[bf1942] Punkbuster confirmed for 1.6

[Andreas Fredriksson]

PB works with multiple BF hosts by relying on the overlayPath feature
(also available on win32 with 1.6) and keeps a separate pb installation
for each instance.

There are commands available to control the automatic update procedure
you can use to set the amount of simultaneous updates and you can also
try to force an update if DNS resolution has been stalled or if a previous
update attempt failed due to other network issues.

I've added threaded DNS resolution to the server to avoid any DNS lockups,
but this might also mean that PB might not be able to update itself when
a DNS query has been stalled for a long time, so admins using PB will want
to learn about how to tweak the updating.

This info will of course be available in the online documentation for the
system.

// Andreas

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Hartland
To: bf1942 at icculus.org
Sent: 12/2/2003 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: [bf1942] Punkbuster confirmed for 1.6

The main problems we have seen is PB's issues with multiple servers
running from one instance, it doesn't like it; due to the way it was
designed
I was told then I mailed their tech support. The pb server update fails
half
the time ( download server bandwidth issues? ) and you have to manually
patch it. Also the CPU load increases for games that have recently
implemented it have also caused problems. RavenShield is one that
springs to mind.

Don't get me wrong I would love to see this work as cheats really piss
me off and I can see the benefit of things like PB but our experience
so far has not been the most positive. We can only hope with the quality
of the other work if anyone can pull it off it u guys can.

    Steve / K

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Fredriksson" <andreas.fredriksson at dice.se>
To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 4:46 PM
Subject: RE: [bf1942] Punkbuster confirmed for 1.6


> Well, I did the PB integration and carefully throttled the bandwidth
> so that you'll hardly notice PB updates as a player on an ISDN link.
> 
> The BF integration is unique in this regard because screenshots and
> net speeds for PB are all throttled by the game's own network layer.
> 
> I can't see the point in complaining about lag until you've even tried
> the system.
> 
> // Andreas
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www clan - Starkness [mailto:starkness at wwwclan.com] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 5:15 PM
> > To: bf1942 at icculus.org
> > Subject: RE: [bf1942] Punkbuster confirmed for 1.6
> > 
> > 
> > Sad but true.  When you try to update their client or server 
> > side software patches through your console in the game 
> > (sof2), it takes forever for their servers to respond and 
> > send you the patch.  I have watched pings soar in SOF2 from 
> > 40's and 50's to never below 100 and this affected everyone 
> > playing the game, after punkbuster took over.  Their 
> > technique of catching punk ass bitches is paying off in some 
> > circles, i.e..  a whole slew of punks from top clans were 
> > removed from CAL sof2 ladder just recently because of being 
> > caught by pb.  There are pro's and con's to pb but it took a 
> > lot of the fun out of SOF2 because lag is attributed to their 
> > overloaded jacked-up servers/lousy connection?
> > 
> > Thank God other games are just on the horizon.  IMHO bf1942 
> > is going to suck after pb takes over...
> > 
> > my $.02
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steven Hartland [mailto:killing at barrysworld.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:24 AM
> > To: bf1942 at icculus.org
> > Subject: Re: [bf1942] Punkbuster confirmed for 1.6
> > 
> > 
> > Time will only tell but from my experiences with PB it causes 
> > more problems for the admin than it solves :(
> > 
> >     Steve / K
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "SySt3M" <syst3m at downclan.com>
> > To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 12:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [bf1942] Punkbuster confirmed for 1.6
> > 
> > 
> > > I'm the same, I think its great that DICE are at least 
> > addressing the
> > issue.
> > >
> > > >i disagree
> > 
> > 
>