rec.autos.simulators

> Negative side effects are annoying, but these are not the fault of those
who
> try to write cheat detection programs, they're the fault of those who
write
> and use cheats.

> You're just a regular ***waxer, aren't you. (-:

> disclaimer: this post has absolutely no pertinent information or m***
> value.

> --
> Mike Grandy
> www.precision-racing.com


> > Achim,

> > You know, for awhile I considered your opinions on sim issues valuable
but
> > what you just said was almost as lame as what happen to Jeff LOL

> > Jeff, like I said is average at best, and was waxing their butts in
their
> > league.  Jeff asked me to join and I waxed HIS ***and they didnt call
me
> a
> > cheater.

> > Your points about trying to do the right thing for the community is
valid.
> > Was is not is making the assumption that decent people who play fair
must
> > suffer.  Jeff isn't bent out of shape over this.  It was (IN MY OPNION)
a
> > lame league, 25% moderate damage, 1/3 of all their racing was under
> caution.

> > But, I'm glad to see that the innocent need to suffer for the greater
> good,
> > EVEN IN AMERICA LOL !!!

> > --
> > Tim White
> > www.intracmotorsports.com

> > > Tim, you shouldn't be so critical of this.

> > > Of course this key detection method (if that's really what it is)
isn't
> > > optimal, but at least, it's an attempt. More than most of us have done
> to
> > > help doing something against the cheat situation.

> > > Anything that can detect cheats, and even if it doesn't work 100%, is
a
> > > welcome means of prevention against cheats. Cheaters must be left in
> > > uncertainty as to whether they can be detected, so as to at least
> perhaps
> > > prevent the more consciencious or timid ones from trying it.

> > > Negative side effects are annoying, but these are not the fault of
those
> > who
> > > try to write cheat detection programs, they're the fault of those who
> > write
> > > and use cheats.

> > > Achim

> > > > Thats interesting...

> > > > Jeff's uses a lightpen & pad for artwork that uses those keys F11,
and
> > or
> > > > F12.
> > > > You'd think if someone was going to write a hack to detect if
certain
> > keys
> > > > are enabled they would bother to look into if any other software was
> > using
> > > > them, and what software that was.

> > > > Man, if their only way of detecting a cheat is to see what keys are
> > avail,
> > > > man thats lame.  Hell I could do that LOL

> > > > --
> > > > Tim White
> > > > www.intracmotorsports.com

> > Negative side effects are annoying, but these are not the fault of those
> who
> > try to write cheat detection programs, they're the fault of those who
> write
> > and use cheats.

> The fault is to Papyrus, for not fixing the holes they left open for
> cheaters.

> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/
> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
> Corporation - helping America into the New World...

> Considering the nature of this cheat, and considering all the implications
> connected to this form of cheating, I'd think its tremendously difficult
to
> prevent that sort of cheat. I don't know any game or sim that successfully
> does so.

> Considering the nature of this cheat, and considering all the implications
> connected to this form of cheating, I'd think its tremendously difficult to
> prevent that sort of cheat. I don't know any game or sim that successfully
> does so.

> Let's not chop the wrong heads - it's the cheaters that do this to us,
> nobody else.

> On a side note, I'm not sure this is really a big issue. I've been racing on
> WON the last couple of days and to me, everything looked normal. Although
> someone showed me a replay of a car getting its crumpled hood repaired at
> 180mph exiting from T2 of an oval in the middle of the track - but that is
> certainly not a very intelligent cheat, if it was a cheat at all <g>

> > Considering the nature of this cheat, and considering all the
implications
> > connected to this form of cheating, I'd think its tremendously difficult
> to
> > prevent that sort of cheat. I don't know any game or sim that
successfully
> > does so.

> You could just block any TSR from running the ports while NR2002 is
running,
> no?

> Yeah, I can see now the difficulties.

> What you mean by 'running the ports', and how would it prevent RAM
sniffers
> or little programs from modifying RAM locations?

> What you mean by 'running the ports', and how would it prevent RAM
sniffers
> or little programs from modifying RAM locations? Do you see a difference
in
> how to prevent this form of cheats under Win9x and W2k/XP?

> Achim

> > > Considering the nature of this cheat, and considering all the
> implications
> > > connected to this form of cheating, I'd think its tremendously
difficult
> > to
> > > prevent that sort of cheat. I don't know any game or sim that
> successfully
> > > does so.

> > You could just block any TSR from running the ports while NR2002 is
> running,
> > no?

> > Yeah, I can see now the difficulties.

> Rather than using "set" areas of memory each time the program (N2002) is
> run, it should use random areas.  That wouldn't entirely prevent the
current
> cheat, but make it much more difficult.  Of course that would require
> someone to WORK on the program.  Considering what kind of BS I have seen,
> this lack of cheat detection doesn't surprise me at all.  Heck, they
> couldn't/can't even fix the darn wall bugs, improper drafting and the
arcade
> physics.  This is all about what SELLS, not what is GOOD.

> Bill / Amish on Team Brickyard
> www.iracingfx.com

> > What you mean by 'running the ports', and how would it prevent RAM
> sniffers
> > or little programs from modifying RAM locations? Do you see a difference
> in
> > how to prevent this form of cheats under Win9x and W2k/XP?

>     The "Ram Cheat" in its present form will not work with XP because of
the
> way its protects the files from being written to. There are ways around it
> but
> the cheat is only effect on 98 based systems.
>     For the uninitiated this cheat dates back to the original Nascar in
fact
> the
> original one was capable of keeping your gas at 1 gallon for the whole
race,
> repair damage on the fly, allow gear ratios beyond the normal range,
> spoilers
> beyond the normal range plus the tires. You were also able to do setups in
> Indy Car One (as the code was still in Nascar) and use harder or softer
> compound tires etc and then copy them over to Nascar and get the benefits.
>     I will also tell you there are far more sophisticated cheats available
> but
> no need to go there.

>     Pete

> > What you mean by 'running the ports', and how would it prevent RAM
> sniffers
> > or little programs from modifying RAM locations? Do you see a difference
> in
> > how to prevent this form of cheats under Win9x and W2k/XP?

> > Achim