[GoD-Tony]

Originally Posted by Glite I tested it myself with admin. When i attakcing with knife and strongly shake the screen it got detected and when admin attacking it detect too.

Unless you can prove otherwise, I'm going to assume you're running an old/no-steam version of CS:S.

#1. The old CS:S version used the player_death event with the weapon string "knife", and the new one would be using entity_killed and GetClientWeapon, which returns "weapon_knife".

#2. You seem very concerned about LUA scripts/plugins, which don't work anymore (edit: *which aren't publicly available).

Edit: It was confirmed that an old version of CS:S was causing the false positives on knife kills.

[POLICEMATRIX1]

OK i go to the logs file and it says this
so and so is suspected of using an aimbot. (Detection #2) (Deviation: 47°)
is this a first warning ie should i wait for dectection 5 or something , the reason i ask is because it suspected me of useing an aimbot lol which i dont , ok thanks hope you can help

[kotek]

God-Tony SMAC works very well, but for example on my server there are lot of people who are playing with wallhacks. SMAC doesn't detect anything and I use smac_wallhack only from time to time because of high CPU usage. Is there a way to detect wh in some other way? I think that wh is most common hax this days... We should do something with it!

[GoD-Tony]

Originally Posted by kotek God-Tony SMAC works very well, but for example on my server there are lot of people who are playing with wallhacks. SMAC doesn't detect anything and I use smac_wallhack only from time to time because of high CPU usage. Is there a way to detect wh in some other way? I think that wh is most common hax this days... We should do something with it!

It only prevents wallhacks from working, it doesn't kick/ban for them. Improvements are being made to help with the CPU issue.

[ChocOrange]

The wallhack could also do with improvements in it's detection of when players can see each other.

Try, for example, de_tuscan at mid. One player at the bottom of the ramp and one at the top. If the player at the top moves backwards and forwards, even though both should be able to see each other, players are 'removed'.

[kotek]

Originally Posted by GoD-Tony It only prevents wallhacks from working, it doesn't kick/ban for them. Improvements are being made to help with the CPU issue.

Yes i know but it, is possible to make a new module which will be able to detect wallhacks? Because we don't know how many wallhack SMAC really can block, is it right?

[GoD-Tony]

Originally Posted by ChocOrange The wallhack could also do with improvements in it's detection of when players can see each other.

I tested it today and the points it checks for appear to be way off:



It does need some work.

Originally Posted by kotek Yes i know but it, is possible to make a new module which will be able to detect wallhacks? Because we don't know how many wallhack SMAC really can block, is it right?

New features are on hold until a stable version is released, but I do have something in mind.

[GoD-Tony]

Note to users: This post is irrelevant to SMAC's ability to handle cheats.

I thought I'd write here about a problem with SMAC. The source code is a mess, and as it expands it's only getting worse. It's at the point where it's impossible to contribute code without studying the current layout for several hours.

There are new modules and an extension in the works, and I'm sure that it will send its complexity way over the top. No one would dare touch this thing or it could break. If changes aren't made and I happen to lose interest in working on SMAC, that would likely be the end of it.

I'm proposing that the plugin be split up into true modules, with a core to provide natives that the other modules can use. The layout could be something like this:

• /include/smac.inc
• /smac.sp
  • Handle logging, banning, autoupdates, etc. Everything but cheats directly.
• /smac_aimbot.sp
• /smac_eyetest.sp
• /smac_wallhack.sp
• etc..

KAC had everything compiled in to one file (including translations) to make it as easy as possible for users to install, get running, and update. It's true that it makes it easier, but it's also more error prone and harder to maintain. I think it's time to abandon that idea completely and move forward with SMAC as it's own idea of an anti-cheat plugin.

I know this might be a little confusing to users at first (having a separate "plugin" for each feature), and I'm also aware that over 1000 servers already run SMAC in it's current state, but in the long run I think it will be worth it.

Any questions/comments?

[sinblaster]

Personally I think, Tony, as you seem to be handleing a fare share of the work, the plug should be organized in such a way that you are able to work on it without stress or complication.
I personally will use this no matter how it is implemented and would be surprised at anyone who might complain about it behing split up so to speak. From what I read it could only mean faster, more reliable updates with the possibility of greater expansions in the future.
Isn't it time you placed a PayPal ID in your sig?

[TwOzCaR]

Originally Posted by sinblaster Personally I think, Tony, as you seem to be handleing a fare share of the work, the plug should be organized in such a way that you are able to work on it without stress or complication. I personally will use this no matter how it is implemented and would be surprised at anyone who might complain about it behing split up so to speak. From what I read it could only mean faster, more reliable updates with the possibility of greater expansions in the future. Isn't it time you placed a PayPal ID in your sig?

i agree totally on this. it would make smac even better. do it for the love of god =) and yes god-tony i would pay u too on paypal please make a link