4 ms·
> Which is to say that their anticheat system is defective because the method it uses has false positives -- as exemplified by this case, which is not an attemp
by filterfiber 3y ago
> Which is to say that their anticheat system is defective because the method it uses has false positives -- as exemplified by this case, which is not an attempt to cheat.
This is not a false positive. What AMD did is identical to what cheats do. You cannot modify the game logic without disabling the anticheat period.
Depending on how AMD did it, VAC may not have any idea _what_ modified the game, just that it was modified in an unintended way.
It's not the anti-cheat's job to decide "oh they hijacked the game engine but they're good guys so its okay".
I cannot stress enough that what they did is IDENTICAL to how cheats work, they just happened to be one of the few with innocent intentions which is irrelevant - nobody may tresspass the game logic.
Generally you cannot do this at all - AMD likely won't be whitelisted - valve will add support in-engine instead.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y agoJust because the anti-lag system works in a way that cheats do doesn't mean the anti-cheat flagging isn't a false positive. The anti-lag system is not a cheat. The anti-cheat system thinks it is. By definition, it's a false positive.
- filterfiber 3y ago> The anti-lag system is not a cheat. The anti-cheat system thinks it is. By definition, it's a false positive. Yes but this is not a false positive you fix. This is a DMZ - you do not cross it no matter what your intentions are. The resolution here will be valve adding in-engine support, and AMD won't modify the game at all. There is no anti-cheat that will let you cross this DMZ, it's what they do. (technically you could whitelist them but then the drivers become an attack vector). This is widely known, without collaborating with valve, this is like looking at a mousetrap and knowingly stepping on it barefoot.