PD vs Hackers "Notice of Account Ban Measures"

[Swagger897]

Why is this job description debate still even going?

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

I think you are referring to doing a SQL lookup of the car's options and using parent tables to check for validity.

No, not really but of course if that applied it would work very well. Of course I don;t know how the data is structured as I have not even looked at the save game data nor do I have any interest in doing so.

I do not think it would be a data size issue, the extra amount needed would be minimal and likely unnoticable in the grand scheme of things.

Something must link the parts to the cars else the game would not be able to tell which cars could have the parts when you upgrade them in game so you might want to rethink that part.

 

[FarSideX]

No, not really but of course if that applied it would work very well. Of course I don;t know how the data is structured as I have not even looked at the save game data nor do I have any interest in doing so.

I do not think it would be a data size issue, the extra amount needed would be minimal and likely unnoticable in the grand scheme of things.

Something must link the parts to the cars else the game would not be able to tell which cars could have the parts when you upgrade them in game so you might want to rethink that part.

Of course you are correct in there being a connection to show what is available for purchase in the tuning section and I did overlook that. I have not seen the table that determines that either. But that is only the tip of the iceberg as all parts are made up of other parts, etc. That and the game being ~15Gb already is why I think data size was part of the decision, but hey I wasn't there!

As far as I know no one has decrypted the save game data. I have stated I would not do it. But I also hinted at an easy way of doing it. One other person I know of says he is close to completing it, I have to believe him as he posted other data suggesting he is using the method I hinted at. But he is more than capable of doing it without any hints.

 

[OdeFinn]

If you know me (and it almost seems like you do) telling me something isn't possible is just motivation to prove that wrong.
I am surprised you remember the name from back then, I rarely bump into anyone any more from those days. Add to that people are using my name, so I tagged an 'X' on the end when OSX was first released.
And I am getting bored of it, PD better counter soon.
I am a little curious as to who are/were though. Did you know me personally or just through my work back then? You mentioned 2600 and later CCing, that wasn't something I did much of due to my location, other than making a tool for obtaining CCs by exploiting Compuserve's dial ups.
Edit: reread your post thought you meant 2600Hz not baud I started with 110 baud, later the 300 baud Pocket Modem was so awesome we could push it to 450 reliably and 600 not so reliably.

I know you, our paths have crossed time ago, we had common friend.
Still all crown jewels a worth of doing something, everything can...
It was Hz.

This situation is really awkward, I just want this game to be playable, putting all in the grid on same line, and then I got you on the other end, fu-kwakduck and few reindeers multiplying... Think, practically I have one, one single game what I play and enjoy, and it happens to be GT.. I don't have to say more

Have to start thinking what kind of races can be done on this situation, maybe some could still be done.. *snif*

 

[nasanu]

As I demonstrated the number of possible valid hashes far exceeds any usable sized hash.

You keep saying that but when did you demonstrate this?

Adding the tables required is possible but would be a data size issue given the level of detail GT6 uses.

If it uses an SQL database then its even easier. It would only require one more table (with a part ID and car ID for each row). Even if each car has 100 parts that it could be composed of, this would only mean a 120,000 row table (and each row only two ints) which is nothing really. 10MB perhaps at max.

And you say the client sends what it wants to the server.. I really doubt this. To do this you would need to be hacking the source code, but you're just playing with save files as far as I can see. If they put hash checks in the source then I fail to see how you could get around these.

 

[FarSideX]

Why is the size of the hash table an issue? So far nobody has explained why we need to check setups and not specs? Or even if we need to check setups, why cant we just check upper and lower bounds? The notion that we would need to check every possible setup value combination just seems absurd to me.

Specs are already checked and all players are given the tools to only allow those that fall in the upper and lower boundaries they chose to be in their lobbies.
With the exception of the signed PP exploit these tools should keep out hybrids that do not fall within the specs you want enforced. If a hybrid that fits those specs bothers you, you may want to rethink your priorities. Or ask yourself what the difference between allowing a Fiat 500 that drives like an RX-8 and allowing a RX-8 is.

There is simply no need to make further checks on specs, but there are those that oppose hybrids so much that they do not want them even if they meet the specs of the room, so a cry out to check setups is being made.

I hope that answers why setups and not specs.

@OdeFinn makes a valid concern when it comes to detuning but that also applies to non-hybrids.
That is also a special case where serious players are running a series of races with closely matching cars. If it a series to be run over a period of time than why run them in public rooms and not friends only?

You keep saying that but when did you demonstrate this?

Multiple times, over and over. Anyone care to point them out to him?

If it uses an SQL database then its even easier. It would only require one more table (with a part ID and car ID for each row). Even if each car has 100 parts that it could be composed of, this would only mean a 120,000 row table (and each row only two ints) which is nothing really. 10MB perhaps at max.

Please read past posts, I am not repeating this again. If it was that easy then ask yourself why on the 7th release of Gran Turismo have they not done so, all the other versions were hacked too. Explain.

And you say the client sends what it wants to the server.. I really doubt this. To do this you would need to be hacking the source code, but you're just playing with save files as far as I can see. If they put hash checks in the source then I fail to see how you could get around these.

No one has modified the save files... yet. If that were the case you would have seen far more hybrids online. Prepare for the storm once that is done.
The source code is in C and C++, my assembly language is better than my C, C++. What use of source code do I have?

Please explain what use hash checks in the source code would have.

 

[Imari]

Please read past posts, I am not repeating this again. If it was that easy then ask yourself why on the 7th release of Gran Turismo have they not done so, all the other versions were hacked too. Explain.

I don't pretend to know enough to say which one of you is right, but there's a whole lot of things that PD haven't addressed, in the 6th releases they've had so far. Despite things being easy.

Logic and Polyphony Digital do not go together, unfortunately. Saying that a normal developer would have just implemented it by now doesn't really get us very far.

 

[FarSideX]

I don't pretend to know enough to say which one of you is right, but there's a whole lot of things that PD haven't addressed, in the 6th releases they've had so far. Despite things being easy.

Logic and Polyphony Digital do not go together, unfortunately. Saying that a normal developer would have just implemented it by now doesn't really get us very far.

6 releases? I count 7.

It's not just PD.
The COD series is still using the Quake III arena engine from 1999. MW2 still accepted the same built in cheat codes as Quake. I never tested past that, but ghost is still using basically the same game and net code. When they claim they have a new engine what they mean to say is the bought another 3rd party graphic engine piece, not that the game engine has changed. But those companies are mostly game design companies with few programmers to tie in the 3rd party stuff, and a small amount of their own code.

 

[Imari]

6 releases? I count 7.

I count a lot more than that if you count GT5P, GT4P, GTPSP, TT, and however many manufacturer and special ed. demos they've put out. I was counting main numbered releases.

But does the number really change the point I was making? It could be twenty releases, or a hundred. They'd still be PD and forget something obvious.

 

[nasanu]

Specs are already checked and all players are given the tools to only allow those that fall in the upper and lower boundaries they chose to be in their lobbies.
With the exception of the signed PP exploit these tools should keep out hybrids that do not fall within the specs you want enforced. If a hybrid that fits those specs bothers you, you may want to rethink your priorities. Or ask yourself what the difference between allowing a Fiat 500 that drives like an RX-8 and allowing a RX-8 is.

There is simply no need to make further checks on specs, but there are those that oppose hybrids so much that they do not want them even if they meet the specs of the room, so a cry out to check setups is being made.

I hope that answers why setups and not specs.

No it does not answer in the slightest. Why not just answer the question?

Multiple times, over and over. Anyone care to point them out to him?

Again why not just answer the question?

Please read past posts, I am not repeating this again. If it was that easy then ask yourself why on the 7th release of Gran Turismo have they not done so, all the other versions were hacked too. Explain.

For the same reason that PD has to patch the same faults each time they release a new GT game?... They are extremely slow learners. I warned on the old granturismo.com forums before GT4 came out that things like corner cutting and wall bouncing would be an issue online yet when online finally did come to GT it came without any sort of cheat prevention. And when GT7 rolls around you can bet the options in found in GT6 will disappear and will have to be reintroduced in patches just like when going from GT5 to GT6.

Please explain what use hash checks in the source code would have.

To produce unalterable hashes?... What else would they be there for? Unless you are tying to say people are altering the game code itself and not just asset files? And what does the language its written in have to do with it?

You say GT6 hybrids are all made using legal parts, but you have also said each car is made of a stupidly large number of parts (seemingly like you have just said each part is an int16 value so each single part is really 65000 parts...? ). And you have also said that the PP value is a signed int. That one is easy, make it unsigned. Its a 2 second change and I cant think of any reason why any part of the code should care if it is signed or unsigned.

Now you will have to explain why you think cars are made of billions of parts when clearly they actually are not. How did you come up with the number you quoted?

 

[FarSideX]

No it does not answer in the slightest. Why not just answer the question?

Again why not just answer the question?

You have made it clear your intention is only to give other members a hard time. I find it difficult to believe you are seriously asking this as these have been answered multiple times in this thread.

For the same reason that PD has to patch the same faults each time they release a new GT game?... They are extremely slow learners. I warned on the old granturismo.com forums before GT4 came out that things like corner cutting and wall bouncing would be an issue online yet when online finally did come to GT it came without any sort of cheat prevention. And when GT7 rolls around you can bet the options in found in GT6 will disappear and will have to be reintroduced in patches just like when going from GT5 to GT6.

I don't think it is PD who are the extremely slow learners.

To produce unalterable hashes?... What else would they be there for? Unless you are tying to say people are altering the game code itself and not just asset files? And what does the language its written in have to do with it?

"unalterable hashes" - How would they work? I seriously don't know how this "unalterable hashes" would work. Do they use Voodoo or other mystical powers? Please enlighten us.

You say GT6 hybrids are all made using legal parts, but you have also said each car is made of a stupidly large number of parts (seemingly like you have just said each part is an int16 value so each single part is really 65000 parts...? ). And you have also said that the PP value is a signed int. That one is easy, make it unsigned. Its a 2 second change and I cant think of any reason why any part of the code should care if it is signed or unsigned.

The code casts part values from UInt32 to UInt16 and vice versa throughout the code. The significance of of PP being a signed int16 is clearly lost on you. I never said it was a signed int as that would make it either 32 bits or 64 depending on the mode the processor is set to by the compiler.
Because PD does not have the benefit of your employ, fixing the signed int16 PP will take a little longer than 2 seconds, changing the declaration may only take that long but I think it appears elsewhere in the code too. But yes it is trivial.
I am a little surprised someone like yourself "can't think of any reason why any part of the code should care if it is signed or unsigned" especially after the precise reason has already been explained.

Now you will have to explain why you think cars are made of billions of parts when clearly they actually are not. How did you come up with the number you quoted?

Sure as soon as you show me where I said I thought that. And any large numbers I quoted for other things included the math to derive them.

I eagerly await your explanation of "unalterable hashes" and their role in protecting code almost as much as seeing where I said there were billions of parts!

 

[nasanu]

You have made it clear your intention is only to give other members a hard time. I find it difficult to believe you are seriously asking this as these have been answered multiple times in this thread.



I don't think it is PD who are the extremely slow learners.



"unalterable hashes" - How would they work? I seriously don't know how this "unalterable hashes" would work. Do they use Voodoo or other mystical powers? Please enlighten us.


The code casts part values from UInt32 to UInt16 and vice versa throughout the code. The significance of of PP being a signed int16 is clearly lost on you. I never said it was a signed int as that would make it either 32 bits or 64 depending on the mode the processor is set to by the compiler.
Because PD does not have the benefit of your employ, fixing the signed int16 PP will take a little longer than 2 seconds, changing the declaration may only take that long but I think it appears elsewhere in the code too. But yes it is trivial.
I am a little surprised someone like yourself "can't think of any reason why any part of the code should care if it is signed or unsigned" especially after the precise reason has already been explained.



Sure as soon as you show me where I said I thought that. And any large numbers I quoted for other things included the math to derive them.

I eagerly await your explanation of "unalterable hashes" and their role in protecting code almost as much as seeing where I said there were billions of parts!

You don't answer a thing do you?

What I mean by unalterable is that unless someone has found a way to alter the compiled code then they can't interfere with the output of the hash function. Got a problem with that?

EDITED out PP stuff because its kind of useless till you spill where exactly the negative value comes into play. Obviously implicit casting is coming into play, all ints could well be unsigned already.

Oh and what is with this:

"The significance of of PP being a signed int16 is clearly lost on you. I never said it was a signed int "

Even in that sentence you say its a signed int, then you say you never said it...?

If you just answered some questions with actual details this would all be a lot easier.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Specs are already checked and all players are given the tools to only allow those that fall in the upper and lower boundaries they chose to be in their lobbies.
With the exception of the signed PP exploit these tools should keep out hybrids that do not fall within the specs you want enforced. If a hybrid that fits those specs bothers you, you may want to rethink your priorities. Or ask yourself what the difference between allowing a Fiat 500 that drives like an RX-8 and allowing a RX-8 is.

There are things that affect performance that you cannot check in regular lobby settings, and other things that are impractical to check or limit. Aero for example, is no longer a part of the PP. Adding invisible front aero to most cars will make them faster on twisty tracks. In GT5 there were drivetrain parts you could add that weren't available in the main game that affect performance. Adding 4wd will be a significant advantage in higher powered cars on street tires especially at the start. Gaining a 2 second advantage into the first corner alone will almost guarantee victory. Yes you can turn 4wd off in the lobby settings, but that's kind of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You reject global limits but I see a great use for them. I've mentioned before that all lobbies should be limited to 1500hp or whatever the upper limit is for regular cars and you said to just use the lobby settings. Fair enough, that will work of course, but the larger picture is, if you show up to a lobby and try to get in with 30,000 hp in a lobby with no HP limit and there is a hidden global limit, the game will automatically know that you are hybriding. An automatic console ban would be a nice touch IMO.

Not everyone playing this game and hybriding is a rocket surgeon. Smart guys might figure some of this stuff out and avoid it but not everyone will. Not every solution has to work for every single possibility either in order for it to be effective.

 

[OdeFinn]

@OdeFinn makes a valid concern when it comes to detuning but that also applies to non-hybrids.
That is also a special case where serious players are running a series of races with closely matching cars. If it a series to be run over a period of time than why run them in public rooms and not friends only?

Not new info, I'm not those persons who need barbwire demonstrations
Friend only lobbies is case, but you know when someone have to show bigger balls than others, and then there comes these a hole solutions and some slight tweaking might apply in to series if it can be done easily with minimum risk of getting caught.

I know at you won't do public tools for spoofing car specs, and that has to be enough for me..

"unalterable hashes" - How would they work? I seriously don't know how this "unalterable hashes" would work. Do they use Voodoo or other mystical powers? Please enlighten us

Maybe having some idea of combined data, used as save_values+Hard_coded_car_tables+key_tables(just to add some extra value per car, maybe mold for passing data thru)=hash/check_data ? (few hours sleep, but still typing this )

what you think what happens if they (PD) do stuff like this:
Encrypt PSN-ID using some open key=CD1
Encrypt save data, and small part of game data using this CD1 as a key.. I need sleep .. brain hiccups..

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

You keep saying that but when did you demonstrate this?



If it uses an SQL database then its even easier. It would only require one more table (with a part ID and car ID for each row). Even if each car has 100 parts that it could be composed of, this would only mean a 120,000 row table (and each row only two ints) which is nothing really. 10MB perhaps at max.

10MB? 120,000 rows containing two integers would be less than 1Mb i.e. 120,000x4 = 480,000 + indexes

Of course if it were me this is not how I would do it and I would not need that much space

 

[FarSideX]

You don't answer a thing do you?

Troll much? Or is it that you truly do not comprehend the answers I have already given?

What I mean by unalterable is that unless someone has found a way to alter the compiled code then they can't interfere with the output of the hash function. Got a problem with that?

No problem at all! Wouldn't slow anyone down for even a second, completely useless. Never in the history of computers has there not been a way to alter compiled code. How do you think programs were made before compilers? Or did compilers come from the same place as "unalterable hashes"?

EDITED out PP stuff because its kind of useless till you spill where exactly the negative value comes into play. Obviously implicit casting is coming into play, all ints could well be unsigned already.

Just read this thread and you will find the answer as I already answered it in the same post you got it from.

Oh and what is with this:

"The significance of of PP being a signed int16 is clearly lost on you. I never said it was a signed int "

Even in that sentence you say its a signed int, then you say you never said it...?

With that statement it is clear you are trying to join a conversation that is beyond your abilities. Perhaps you should learn the difference between int16 and int, or be willing to read what has been previously posted.

If you just answered some questions with actual details this would all be a lot easier.

As I said, I have, with detail, unfortunately you do not read them. Any future questions you have will be ignored by me unless there is evidence of some level of comprehension on your part.

There are things that affect performance that you cannot check in regular lobby settings, and other things that are impractical to check or limit. Aero for example, is no longer a part of the PP. Adding invisible front aero to most cars will make them faster on twisty tracks. In GT5 there were drivetrain parts you could add that weren't available in the main game that affect performance. Adding 4wd will be a significant advantage in higher powered cars on street tires especially at the start. Gaining a 2 second advantage into the first corner alone will almost guarantee victory. Yes you can turn 4wd off in the lobby settings, but that's kind of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You reject global limits but I see a great use for them. I've mentioned before that all lobbies should be limited to 1500hp or whatever the upper limit is for regular cars and you said to just use the lobby settings. Fair enough, that will work of course, but the larger picture is, if you show up to a lobby and try to get in with 30,000 hp in a lobby with no HP limit and there is a hidden global limit, the game will automatically know that you are hybriding. An automatic console ban would be a nice touch IMO.

Not everyone playing this game and hybriding is a rocket surgeon. Smart guys might figure some of this stuff out and avoid it but not everyone will. Not every solution has to work for every single possibility either in order for it to be effective.

To my knowledge there is only one tool for hybriding. I happen to know a little bit about how it works. In its current state it does not do many invisible mods that do not add to PP. Grip is an invisible mod but it adds PP, applying large amounts of grip quickly makes cars unmanageable. There are no CD mods. No CoG mods. 4WD adds PP. Weight mods affect PP. As for the drivetrain parts, GT takes unsprung weight into its equations, there is a driveshaft swap that does not affect PP, hybrids that do not normally have this option do gain that advantage. Down force is tricky to get it to stick, but it does add CD in the same way as legitimate down force does.
Add to all that PP is broken, PD needs to fix it. I might just post the bug report myself. I think it may be exploitable even without hybrids, but that is for another day.
Mods such as CoG have been intentionally left out, the Midget in my avatar has a CoG at about axle level and it falls over in corners, but it stands right back up, LOL.
I know this doesn't make you happy but I hope you can see what type of mods are currently being used.

Global limits, you're right! We are not going to agree on that. But since not everyone is a brain scientist it would probably be better if the max HP limit was on by default.

As for an automatic console ban, I have to disagree strongly with that. Whenever I hear of a console ban it bothers me because I know that means some legitimate user just lost their ability to go online. When CFW gets a console ban it takes a few seconds to change to a new ConsoleID, it doesn't even have to reboot. The unfortunate part is that ID must be legitimate so it belongs to someone or to a console still in the store. The end result is the console the ban was meant for is back online in minutes and some kid somewhere is stuck with a banned console and having to convince his parents he didn't do anything wrong but needs a new PS3 to get back online. Console bans only hurt legitimate users.
In case you are wondering, I have never been console banned. I do have 4 consoleIDs I pulled from dead PS3s so I am set for awhile.

what you think what happens if they (PD) do stuff like this:
Encrypt PSN-ID using some open key=CD1
Encrypt save data, and small part of game data using this CD1 as a key.. I need sleep .. brain hiccups..

PD does encrypt the save data, this is in addition to the standard encryption Sony does to all save data. Sony's encryption layer is completely compromised so it is easy to remove. PD's encryption is why there was no day 1 hybrid tools and no save data editing to date. And you thought they weren't even trying.
Actually everything is encrypted and only exposes itself when needed, even at runtime. Current hybriding is done by changing the data when and where it becomes exposed in memory, no code is changed, no data files are changed, save data is not touched. Only another program running that can access the same memory the game is running in and just doesn't care how much encryption, hash checks, code checks or whatever that you add.

 

[OdeFinn]

@FarSideX lol, skip next if want, going to do some digging but asking still before it.

Resigned savegame does or not work on OFW console? Or you have or planning to do this program work on OFW, meaning probably at you have to sign it to be legit sony program, what might be nowadays easy, or just doable.

One part of my brain waking up from several years dust and peace, this is not good..


Edit: info updated, all above just nonsense.

 

[NLxAROSA]

@FarSideXResigned savegame does or not work on OFW console?

Yep, it does. Not sure if I'm allowed to discuss the details, so I won't give an example.

 

[Tornado]

To my knowledge there is only one tool for hybriding. I happen to know a little bit about how it works. In its current state it does not do many invisible mods that do not add to PP. Grip is an invisible mod but it adds PP, applying large amounts of grip quickly makes cars unmanageable. There are no CD mods. No CoG mods. 4WD adds PP. Weight mods affect PP. As for the drivetrain parts, GT takes unsprung weight into its equations, there is a driveshaft swap that does not affect PP, hybrids that do not normally have this option do gain that advantage. Down force is tricky to get it to stick, but it does add CD in the same way as legitimate down force does.
Add to all that PP is broken, PD needs to fix it. I might just post the bug report myself. I think it may be exploitable even without hybrids, but that is for another day.
Mods such as CoG have been intentionally left out, the Midget in my avatar has a CoG at about axle level and it falls over in corners, but it stands right back up, LOL.
I know this doesn't make you happy but I hope you can see what type of mods are currently being used.

Not for nothing, but would you be willing to go into more detail regarding how PP is calculated? Not necessarily in this thread, but there have been a few attempts in the past to determine exactly how/why some cars are rated what they are and why some mods do different things differently; and I'm certain that it would be really beneficial to the community to get a definitive answer instead of a bunch of stupidity talking about "step tuning."

 

[Johnnypenso]

Not for nothing, but would you be willing to go into more detail regarding how PP is calculated? Not necessarily in this thread, but there have been a few attempts in the past to determine exactly how/why some cars are rated what they are and why some mods do different things differently; and I'm certain that it would be really beneficial to the community to get a definitive answer instead of a bunch of stupidity talking about "step tuning."

Good Lord yes!!! Please make the thread. I was going to ask this myself but wasn't sure if it would be kosher to talk about. Thank you:tup:👍

To my knowledge there is only one tool for hybriding. I happen to know a little bit about how it works. In its current state it does not do many invisible mods that do not add to PP. Grip is an invisible mod but it adds PP, applying large amounts of grip quickly makes cars unmanageable. There are no CD mods. No CoG mods. 4WD adds PP. Weight mods affect PP. As for the drivetrain parts, GT takes unsprung weight into its equations, there is a driveshaft swap that does not affect PP, hybrids that do not normally have this option do gain that advantage. Down force is tricky to get it to stick, but it does add CD in the same way as legitimate down force does.
Add to all that PP is broken, PD needs to fix it. I might just post the bug report myself. I think it may be exploitable even without hybrids, but that is for another day.
Mods such as CoG have been intentionally left out, the Midget in my avatar has a CoG at about axle level and it falls over in corners, but it stands right back up, LOL.
I know this doesn't make you happy but I hope you can see what type of mods are currently being used.

Global limits, you're right! We are not going to agree on that. But since not everyone is a brain scientist it would probably be better if the max HP limit was on by default.

As for an automatic console ban, I have to disagree strongly with that. Console bans only hurt legitimate users.

I should thank you for your patience first. I know it's not easy talking to neophytes like me and in my own line of work I sometimes get frustrated explaining the simplest of things over and over and over. I appreciate it:tup: I wasn't aware of the problem with console bans so that's good to know.👍

I did some editing with the gamesave last time around so I am aware that most things you can do with a car affect PP, at least in GT5. In fact, over and over I tried to explain to the community that you could not really cheat the system with hybrids and gamesave editing because everything you did (except drivetrain parts) either showed up in the game (racing supersofts) or affected PP. I tried to find ways to "cheat" the system to prove how unfair hybriding was and I couldn't do it.

From that experience, limited though it may be, comes my desire to have PD do the checks to eliminate stuff like drivetrain parts we can't see, alterations of the wheels driven etc. Aero is a big unknown. Last time it was part of PP so you could add hidden aero to cars but it cost you HP and/or weight. The effects of these things may be small, perhaps not even a second I have no way to test it, but they also can't be detected by a casual player or without the intense scrutiny of a replay.

I don't believe everything and every combination has to be checked but maybe that's because I don't know what I'm talking about. Eliminate the obvious and easy stuff first is my way of thinking, work on the harder stuff next.

 

[Cote Dazur]

memories, memories, the fun never ends with GT, but it does not seem to evolve much, might as well cut and paste the comments of the GT5 forum on the same subject.

 

[CSLACR]

.

I'm very interested to hear that PP "system".

I count a lot more than that if you count GT5P, GT4P, GTPSP, TT, and however many manufacturer and special ed. demos they've put out. I was counting main numbered releases.

But does the number really change the point I was making? It could be twenty releases, or a hundred. They'd still be PD and forget something obvious.

Because every time you say it took 7 years for PD to make a game (GT5) on the internet, exactly 10,000 people jump you with how much of a full title GT5P was.

 

[Imari]

.

I'm very interested to hear that PP "system".
Because every time you say it took 7 years for PD to make a game (GT5) on the internet, exactly 10,000 people jump you with how much of a full title GT5P was.

Again, does the number actually change the point I was making? Call the number whatever you like.

 

[nasanu]

Troll much? Or is it that you truly do not comprehend the answers I have already given?

No problem at all! Wouldn't slow anyone down for even a second, completely useless. Never in the history of computers has there not been a way to alter compiled code. How do you think programs were made before compilers? Or did compilers come from the same place as "unalterable hashes"?


Just read this thread and you will find the answer as I already answered it in the same post you got it from.


With that statement it is clear you are trying to join a conversation that is beyond your abilities. Perhaps you should learn the difference between int16 and int, or be willing to read what has been previously posted.


As I said, I have, with detail, unfortunately you do not read them. Any future questions you have will be ignored by me unless there is evidence of some level of comprehension on your part.


To my knowledge there is only one tool for hybriding. I happen to know a little bit about how it works. In its current state it does not do many invisible mods that do not add to PP. Grip is an invisible mod but it adds PP, applying large amounts of grip quickly makes cars unmanageable. There are no CD mods. No CoG mods. 4WD adds PP. Weight mods affect PP. As for the drivetrain parts, GT takes unsprung weight into its equations, there is a driveshaft swap that does not affect PP, hybrids that do not normally have this option do gain that advantage. Down force is tricky to get it to stick, but it does add CD in the same way as legitimate down force does.
Add to all that PP is broken, PD needs to fix it. I might just post the bug report myself. I think it may be exploitable even without hybrids, but that is for another day.
Mods such as CoG have been intentionally left out, the Midget in my avatar has a CoG at about axle level and it falls over in corners, but it stands right back up, LOL.
I know this doesn't make you happy but I hope you can see what type of mods are currently being used.

Global limits, you're right! We are not going to agree on that. But since not everyone is a brain scientist it would probably be better if the max HP limit was on by default.

As for an automatic console ban, I have to disagree strongly with that. Whenever I hear of a console ban it bothers me because I know that means some legitimate user just lost their ability to go online. When CFW gets a console ban it takes a few seconds to change to a new ConsoleID, it doesn't even have to reboot. The unfortunate part is that ID must be legitimate so it belongs to someone or to a console still in the store. The end result is the console the ban was meant for is back online in minutes and some kid somewhere is stuck with a banned console and having to convince his parents he didn't do anything wrong but needs a new PS3 to get back online. Console bans only hurt legitimate users.
In case you are wondering, I have never been console banned. I do have 4 consoleIDs I pulled from dead PS3s so I am set for awhile.




PD does encrypt the save data, this is in addition to the standard encryption Sony does to all save data. Sony's encryption layer is completely compromised so it is easy to remove. PD's encryption is why there was no day 1 hybrid tools and no save data editing to date. And you thought they weren't even trying.
Actually everything is encrypted and only exposes itself when needed, even at runtime. Current hybriding is done by changing the data when and where it becomes exposed in memory, no code is changed, no data files are changed, save data is not touched. Only another program running that can access the same memory the game is running in and just doesn't care how much encryption, hash checks, code checks or whatever that you add.

Again you talk and talk but never with any detail. You keep saying you have posted the answers, but you simply have not. Here is the kind of proof you offer: A car in GT6 can only have 3 setups because 1+2=3. See I proved it with math, I don't need to relate it back to the game at all! It is obvious that the cars in GT6 do not have the billions of variables you claim, so can you just explain why you think they do? You only came close to explaining your logic when you talked about gear ratios... Which are totally irrelevant and you failed to explain why anyone would want to check them. Plus you fell into the trap of not considering game bounds, just because a variable has a range does not mean the game will use all of that range. You took something unrelated and made a worse case scenario out of it.

It seems like all you have access to is a memory dump and all you are doing is simple hex editing. Am I wrong? If so how can you claim to know about the source code?

 

[FarSideX]

Not for nothing, but would you be willing to go into more detail regarding how PP is calculated?

Good Lord yes!!! Please make the thread. I was going to ask this myself but wasn't sure if it would be kosher to talk about. Thank you:tup:👍

I'm very interested to hear that PP "system".

I would be willing but unfortunately I have not dissected it to that degree.

I do know that there are errors in the PP calculation. I have a RX-8 that I store interesting parts on. With a turbo, it was pushing ridiculous HP at the weight of 533kg, not drivable and had a 5 digit PP score. This car has had numerous part changes and due to its purpose I did not pay much attention to it's stats, until I removed the turbo. When I did that using the regular car setup menu the PP dropped as expected, but it dropped to 524 PP while maintaining a weight of 533 kg and a peak HP of 51K.
Now if I make a car with identical parts I can duplicate the HP and weight but the PP is back in the 5 digit range. That leads me to believe it is a cumulative math error due to the large number of part swaps this car has seen that has been accentuated by the wider changes that hybriding has brought to the part history of the car.
I have also seen smaller errors in the PP while building 500 PP cars where trying certain things then returning to what i previously had adds 1 or 2 pp. This of course could be due to rounding but something is not right.
BTW the 524 pp car is still undriveable. Maybe NOS would help.

 

[FarSideX]

Again you talk and talk but never with any detail. You keep saying you have posted the answers, but you simply have not. Here is the kind of proof you offer: A car in GT6 can only have 3 setups because 1+2=3. See I proved it with math, I don't need to relate it back to the game at all! It is obvious that the cars in GT6 do not have the billions of variables you claim, so can you just explain why you think they do? You only came close to explaining your logic when you talked about gear ratios... Which are totally irrelevant and you failed to explain why anyone would want to check them. Plus you fell into the trap of not considering game bounds, just because a variable has a range does not mean the game will use all of that range. You took something unrelated and made a worse case scenario out of it.

Why don't you simply just say you do not understand what was written instead of being a rude a-hole? You have not answered any of the questions I asked you when you are slandering me. You just follow up with more lies. Here you further slander me by stating I claimed there were billions of variables.
If you ask nicely I can explain in such a way that a 5 year old could, and did, understand. (Actually tested on real 5 year olds)

It seems like all you have access to is a memory dump and all you are doing is simple hex editing. Am I wrong? If so how can you claim to know about the source code?

Yes you are wrong. Read the last paragraph of the same post you quoted.
As for the source code, I learned to program (I know you already told me I'm not a programmer and just some dumbass) punching holes in paper that represented 1's and 0's. Once an assembler could be made I could use an assembler to enter mnemonics to represent these codes. This is the language the processor understands and what a compiler turns source code into. The output of the compiler is source code to me. Compilers are messy and leave traces of the language the code was compiled from, so I can easily tell what the original language was. That and some "unalterable hashes" too.
Understand?

 

[nasanu]

Why don't you simply just say you do not understand what was written instead of being a rude a-hole? You have not answered any of the questions I asked you when you are slandering me. You just follow up with more lies. Here you further slander me by stating I claimed there were billions of variables.
If you ask nicely I can explain in such a way that a 5 year old could, and did, understand. (Actually tested on real 5 year olds)


Yes you are wrong. Read the last paragraph of the same post you quoted.
As for the source code, I learned to program (I know you already told me I'm not a programmer and just some dumbass) punching holes in paper that represented 1's and 0's. Once an assembler could be made I could use an assembler to enter mnemonics to represent these codes. This is the language the processor understands and what a compiler turns source code into. The output of the compiler is source code to me. Compilers are messy and leave traces of the language the code was compiled from, so I can easily tell what the original language was. That and some "unalterable hashes" too.
Understand?

So you didn't say this?:

"That is 176 bits of data just for the gear data with every combination being valid. This times the number of cars in the game is 1339*2^(176-1) possible hash codes or enough variance to use every 64 bit hash code 6,952,485,493,578,134,194,602,334,584,825,708,544 times over."

You are still yet to explain how you think that is relevant at all.

You say I am wrong to say you are just changing values in memory but also say 'Current hybriding is done by changing the data when and where it becomes exposed in memory'. Which is it?

And I highly doubt you could manipulate stack data to insert or modify a non trivial function to produce a valid hash for whatever car you came up with. It might be possible technically but not realistically and you'd have to do this every single time you wanted to use a car.

And BTW compiled code is lossy. It will only tell you what the final instructions of the program are, it will not tell you anything at all about the logic that generated the code. Even if you can decompile into assembly, you won't have anything close to source code.

And for the record, assembly and programing a turing machine is first year uni programming. I would not be bragging about that.

 

[OdeFinn]

I have also seen smaller errors in the PP while building 500 PP cars where trying certain things then returning to what i previously had adds 1 or 2 pp. This of course could be due to rounding but something is not right.
BTW the 524 pp car is still undriveable. Maybe NOS would help.

Some cases that 1-2pp error is showing also on clean non hacked game/save, probably error on decimal rounding?

Don't get bored with boring questions

 

[FarSideX]

Some cases that 1-2pp error is showing also on clean non hacked game/save, probably error on decimal rounding?

Yes, I have seen it occur on clean data. I'll have to pay more attention and try to capture a replicable instance to make a valid error report. I read elsewhere in these forums someone else had noticed it, unfortunately I do not recall who it was. They were saying it appeared to them that they always rounded down. I do have access to the official Sony dev tools but I do not use them. A check of the rounddown function would require an install and possible mixing of copyright libs with GNU libs that I don't want to deal with. But if that function is taking negative values into account and not just a simple truncate it could explain the bug.

So you didn't say this?:

"That is 176 bits of data just for the gear data with every combination being valid. This times the number of cars in the game is 1339*2^(176-1) possible hash codes or enough variance to use every 64 bit hash code 6,952,485,493,578,134,194,602,334,584,825,708,544 times over."

You are still yet to explain how you think that is relevant at all.

Sure I said that. But that has nothing to do with your missing apology for slandering me.
You were supposed to show me where I said there were billions of variables. If you think that quote says that, you may want to consider sticking to topics of your own level of knowledge. That quote was relevant to what was being discussed at the time but has no relevance to billions of variables. My offer to explain the mathematics involved still stands, following an apology of course, or you can read any grade 6 mathematics book if you like.

You say I am wrong to say you are just changing values in memory but also say 'Current hybriding is done by changing the data when and where it becomes exposed in memory'. Which is it?

The problem is you did not say that prior to this post. Actually you seem to keep changing what you believe you said in the past as often as you lie about what others have said. FYI memory dump != live memory.

And I highly doubt you could manipulate stack data to insert or modify a non trivial function to produce a valid hash for whatever car you came up with. It might be possible technically but not realistically and you'd have to do this every single time you wanted to use a car.

And BTW compiled code is lossy. It will only tell you what the final instructions of the program are, it will not tell you anything at all about the logic that generated the code. Even if you can decompile into assembly, you won't have anything close to source code.

If you highly doubt that, then there is no point wasting time explaining it. But FYI it is a cakewalk to do stuff like that. Too bad you never noticed the game already has a save function, no need to write a new one.
As for your comments about compiled code, they are humorous at best. "decompile into assembly" is almost as funny as "unalterable hashs", and I damn near lost it when I read the part about the logic and generated code. Classic stuff there! That's going straight into my signature.

And for the record, assembly and programing a turing machine is first year uni programming. I would not be bragging about that.

Nor would I.
I await your apology while wondering if your comments going anywhere or if they are simply failed attempts to insult others?

 

[nasanu]

Yes, I have seen it occur on clean data. I'll have to pay more attention and try to capture a replicable instance to make a valid error report. I read elsewhere in these forums someone else had noticed it, unfortunately I do not recall who it was. They were saying it appeared to them that they always rounded down. I do have access to the official Sony dev tools but I do not use them. A check of the rounddown function would require an install and possible mixing of copyright libs with GNU libs that I don't want to deal with. But if that function is taking negative values into account and not just a simple truncate it could explain the bug.


Sure I said that. But that has nothing to do with your missing apology for slandering me.
You were supposed to show me where I said there were billions of variables. If you think that quote says that, you may want to consider sticking to topics of your own level of knowledge. That quote was relevant to what was being discussed at the time but has no relevance to billions of variables. My offer to explain the mathematics involved still stands, following an apology of course, or you can read any grade 6 mathematics book if you like.


The problem is you did not say that prior to this post. Actually you seem to keep changing what you believe you said in the past as often as you lie about what others have said. FYI memory dump != live memory.


If you highly doubt that, then there is no point wasting time explaining it. But FYI it is a cakewalk to do stuff like that. Too bad you never noticed the game already has a save function, no need to write a new one.
As for your comments about compiled code, they are humorous at best. "decompile into assembly" is almost as funny as "unalterable hashs", and I damn near lost it when I read the part about the logic and generated code. Classic stuff there! That's going straight into my signature.
Nor would I.
I await your apology while wondering if your comments going anywhere or if they are simply failed attempts to insult others?

Right... An apology? For what? I said you are no programmer and from what you have said I stand by that for the reasons below.

Given the task for security checking the gear ratios you as a programmer throw your hands in the air and claim it can not be done because of the massive calculations involved. Any competent programmer would just say sure, two checks per gear on the bounds set by the game domain rules.

And you have also said that using int16 and int32 to represent the same small number in different places of code would cause problem if you just changed them all to int16 (especailly since they should all have been the smallest int size in the first place as PS3 ram is very limited). Any programer can see that this is not a issue, especially with implicit casing.

It has been you who has constantly thrown the quite hypocritical insults, but unlike you it does not bother me in the slightest because I have self worth. You have to ask yourself why you care so much about what someone you don't even know thinks about you. Of curse your natural response will be to say you don't care at all, its the typical reflex action but your constant whines for an apology and accusations of slander betray your true feelings.

"As for your comments about compiled code, they are humorous at best. "decompile into assembly" is almost as funny as "unalterable hashs", and I damn near lost it when I read the part about the logic and generated code. Classic stuff there!"

Shall I direct you to a program that decompiles vs2010 code (via what ever language and assembler) into assembly? Its like you have never thought that someone might think to join a decompiler and an assembler.

And FYI memory dump is not a clearly defined term like you think it is. It just means taking a snapshot of memory for further examination. This examination can be at run time or not, it does not change that it can still be called a memory dump. And besides, are you really trying to rely on semantics to try to win an argument? You knew full well what I meant so just answer the question. Actually guess you already did answer it, I was correct but I just didn't use your favorite term for what you do. It does not change the fact that all you are doing is changing numbers, no programming involved.

It is quite obvious you are never going to explain in rational terms your opinions, so I'll leave you to it. You can think all you like that hacking can not be stopped, while other programers can clearly see ways to do so. Your only argument has been that if it were so easy then why hasn't PD already done it. But there are examples of small changes PD could make game wide that have not been done. It is not an argument that proves anything.