: It was actually first page of this thread, see here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=794703&postcount=6)

 

It does look like we might be having a LUA nightmare come 2.0, with some server running this, some that... and no one will be able to tell what works and why they cant join a server... :S

 

Good reason for server administrators to have a lobby message in the server notes saying what, if any, special requirements are required. This is no different to future servers using terrain created with the terrain tools released by ED. And also why support for an application like the one proposed by Yoda would be a good thing.

Edited December 6, 2009 by EtherealN

[Breakshot]

Thatx for the clarification EherealN! I scanned through the thread and must have missed that post...

 

OK, so to my understanding the server will no longer force clients to run its export file like it does now in FC1.12... but instead it will run "integrity check" to make sure the file matches to its own? If not, then client is simply unable to join... yes? And of course mods like LEAVU are still dependent on that file...

 

If so, it means almost any mod (apart from cosmetic mods of course) will have to be "pre-installed" on both the server and client to work? Id say for most part of general online flying that would mean servers will have to run only DEFAULT versions of the game in order to avoid people from not being able to join, or to take off "integrity checks" of some files, which could potentially open cheating possibilities... This of course would apply to those who are unaware of certain mods, etc etc... which is still, IMO a majority of online pilots...

 

In one way it is a good thing because we will have a more fair and secure environment... but from a perspective of organizing custom events, etc... this could be a logistical nightmare... as if it wasn't hard enough already (remember LOCERF, Maple Flag... etc etc)

[EtherealN]

Well, I should reiterate that I do not have access to FC2 (somewhere out there someone better make sure my beloved 25 stays awesome :P ), so I am largely working on my understanding of what those that do have access to it have been saying in these and other threads as well as in the FAQ - and the understanding that you could (almost) say it's DCS:LockOn; that is, it will be using the same generation of the TFCSE as DCS:BS does.

 

So I would assume that if a server/client behaviour exists in DCS:BS it is reasonable to expect the same behaviour to exist in FC2. If you want to "preview" that you should be able to get a general idea through testing it on DCS.

 

Obviously though, there might be changes made during FC2 development that translate into DCS:BS as well so that would be a general rule only.

[RvEYoda]

I really hope ill be allowed to download the server list...

Man what an awesome browser we could make :)

[Moa]

A hyperlobby replacement if you will (no more having to patch Vista/7 to make Hyperlobby to work right).

 

Would be nice if it let you see who was flying what, that way you know whether to spawn as fighter or attack aircraft.

[Sanch0]

I really hope ill be allowed to download the server list...

Man what an awesome browser we could make :)

 

It sounds good :music_whistling:

 

:cheer3nc:

[RvEYoda]

Actually now that Im thinking about it...

We dont need to download the servers...

 

I just got an idea :) :

Every server that wants to be listed in our browser installs a special server script

This script transparently and automatically connects to our server list when they launch a mission and says

"hello im running mission..., with mods... , and settings ....", and then continously

feeds our server with real time data.

 

So in fact, we dont even need their server list...

It will be visible of course automatically in the ingame browser,

but also feed the necessary data to our browser.

 

But it would also be good to list the "default" servers who don't use this server script

Edited December 6, 2009 by =RvE=Yoda

[Breakshot]

We shall see if any changes to the game browser will be implemented in FC2.0... I dont have my hopes too high, as it stands now i reckon its gonna be a carbon copy of DCS:BS, which i find quite bad, IMO... HL does a much better job... you can chat, see whos in game, keep a friends list, PM... etc etc...

 

While DCS multilayer interface can barely allow you to read the game name after a number of "refresh" clicks and "IP only" lists... :(

[GhostDog]

The focus on potential lua exploits seems somewhat misdirected to me. IMO, cheat prevention is more a matter of good squadron and match management than anything else. Making people register, create a profile and login before they can fly on your server will deter 90% of the casual punks who like to pull stunts. Taking the further step of requiring new registrants to fly training missions before they compete so you can observe their skills and character beforehand will weed out all but the most determined cheats. The determined folks are going to circumvent whatever safeguards you put in place anyway, so there's little point in inconveniencing and discouraging everyone else with elaborate and onerous configuration requirements. If you make a point of getting to know who you're flying with and keeping your squadron well managed, cheating will rarely be a problem.

[104th_Crunch]

The focus on potential lua exploits seems somewhat misdirected to me. IMO, cheat prevention is more a matter of good squadron and match management than anything else. Making people register, create a profile and login before they can fly on your server...

 

Interesting idea, but it would be a logistical nightmare. We are talking about servers running 24/7 here, not one off matchs etc. For ex, register at a squad's website, submit IP, filter that IP to be allowed into the server. It would be very hard to maintain and would deter many casual people from joining in the first place.

 

You are right, nothing is 100%, but the harder it is to make it possible to cheat, the better. You simply can't just give up saying that people will cheat anyway.

[GhostDog]

Interesting idea, but it would be a logistical nightmare. We are talking about servers running 24/7 here, not one off matchs etc. For ex, register at a squad's website, submit IP, filter that IP to be allowed into the server. It would be very hard to maintain and would deter many casual people from joining in the first place.

 

It's not hard at all. Put your server behind a BBS front end. Those who are registered get access to the server page. Those who aren't, don't. The BBS software takes care of all the user management. :smartass:

 

You are right, nothing is 100%, but the harder it is to make it possible to cheat, the better. You simply can't just give up saying that people will cheat anyway.

 

I wasn't suggesting "giving up". I was suggesting relying primarily on a few simple interactive steps that will have benefits beyond cheat prevention, instead of relying on coding alone.

Edited December 30, 2009 by GhostDog