Page 1 of 2
Games with ProtectCD5 (Sacred and Sacred Underworld)
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:21 pm
by ghost_zero
Hi,
I tested them with your newest Trial Versions of StarWind and StarPort and also with the Microsoft iSCSI Initiator and got the Message on the PC that emulation software has been detected.
Both games have some ProtectCD5 copy protection (Underworld is the AddOn to Sacred and so this game has probably the newer version of ProtectCD5 on it than Sacred).
I used the original CD, it didn't even work on sharing and mounting on the same PC.
Can somebody confirm this? And can somebody tell me, if there is something I can do against this? And also: could RocketDivision may look into solving this problem?
Re: Games with ProtectCD5 (Sacred and Sacred Underworld)
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:24 am
by anton (staff)
These games use some technique to detect media access times. To find out does the user apply emulation (and license violation). For 100 megabit network access times are very different from ATAPI hardware. Try using 1 GbE to solve this... If the stuff would still not work this means our iSCSi initiators (MS and RDS) are just black-listed by software games developers. It's pure game protectors problem and I think neither RDS nor MS would do nothing with this.
ghost_zero wrote:Hi,
I tested them with your newest Trial Versions of StarWind and StarPort and also with the Microsoft iSCSI Initiator and got the Message on the PC that emulation software has been detected.
Both games have some ProtectCD5 copy protection (Underworld is the AddOn to Sacred and so this game has probably the newer version of ProtectCD5 on it than Sacred).
I used the original CD, it didn't even work on sharing and mounting on the same PC.
Can somebody confirm this? And can somebody tell me, if there is something I can do against this? And also: could RocketDivision may look into solving this problem?
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:22 pm
by ghost_zero
This means that 100MBit/s is too slow?
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:23 pm
by Guest
but what if I would have limited the CD-Speed to 1x?
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:23 pm
by ghost_zero
last post was from me.
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:27 pm
by anton (staff)
Latency on 100 Mbit network is too high (compared to GbE and ATAPI hardware). It has nothing to do with the wire speed.
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:15 pm
by Guest
ah you meant latency... sorry understood your posting wrong
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:25 pm
by anton (staff)
Yup. I mean what I mean
Try the same game on the other machines with 1 GbE. We'd like to know the result
Anonymous wrote:ah you meant latency... sorry understood your posting wrong
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:52 pm
by ghost_zero
hehe
the problem is that I have no GbE here
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:58 pm
by anton (staff)
Ask somebody else who has
Unfortunately we don't have these game times for experiments
ghost_zero wrote:hehe
the problem is that I have no GbE here
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:15 pm
by Guest
what about loopback?
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:24 pm
by anton (staff)
Loopback for SPTI would not work b/s Windows goes crazy of having two identical devices which are both just symbolic links to single one.
Anonymous wrote:what about loopback?
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:01 pm
by Guest
ah that is why I can't connect
But with older versions of StarWind this was possible ... not?
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:02 pm
by ghost_zero
last post was from me.
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:19 pm
by anton (staff)
Yes it was possible and resulted quite a lot of random BSODs.
ghost_zero wrote:last post was from me.