[bf1942] Punkbuster confirmed for 1.6
Andreas Fredriksson
andreas.fredriksson at dice.se
Wed Dec 3 03:11:25 EST 2003
PB is a part of the server process, there are no external programs involved.
// Andreas
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Chen [mailto:achen-bf1942 at divo.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 11:02 PM
> To: bf1942 at icculus.org
> Subject: RE: [bf1942] Punkbuster confirmed for 1.6
>
>
> So does this mean that each copy of BF will have its own PB
> daemon? That
> is, we need to have another daemon running in the background to host
> PB? It would be ideal (from a management standpoint) to have
> PB as just
> another thread as part of the same process. Thanks.
>
> At 01:52 PM 12/2/2003, you wrote:
> >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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
More information about the Bf1942
mailing list