LUSO Posted October 24, 2013 Author Posted October 24, 2013 I publish the page on the French forum. they can verify this possible difference version. ;) [sIGPIC]http://www.131st.net/ipb/public/style_extra/calltags/calltag_luso.png[/sIGPIC]
Robin_Hood Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 I think our server is running on Hyper-V, and it doesn't work. In any case, trying different VM software is more of a workaround than a clean solution. It would be nice if DCSW could run on any virtual machine. 2nd French Fighter Squadron
LUSO Posted October 24, 2013 Author Posted October 24, 2013 Ok I reported the exchanges at my squadron also, but The owner of the server use Hyper-V and the system presented is not automated at startup etc ... [sIGPIC]http://www.131st.net/ipb/public/style_extra/calltags/calltag_luso.png[/sIGPIC]
LUSO Posted October 24, 2013 Author Posted October 24, 2013 (edited) Why Hyper-V doesn't work? Robin_Hood si peux expliquer, merci!! ;) I relate your answers Edited October 24, 2013 by LUSO [sIGPIC]http://www.131st.net/ipb/public/style_extra/calltags/calltag_luso.png[/sIGPIC]
Rhinox Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 I'm surprised. I thought Hyper-V could be better platform for Windows-VM, than any other hypervisor. But apparently, it is not that way. But Microsoft is still relatively new in this area, while VMware was actually pioneer of virtualization (at least on PC)...
Robin_Hood Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 (edited) Alright, so it seems clear that ATM, we have the following: Working VMware vSphere VMware Player VMware Workstation ? (probably) Not working VirtualBox Hyper-V By the way, if others can and are willing to make their own tests just to be sure, the more the better Edited October 24, 2013 by Robin_Hood 2nd French Fighter Squadron
Rhinox Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 (edited) Alright, so it seems clear that ATM, we have the following: Working VMWare vSphere Not working VirtualBox Hyper-V No. Working is: VMware Player and probably VMware Workstation (both desktop virtualization products) VMware vSphere (server virtualization) (VMware is just company name, not product-name) ______________________________________ BTW, there is (I think) useful info in this thread. Maybe it is worth to make it sticky, or rename to something better (easier to find by searching)... Edited October 24, 2013 by Rhinox
LUSO Posted October 24, 2013 Author Posted October 24, 2013 Hyper-V: It has yet use to date before the update by us. [sIGPIC]http://www.131st.net/ipb/public/style_extra/calltags/calltag_luso.png[/sIGPIC]
Robin_Hood Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 (edited) No. Working is: VMware Player and probably VMware Workstation (both desktop virtualization products) VMware vSphere (server virtualization) (VMware is just company name, not product-name) ______________________________________ BTW, there is (I think) useful info in this thread. Maybe it is worth to make it sticky, or rename to something better (easier to find by searching)... Roger that, I don't know a lot about VMs. I edited Edited October 24, 2013 by Robin_Hood 2nd French Fighter Squadron
Vedexent Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 (edited) I'm surprised. I thought Hyper-V could be better platform for Windows-VM, than any other hypervisor. But apparently, it is not that way. But Microsoft is still relatively new in this area, while VMware was actually pioneer of virtualization (at least on PC)... Although it's not a question of what hosts a windows VM "better" - it's about what virtualization techniques trigger the apparent DRM. Various virtualization layers have different virtualiztion "clues": signature default values (registry keys, hard disk name, default network card address), dmesg output values (for *nix based guests), subtle non-fatal but known - and thus detectable - implementation bugs, etc. I would guess the DRM in this case is looking for certain signatures, and ignoring others - and Hyper-V must implement one of the known signatures. Edit: If you're wondering if a VM could ever be made "detection proof", check this out - it suggests not. Timing analysis might always be a weakness: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~cthompson/papers/virt-detect.pdf Edited October 24, 2013 by Vedexent
Rhinox Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 By "better" I meant better representation of underlying hardware. Not better hiding its (hypervisor's) presence. I have good reason to think DCS-World (with its ProActive or whatever protection system it uses) is NOT trying to detect VM at all. Why? Just open VMware Player (or ESXi) VM and check hardware names: you will find things like "VMware SVGA graphics adapter", etc. It does not use some fake (but real), or random names. Or check CPU, and it says: Intel Core-i7 with 1 (!) core (which i7 is single-core? none!). I also had "VMware Tools" installed and running, another clear trace of VM. Etc, etc. I will check that VirtualBox-problem, but despite of that error-message box I think it does not fail because it detected VM...
xaoslaad Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 This probably explains some of the confusion over what exactly the DRM is. ProActive is product name (I did not know that) made by StarForce, the company. http://proactive.star-force.com/2.0/activate.php http://www.star-force.com/
SkateZilla Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 Or check CPU, and it says: Intel Core-i7 with 1 (!) core (which i7 is single-core? none!). I also had "VMware Tools" installed and running, another clear trace of VM. Etc, etc. On a side note, it's easy to do this without a VM, i can disable Cores/Modules in my Bios and my windows will boot and say FX8350 2,4,6, or 8 Cores. It looks like it has to do with CPU Emulation Type, and whether or not certain Virtualization options are disabled/enabled in the BIOS. I Ran the latest DCS on VMWare fine last night, apart from the slow Loading times due to Virtualization. Will play with CPU Emulation/Virtualization Settings in VMWare to see if I can Provoke ProActive to block Execution of DCS. Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2), ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9) 3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs
BRooDJeRo Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 So the Starfarce thing is more due to certain VM-ware limitations than something being wrong or bugged in DCS?
xaoslaad Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 I read it differently, but without word from them or ED to clarify it's impossible to say for sure. My take is that if they are making an effort to detect virtualization, and preventing the game from running when they do, it is intentional and they're just not doing a very comprehensive/complete job of detecting virtualization. I'd guess their opinion is, what's to stop someone from installing a registered game in a VM and then distributing the VM. Afterall, if it's not the case, why stop if you do detect virtualization. StarForce/ProActive isn't doing you a favor by telling you that your VM is or isn't sufficient to run the game. It's not their job or their purpose. All guesses and interpretation on my part...
SkateZilla Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 No problem, just press this little red button next my post to feed the troll :thumbup: Post reported! You did mean that red button, right? ;) Yeah that one :lol: Please do not Mis-Use the Report Post feature. Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2), ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9) 3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs
Vedexent Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 I'd guess their opinion is, what's to stop someone from installing a registered game in a VM and then distributing the VM. There are ways to block this without blocking VMs, but it requires a little infrastructure on the part of the game company. Your installation is required that it "call home" periodically, and check that the software key is valid. If the authentication server starts seeing the same key coming from multiple systems, the key is suspended or cancelled, and the cloned systems are locked down until the user contacts the company and explains what's going on, and the company may or may not re-activate the key. That incurs some ongoing expense on behalf of the company, however.
Vedexent Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 Please do not Mis-Use the Report Post feature. We did not; we were just kidding.
SkateZilla Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 Someone pressed it.. Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2), ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9) 3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs
Pepec9124 Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 Someone pressed it.. I just got rep + :smilewink: Ontopic: It just sems that vmware products are better at doing things that "real" PC do. 1
Vedexent Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 Someone pressed it.. Unless it was accidental, I don't think it was me ... If so, I apologize. That was not my intent.
SkateZilla Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 I just got rep + :smilewink: Ontopic: It just sems that vmware products are better at doing things that "real" PC do. VMWare has more Options for how it Virtualizes. I Ditched the Microsoft VM/Virtual PC Software long ago, VMWare is just Superior. Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2), ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9) 3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs
Rhinox Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 There are ways to block this without blocking VMs, but it requires a little infrastructure on the part of the game company... Some time ago I have spent a lot of time with FC2 as I tried to run it on VM. It was tough work, because FC2 contained that "true" hard-to-debug StarForce ring0-library. I'm not sure which version was it (5.0?) but *that* protection library had extremely strong VM-detection routines. And it was a few years ago... That's why I'm pretty sure: If StarForce Technologies wanted to prevent running some SW on VM (of *any* kind, be it VBox, VMware, KVM or whatever), they could do it with ProActive too (even without ring0). Such a protection would be very effective and extremely hard (if not impossible) to circumvent. So if it is possible to run DCS-World on VM (without any tweaking!), then it's because they did not disable it intentionally (or maybe it was on request of ED). Not because they forgot to do it...
LUSO Posted October 27, 2013 Author Posted October 27, 2013 Finally, I'm not sure that Starforce is responsible. I had this week the opportunity to make online multiplayer and LAN. The result is exactly the same, such a high latency that it is simply unplayable. I think the causes of our problems come from the same sources. That one can or not start, dedicated server. The game with latest patches became unstable for Multiplayer and unplayable for many. Several of my acquaintances wonder if they continued. Without significant improvements will be the case, only EDGE now restrains will, and are hoping. [sIGPIC]http://www.131st.net/ipb/public/style_extra/calltags/calltag_luso.png[/sIGPIC]
xaoslaad Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 Some time ago I have spent a lot of time with FC2 as I tried to run it on VM. It was tough work, because FC2 contained that "true" hard-to-debug StarForce ring0-library. I'm not sure which version was it (5.0?) but *that* protection library had extremely strong VM-detection routines. And it was a few years ago... That's why I'm pretty sure: If StarForce Technologies wanted to prevent running some SW on VM (of *any* kind, be it VBox, VMware, KVM or whatever), they could do it with ProActive too (even without ring0). Such a protection would be very effective and extremely hard (if not impossible) to circumvent. So if it is possible to run DCS-World on VM (without any tweaking!), then it's because they did not disable it intentionally (or maybe it was on request of ED). Not because they forgot to do it... There are also a lot more virtualization technologies (and versions of them) than there were X number of years ago. Heck, just VMWare has Fusion, Workstation, Player, Server, ESX, yadda yadda yadda. Now add Parallels, HyperV, KVM, Xen, VirtualBox, etc. It could be that it's just like playing whack-a-mole trying to keep up with all the different implementations.
Recommended Posts