Open Sauce Ideas thread

[Dwood]

Guys just wait until Skarma gets done with his reversing. How about instead we focus on someone doing a *silent* version changer for Open Sauce?

[Rambo]

OK. He could be the one that could do it. He could compare EXE code between stock netcode and where the patched code was inserted, then make a fix for Open Sauce.

[p0lar_bear]

PS: Not to stray from the bug topic at hand, but one of my ideas (if it's possible to implement) would be to allow Open Sauced game servers to host a maximum of 32 players instead of 16 on a T1/LAN connection. This would be pure pWn4g3 on a Machinima server or a MMORPG server.

It's been tried about a million times. The game is not coded to handle more than 16 networked players, and shit happens when the 17th player joins.

Korn has made it clear that there are a lot of things, mostly things such as revamping the game's existing systems, that are simply not feasible without the game's source code. IIRC OS is meant to add to the game's engine, not change anything.

[Rambo]

OK I accept. well put, mate.

[Dwood]

It's been tried about a million times. The game is not coded to handle more than 16 networked players, and happens when the 17th player joins.

Korn has made it clear that there are a lot of things, mostly things such as revamping the game's existing systems, that are simply not feasible without the game's source code. IIRC OS is meant to add to the game's engine, not change anything.

Well imho it is possible but who wants to dissassemble over 10,000 100,000 lines of assembler code just to find out what's going on?

[Rambo]

About the updated Netcode fix Kornan00 made to his Open Sauce 2 build, I have a suggestion.

No offense to kornman00, but regarding the current build he has of the Netcode fixes, I don't fully trust the conditions that this current build for testing purposes would subsequently create. I do, however, believe that it very well could still work; however, there is a part of me that feels the upgrade would act as a hindering factor to bute-force testing. I'd still very much like to see the results of the test. However, it is in my opinion, that in order to flush out this pesky bug, we need an environment that is rigged to kick a client from the server. If we can use that rather than his reroutes or "fixes" or whatever he did, then we could possibly come up with a more "direct" solution.

Kornman00, I am still very much interested in a possible position as a tester. However, I just wanted to point out the preceding as what I feel are more viable testing conditions. By "fixing" one problem and causing the server to send packets and the client to supposedly ignore them, we may have pevented the detection of te real problem at hand.

[ShadowSpartan]

No offense to kornman00, but I don't fully trust the conditions that his current build for testing purposes would create.

I don't think any of the networking code is implemented in the RC release.

I'd still very much like to see the results of the test. However, it is in my opinion, that in order to flush out this pesky bug, we need an environment that is rigged to kick a client from the server.

It's not a bug. A bug is code doing something that is unexpected. It is expected for Halo to not accept modified packets, so it's not a bug, but instead a security feature.

[Rambo]

Dude, for Pete's sake, just be quiet and quit trying to introject your two cents' worth of non-constructive criticism.

and you didn't bother to even research the SDK, did you? The post I quoted from in the Manual said that, by default, it is DISABLED, not unimplemented. Unimplemented, in most cases, means not even structured to function. All one has to do is remove the macro in the build conditions to include the netcode environment, and bingo! Now you have a netcode that will crash clients' connections the instant a foreign packet is introduced into the data stream from the server.

You never saw it coming because you didn't test a build you comiled yourself. You relied on the stock DLL file provided on the release thread's first page.

beore you start spewing diarrheic nonsense, I'd advize you to make sure that the conditions for your statements are fully met on all levels and from all angles. That means, do your so-called "homework" before you post another negative spiel such as this.

[skywalker71291]

Yea ShadowSpartan, Just because you can't do ANYTHING!!!! that anyone else wants to know how to do dosen't mean you can go around and be a BRAT and try to make your self look good.( YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!!) Rambo is one of my good friends and he has researched extensively the differences between the various patches' conditions and what they fixed. Although he is not a programmer himself, he is aware of these problematic issues that were corrected and can thereby logically conclude the resulting consequences of an issue such as the black-hat hacker fix. Now stop acting like you know everything and stop being a troll okay? And go tell someone that cares and will put up with this crap!

FOR EXAMPLE! :

It's not a bug. A bug is code doing something that is unexpected. It is expected for Halo to not accept modified packets, so it's not a bug, but instead a security feature.

[Dwood]

Why is this even an argument when we can all just wait for Skarma and worry about more apparent problems?