Why is there a copy protection system in the graphics, and is it crippling the game?

[Tiron_Raptor]

"streaming assets from the server", if it does happen, is not something that requires a second process, or to be rendered separately from assets loaded from the hard disk.

 

There's absolutely no reason to believe that any software rendering is involved anywhere.

 

All we possibly know is that there is a separate process (running locally) that might be doing some rendering.

 

Yep. And that it doesn't talk directly to the server, apparently.

 

The 'might be using software rendering' thing comes from the paper: it's suggested as the best way to secure the process, by preventing a hardware bypass of the protection.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Tiron_Raptor

[miliways]

While everything you said is true, that's not what is being theorised.

 

Read the paper that guy dug up, it's clear that only a small part would need to be subject to this 'remoting' to achieve the 'protection' being talked about, yet big enough to cause the huge FPS and lag problems prople are seeing.

 

NO. I read the paper, I understand the concept.

 

Several of the claims being made are VERIFY-ABLY false.

 

Disabled High Res Textures? Sending the higher quality images would result in a tremendous increase in the memory load and bandwidth usage of the server. They could also just be too much for the remote renderer server to handle, and had to be disabled to prevent performance degradation.

[/Quote]

 

High res images are indeed in the game. Click on your intercom, there they are.

 

SO THAT RIGHT THERE IS A LOAD OF BALONEY.

 

"its clear that only a small part would need to be subject to this remoting"

 

I just went and read that entire paper just to be sure. NO. NONONONONO.

 

You don't seem to understand what you're saying. There's only a few ways this could be done:

 

You can render the whole scene remotely, which is what the paper describes. You use a low-resolution version locally, and when you stop moving the image, you send your viewpoint settings to the server, and the server renders THE WHOLE IMAGE. So in this way, the server would have to render EVERY frame of EVERY scene for EVERY user, in real-time. This would be the equivalent to playing SWTOR on OnLive. This would require a VERY, VERY large number of servers (we're talking about a server for every 5 people, or something, so thats like 100,000 servers. ABSOLUTELY INSANE. There's no way that EVERY SINGLE USER of SWTOR is playing OnLive style. Bioware would have a hard enough time setting up the 200+ servers for the game connectivity, much less handle ALL the rendering on their side).

In this method, you'd only be streaming the screen picture, the final image. That wouldn't be too infeasible bandwidth wise, it'd be the same as OnLive or Neflix movie streaming. But again, the server infrastructure is BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE.

 

The other way, as what you SEEM to THINK they're doing (but the paper does not talk about this AT ALL, in fact) would be to send the animation data over the wire, and have the home machine render the scene. This would be pointless to security on many levels, (You could collect the animation data as it goes over the wire, you could hack the rendering software, as the paper itself admits) AND it would be IMPOSSIBLE with current latency and bandwidth.

 

Imagine each time you tried to hit an ability, your computer started a 2MB download. When it finishes, you get to see the animation. Its going to be MUCH, MUCH MUCH MUCH longer than what you're seeing in game.

 

You're wrong, you don't know what your'e talking about, or you're trolling.

 

 

PLEASE, DO NOT GIVE CREDIT TO THIS INSANE IDEA. TOR IS NOT STREAMING TEXTURES OR ANIMATIONS. THIS IS BONKERS WRONG.

[miliways]

Isn't this EXCACTLY what Onlive is doing?

 

anywho, I agree with you that rendering ALL graphics, ALL models and ALL animations would seem very implausible because of the reasons you mention. It would not be worth doing considering the immense costs you'd have to make.

 

BUT, rendering only character models for instance? Or only certain key quest givers to prevent pirate server? I'm no expert but wouldn't it be possible?

 

No, this is not possible. See my above post. This is completely crazy. There is absolutely NO WAY WHATSOEVER.

[Tiron_Raptor]

...

 

"its clear that only a small part would need to be subject to this remoting"

 

I just went and read that entire paper just to be sure. NO. NONONONONO.

 

You don't seem to understand what you're saying. There's only a few ways this could be done:

 

You can render the whole scene remotely, which is what the paper describes. You use a low-resolution version locally, and when you stop moving the image, you send your viewpoint settings to the server, and the server renders THE WHOLE IMAGE. So in this way, the server would have to render EVERY frame of EVERY scene for EVERY user, in real-time. This would be the equivalent to playing SWTOR on OnLive. This would require a VERY, VERY large number of servers (we're talking about a server for every 5 people, or something, so thats like 100,000 servers. ABSOLUTELY INSANE. There's no way that EVERY SINGLE USER of SWTOR is playing OnLive style. Bioware would have a hard enough time setting up the 200+ servers for the game connectivity, much less handle ALL the rendering on their side).

In this method, you'd only be streaming the screen picture, the final image. That wouldn't be too infeasible bandwidth wise, it'd be the same as OnLive or Neflix movie streaming. But again, the server infrastructure is BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE.

 

The other way, as what you SEEM to THINK they're doing (but the paper does not talk about this AT ALL, in fact) would be to send the animation data over the wire, and have the home machine render the scene. This would be pointless to security on many levels, (You could collect the animation data as it goes over the wire, you could hack the rendering software, as the paper itself admits) AND it would be IMPOSSIBLE with current latency and bandwidth.

 

...

 

 

PLEASE, DO NOT GIVE CREDIT TO THIS INSANE IDEA. TOR IS NOT STREAMING TEXTURES OR ANIMATIONS. THIS IS BONKERS WRONG.

 

The 'idea' has nothing to do with textures or animations: it is specifically designed to protect models, and as such would only affect the textures and animations as side-effects, either because of resource use problems or lag introduced by the sheer difficulty of the process.

 

We also suspect the 'remote' rendering is being handled by the second swtor.exe process, as it seems to be related to a file with the name 'remoterendererserver'

Edited January 11, 2012 by Tiron_Raptor

[Sodalazer]

if this is true, then it might explain why SOME people have amazing FPS at like 4am in the night or something.

 

but at peak hours fps drops to 10 fps in warzone or something.

 

i myself noticed something similar.

 

i had a day off at work, and logged on the game at 07:40

 

i got into a WZ, and for some reason, i felt that the game ran waayyy smoother.

 

later at the day, it's back to it's old usual 20fps

Edited January 11, 2012 by Sodalazer

[Malpraxis]

Those that defend the developers ... please explain:

 

Why when I Alt+Tab the game .... and come back .... i get a nice picture + waiting, instead of the game itself?

 

Why I have to wait for all the animations, models, textures, etc, if they are already on my hdd loaded (i just alttabbed for a second .. where all that went?)

 

And no. My HDD is not working loading all that data. It's iddling.

[Kaylees_spirit]

If it is in fact the case that assets have been deliberately withheld from the client, and thus have to be transmitted to the client from the server in some form, it goes a VERY long way to explaining most of the performance problems SWTOR has been having.

 

Delayed animations? It's having to send what you're doing to the server, and then wait for the server/the second process to render it and send it to the client.

 

Queues? They're apparently tying up a fair portion of their server resources and bandwidth doing the client's job server side.

 

Disabled High Res Textures? Sending the higher quality images would result in a tremendous increase in the memory load and bandwidth usage of the server. They could also just be too much for the remote renderer server to handle, and had to be disabled to prevent performance degradation.

 

Performance drop in areas with a lot of characters? The DLL Referenced in the textures thread appears, from what I can tell, to be specifically related to character models in particular, so it's logical that the performance hit from it would be worst when there are many characters on screen.

 

It makes so much sense, and potentially ties together a large number of the problems people have been reporting.

 

And for what? Copy protecting the models? Seriously?

 

Deliberately crippling the performance and appearance of the game for legitimate, paying customers in order to keep someone from being able to rebuild your 3D models? It has to be one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

 

If any of the foregoing is true and correct, then the following MAY additionally apply to this situation.

 

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > USC Federal law § 45

 

§ 45. Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

 

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 grants the FTC power to investigate and prevent deceptive trade practices. The statute declares that “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting consumers, are hereby declared unlawful.”[9] Unfairness and deception towards consumers represent two distinct areas of FTC enforcement and authority. The FTC also has authority over unfair methods of competition between businesses.

 

Types of liability

 

Section 2 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability distinguishes between three major types of product liability claims:

manufacturing defect,

design defect,

a failure to warn (also known as marketing defects).

 

However, in most states, these are not legal claims in and of themselves, but are pleaded in terms of the theories mentioned above. For example, a plaintiff might plead negligent failure to warn or strict liability for defective design.[2]

 

Manufacturing defects are those that occur in the manufacturing process and usually involve poor-quality materials or shoddy workmanship. Design defects occur where the product design is inherently dangerous or useless (and hence defective) no matter how carefully manufactured; this may be demonstrated either by showing that the product fails to satisfy ordinary consumer expectations as to what constitutes a safe product, or that the risks of the product outweigh its benefits.[3] Failure-to-warn defects arise in products that carry inherent nonobvious dangers which could be mitigated through adequate warnings to the user, and these dangers are present regardless of how well the product is manufactured and designed for its intended purpose.

 

[ Breach of warranty

 

Warranties are statements by a manufacturer or seller concerning a product during a commercial transaction. Warranty claims commonly require privity between the injured party and the manufacturer or seller; in plain English, this means they must be dealing with each other directly. Breach of warranty-based product liability claims usually focus on one of three types: (1) breach of an express warranty, (2) breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, and (3) breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Additionally, claims involving real estate may also take the form of an implied warranty of habitability. Express warranty claims focus on express statements by the manufacturer or the seller concerning the product (e.g., "This chainsaw is useful to cut turkeys"). The various implied warranties cover those expectations common to all products (e.g., that a tool is not unreasonably dangerous when used for its proper purpose), unless specifically disclaimed by the manufacturer or the seller.

 

Negligence

 

A basic negligence claim consists of proof of

1.a duty owed, - Full graphics capability option as displayed pre release in all advertisements and beta forms of the game, and non defective gameplay.

 

2.a breach of that duty, Negative graphics capability

 

3.the breach was the cause in fact of the plaintiff's injury (defective gameplay, Low FPS, animation lag, poor client performance etc.)

 

4.the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injury.

 

5.and the plaintiff suffered actual quantifiable injury (Defective gameplay ^see above).

 

 

(a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade

(1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce/consumers, are hereby declared unlawful.

 

(2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a (f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a (f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227 (b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.

 

(3) This subsection shall not apply to unfair methods of competition involving commerce with foreign nations (other than import commerce) unless—

(A) such methods of competition have a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect—

(i) on commerce which is not commerce with foreign nations, or on import commerce with foreign nations; or

 

(ii) on export commerce with foreign nations, of a person engaged in such commerce in the United States; and

 

(B) such effect gives rise to a claim under the provisions of this subsection, other than this paragraph.

 

If this subsection applies to such methods of competition only because of the operation of subparagraph (A)(ii), this subsection shall apply to such conduct only for injury to export business in the United States.

 

(4)

(A) For purposes of subsection (a), the term “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” includes such acts or practices involving foreign commerce that—

(i) cause or are likely to cause reasonably foreseeable injury within the United States; or

 

(ii) involve material conduct occurring within the United States.

 

(B) All remedies available to the Commission with respect to unfair and deceptive acts or practices shall be available for acts and practices described in this paragraph, including restitution to domestic or foreign victims.

 

(b) Proceeding by Commission; modifying and setting aside orders

Whenever the Commission shall have reason to believe that any such person, partnership, or corporation has been or is using any unfair method of competition or unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, and if it shall appear to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public, it shall issue and serve upon such person, partnership, or corporation a complaint stating its charges in that respect and containing a notice of a hearing upon a day and at a place therein fixed at least thirty days after the service of said complaint. The person, partnership, or corporation so complained of shall have the right to appear at the place and time so fixed and show cause why an order should not be entered by the Commission requiring such person, partnership, or corporation to cease and desist from the violation of the law so charged in said complaint. Any person, partnership, or corporation may make application, and upon good cause shown may be allowed by the Commission to intervene and appear in said proceeding by counsel or in person. The testimony in any such proceeding shall be reduced to writing and filed in the office of the Commission. If upon such hearing the Commission shall be of the opinion that the method of competition or the act or practice in question is prohibited by this subchapter, it shall make a report in writing in which it shall state its findings as to the facts and shall issue and cause to be served on such person, partnership, or corporation an order requiring such person, partnership, or corporation to cease and desist from using such method of competition or such act or practice. Until the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time, or, if a petition for review has been filed within such time then until the record in the proceeding has been filed in a court of appeals of the United States, as hereinafter provided, the Commission may at any time, upon such notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any report or any order made or issued by it under this section. After the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time, the Commission may at any time, after notice and opportunity for hearing, reopen and alter, modify, or set aside, in whole or in part any report or order made or issued by it under this section, whenever in the opinion of the Commission conditions of fact or of law have so changed as to require such action or if the public interest shall so require, except that

 

(1) the said person, partnership, or corporation may, within sixty days after service upon him or it of said report or order entered after such a reopening, obtain a review thereof in the appropriate court of appeals of the United States, in the manner provided in subsection © of this section; and

 

(2) in the case of an order, the Commission shall reopen any such order to consider whether such order (including any affirmative relief provision contained in such order) should be altered, modified, or set aside, in whole or in part, if the person, partnership, or corporation involved files a request with the Commission which makes a satisfactory showing that changed conditions of law or fact require such order to be altered, modified, or set aside, in whole or in part. The Commission shall determine whether to alter, modify, or set aside any order of the Commission in response to a request made by a person, partnership, or corporation under paragraph [1] (2) not later than 120 days after the date of the filing of such request.

 

© Review of order; rehearing

Any person, partnership, or corporation required by an order of the Commission to cease and desist from using any method of competition or act or practice may obtain a review of such order in the court of appeals of the United States, within any circuit where the method of competition or the act or practice in question was used or where such person, partnership, or corporation resides or carries on business, by filing in the court, within sixty days from the date of the service of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the Commission be set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Commission, and thereupon the Commission shall file in the court the record in the proceeding, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. Upon such filing of the petition the court shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question determined therein concurrently with the Commission until the filing of the record and shall have power to make and enter a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside the order of the Commission, and enforcing the same to the extent that such order is affirmed and to issue such writs as are ancillary to its jurisdiction or are necessary in its judgement to prevent injury to the public or to competitors pendente lite. The findings of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive. To the extent that the order of the Commission is affirmed, the court shall thereupon issue its own order commanding obedience to the terms of such order of the Commission. If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Commission, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Commission and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The Commission may modify its findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and it shall file such modified or new findings, which, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of its original order, with the return of such additional evidence. The judgment and decree of the court shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court upon certiorari, as provided in section 1254 of title 28.

 

(d) Jurisdiction of court

Upon the filing of the record with it the jurisdiction of the court of appeals of the United States to affirm, enforce, modify, or set aside orders of the Commission shall be exclusive.

 

(e) Exemption from liability

No order of the Commission or judgement of court to enforce the same shall in anywise relieve or absolve any person, partnership, or corporation from any liability under the Antitrust Acts.

 

(f) Service of complaints, orders and other processes; return

Complaints, orders, and other processes of the Commission under this section may be served by anyone duly authorized by the Commission, either

 

(a) by delivering a copy thereof to the person to be served, or to a member of the partnership to be served, or the president, secretary, or other executive officer or a director of the corporation to be served; or

 

(b) by leaving a copy thereof at the residence or the principal office or place of business of such person, partnership, or corporation; or

 

© by mailing a copy thereof by registered mail or by certified mail addressed to such person, partnership, or corporation at his or its residence or principal office or place of business. The verified return by the person so serving said complaint, order, or other process setting forth the manner of said service shall be proof of the same, and the return post office receipt for said complaint, order, or other process mailed by registered mail or by certified mail as aforesaid shall be proof of the service of the same.

 

(g) Finality of order

An order of the Commission to cease and desist shall become final—

 

(1) Upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time; but the Commission may thereafter modify or set aside its order to the extent provided in the last sentence of subsection (b).

 

(2) Except as to any order provision subject to paragraph (4), upon the sixtieth day after such order is served, if a petition for review has been duly filed; except that any such order may be stayed, in whole or in part and subject to such conditions as may be appropriate, by—

(A) the Commission;

 

(B) an appropriate court of appeals of the United States, if

(i) a petition for review of such order is pending in such court, and

 

(ii) an application for such a stay was previously submitted to the Commission and the Commission, within the 30-day period beginning on the date the application was received by the Commission, either denied the application or did not grant or deny the application; or

 

© the Supreme Court, if an applicable petition for certiorari is pending.

 

(3) For purposes of subsection (m)(1)(B) of this section and of section 57b (a)(2) of this title, if a petition for review of the order of the Commission has been filed—

(A) upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari, if the order of the Commission has been affirmed or the petition for review has been dismissed by the court of appeals and no petition for certiorari has been duly filed;

 

(B) upon the denial of a petition for certiorari, if the order of the Commission has been affirmed or the petition for review has been dismissed by the court of appeals; or

 

© upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of issuance of a mandate of the Supreme Court directing that the order of the Commission be affirmed or the petition for review be dismissed.

 

(4) In the case of an order provision requiring a person, partnership, or corporation to divest itself of stock, other share capital, or assets, if a petition for review of such order of the Commission has been filed—

(A) upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari, if the order of the Commission has been affirmed or the petition for review has been dismissed by the court of appeals and no petition for certiorari has been duly filed;

 

(B) upon the denial of a petition for certiorari, if the order of the Commission has been affirmed or the petition for review has been dismissed by the court of appeals; or

 

© upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of issuance of a mandate of the Supreme Court directing that the order of the Commission be affirmed or the petition for review be dismissed.

 

(h) Modification or setting aside of order by Supreme Court

If the Supreme Court directs that the order of the Commission be modified or set aside, the order of the Commission rendered in accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court shall become final upon the expiration of thirty days from the time it was rendered, unless within such thirty days either party has instituted proceedings to have such order corrected to accord with the mandate, in which event the order of the Commission shall become final when so corrected.

 

(i) Modification or setting aside of order by Court of Appeals

If the order of the Commission is modified or set aside by the court of appeals, and if

 

(1) the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari has expired and no such petition has been duly filed, or

 

(2) the petition for certiorari has been denied, or

 

(3) the decision of the court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, then the order of the Commission rendered in accordance with the mandate of the court of appeals shall become final on the expiration of thirty days from the time such order of the Commission was rendered, unless within such thirty days either party has instituted proceedings to have such order corrected so that it will accord with the mandate, in which event the order of the Commission shall become final when so corrected.

 

(j) Rehearing upon order or remand

If the Supreme Court orders a rehearing; or if the case is remanded by the court of appeals to the Commission for a rehearing, and if

 

(1) the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari has expired, and no such petition has been duly filed, or

 

(2) the petition for certiorari has been denied, or

 

(3) the decision of the court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, then the order of the Commission rendered upon such rehearing shall become final in the same manner as though no prior order of the Commission had been rendered.

 

(k) “Mandate” defined

As used in this section the term “mandate”, in case a mandate has been recalled prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of issuance thereof, means the final mandate.

 

(l) Penalty for violation of order; injunctions and other appropriate equitable relief

Any person, partnership, or corporation who violates an order of the Commission after it has become final, and while such order is in effect, shall forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation, which shall accrue to the United States and may be recovered in a civil action brought by the Attorney General of the United States. Each separate violation of such an order shall be a separate offense, except that in a case of a violation through continuing failure to obey or neglect to obey a final order of the Commission, each day of continuance of such failure or neglect shall be deemed a separate offense. In such actions, the United States district courts are empowered to grant mandatory injunctions and such other and further equitable relief as they deem appropriate in the enforcement of such final orders of the Commission.

 

(m) Civil actions for recovery of penalties for knowing violations of rules and cease and desist orders respecting unfair or deceptive acts or practices; jurisdiction; maximum amount of penalties; continuing violations; de novo determinations; compromise or settlement procedure

(1)

(A) The Commission may commence a civil action to recover a civil penalty in a district court of the United States against any person, partnership, or corporation which violates any rule under this chapter respecting unfair or deceptive acts or practices (other than an interpretive rule or a rule violation of which the Commission has provided is not an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of subsection (a)(1) of this section) with actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that such act is unfair or deceptive and is prohibited by such rule. In such action, such person, partnership, or corporation shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation.

 

(B) If the Commission determines in a proceeding under subsection (b) of this section that any act or practice is unfair or deceptive, and issues a final cease and desist order, other than a consent order, with respect to such act or practice, then the Commission may commence a civil action to obtain a civil penalty in a district court of the United States against any person, partnership, or corporation which engages in such act or practice—

 

(1) after such cease and desist order becomes final (whether or not such person, partnership, or corporation was subject to such cease and desist order), and

 

(2) with actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive and is unlawful under subsection (a)(1) of this section.

 

In such action, such person, partnership, or corporation shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation.

 

© In the case of a violation through continuing failure to comply with a rule or with subsection (a)(1) of this section, each day of continuance of such failure shall be treated as a separate violation, for purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (B). In determining the amount of such a civil penalty, the court shall take into account the degree of culpability, any history of prior such conduct, ability to pay, effect on ability to continue to do business, and such other matters as justice may require.

 

(2) If the cease and desist order establishing that the act or practice is unfair or deceptive was not issued against the defendant in a civil penalty action under paragraph (1)(B) the issues of fact in such action against such defendant shall be tried de novo. Upon request of any party to such an action against such defendant, the court shall also review the determination of law made by the Commission in the proceeding under subsection (b) of this section that the act or practice which was the subject of such proceeding constituted an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of subsection (a) of this section.

 

(3) The Commission may compromise or settle any action for a civil penalty if such compromise or settlement is accompanied by a public statement of its reasons and is approved by the court.

 

(n) Standard of proof; public policy considerations

The Commission shall have no authority under this section or section 57a of this title to declare unlawful an act or practice on the grounds that such act or practice is unfair unless the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. In determining whether an act or practice is unfair, the Commission may consider established public policies as evidence to be considered with all other evidence. Such public policy considerations may not serve as a primary basis for such determination.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Kaylees_spirit

[Tiron_Raptor]

if this is true, then it might explain why SOME people have amazing FPS at like 4am in the night or something.

 

but at peak hours fps drops to 10 fps in warzone or something.

 

That could just be the remote rendering system getting swamped trying to deal with all the characters: there's some stuff in one of the DLLs that hints it may only be applied to characters.

[Granrick]

Those that defend the developers ... please explain:

 

Why when I Alt+Tab the game .... and come back .... i get a nice picture + waiting, instead of the game itself?

 

Why I have to wait for all the animations, models, textures, etc, if they are already on my hdd loaded (i just alttabbed for a second .. where all that went?)

 

And no. My HDD is not working loading all that data. It's iddling.

 

The game knows when you alt+tab so stops rendering until you come back, it then has to refresh the scene to be up to date so needs to reload?

[sdream]

Yup. I'm sitting here quietly hoping someone will, and wishing I had a clue how to go about it. Unfortunately I'm Computer Systems Support (Tech), not CIS (Programmer), so I don't know that much.

 

Well, I could do it, because I'm a developer, but doing this never really crossed my mind, because I don't really believe this is the case. I'm much more inclined to think that the issue lies elsewhere i.e. sloppy, poorly optimized 3D rendering engine that interprets bytecode rather then using machine code. Another reason I don't even intend to do any sort of reverse engineering, because this would be considered violation of numerous copyright laws.

 

To be fair, it's only been two and a half hours. It's already explosive and heading for 'Threadnaught' levels at a record pace, so I'd wager someone over there is panicking appropriately.

 

Well, it's not just this thread. It seems to be growing from all other poor performance related threads, so it's been going on for much longer then 2 hours. It just took another astonishing turn a couple of hours ago :)

[vekkth]

i am here to tell you that this thread is probably the funniest and stupidest speculation i've yet to see upon the fields of gaming.

 

thank you, author, this is invaluable.

[Arutassin]

This starts top explain why my system that should run this game sooo smoothly isn't running the game well.

 

It's due to the fact my internet connection is pretty crap. Unfortunately where I live there is no choice of ISP other than my current and the fastest connection available is 2Mbps.

 

Glad this came to light as I have been considering pumping more money into my system and it clearly is not needed. What is needed is faster internet.

[Tiron_Raptor]

The game knows when you alt+tab so stops rendering until you come back, it then has to refresh the scene to be up to date so needs to reload?

 

Pretty much. The graphics system needs to re-initialize. You see this on a lot of games, but usually you just stare at a black screen until it does. SWTOR just catches it with a pretty graphic to give you something to look at.

 

If you observe carefully though, even while the pretty screen is going you can hear the game going on as normal in the background. Particularly noticeable if there's pew pew pew going on.

[Zlodo]

Yep. And that it doesn't talk directly to the server, apparently.

 

The 'might be using software rendering' thing comes from the paper: it's suggested as the best way to secure the process, by preventing a hardware bypass of the protection.

Is there any actual link between swtor and that paper besides finding it by googling "remote rendering"?

[myrmexaw]

The game knows when you alt+tab so stops rendering until you come back, it then has to refresh the scene to be up to date so needs to reload?

 

False , you can clearly see around the picture there is an edge where you still see rendering and another proof is that you are able to MOVE while the stand still screen is still there.... Yea fail i know...

[miliways]

Those that defend the developers ... please explain:

 

Why when I Alt+Tab the game .... and come back .... i get a nice picture + waiting, instead of the game itself?

 

Why I have to wait for all the animations, models, textures, etc, if they are already on my hdd loaded (i just alttabbed for a second .. where all that went?)

 

And no. My HDD is not working loading all that data. It's iddling.

 

LOL, somebody doesn't understand rendering, or operating systems, or fullscreen applications, or context switching, or hard-drive memory caching...

 

In short, there's a lot of CS that explains exactly why that happens.

 

If you get delay when you alt + tab, play the game in windowed fullscreen, or windowed (but taking up the fullscreen without the windowed - fullscreen video option, some people have problems with it).

 

That has to do with the game taking up the majority of your RAM, and your operating system (windows) attempting to be smart and move that data from your RAM to your HDD when you ALT+TAB so that RAM can be used for other things. It doens't know how long it'll be before you go back to the game, and when you do, it has to read that RAM data back from the HDD.

 

Ironically, your point is an argument that it IS being rendered locally. If it wasn't rendered locally, it would just be a video stream. Does Netflix turn black and take awhile to load when you pause it and then unpause it? Nope.

[saminaobx]

Well problem detected

[Elgarr]

i am here to tell you that this thread is probably the funniest and stupidest speculation i've yet to see upon the fields of gaming.

 

thank you, author, this is invaluable.

 

And yet you produce nothing to show the paper has no Merritt?

 

If people are going to slate it (3 is it now?) they need to counter this.

 

Defending something without any evidence is the stupidest thing I have ever seen also.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Elgarr

[Your_dominus]

So this is whats killing my framerate? this copy protection system is just absurd, bioware can always sue anyone who copies their 3D models.

 

Your frame rate is a product of your hardware. Outside of the juttery fps on the fleet, my fps is FINE.

The textures how ever, currently are a ugly joke. No difference between med and high character detail, or texture quality.

The textures look like a 5 year+ old console game, at best.

[Bloodstealer]

 

You're wrong, you don't know what your'e talking about, or you're trolling.

 

 

PLEASE, DO NOT GIVE CREDIT TO THIS INSANE IDEA. TOR IS NOT STREAMING TEXTURES OR ANIMATIONS. THIS IS BONKERS WRONG.

 

Dude... the OP never said this is what is happening and in fact has actually asked for a tech guru like yourself to come forward and add something to the post... except you have taken beyond that and turned it into a flamewar... chill out.. it's a credible thread, which has opened up some interesting thoughts and discussion...

 

It may all be "BONKERS" but you cannot deny there are obvious issues which people are seeking some explanation on or at best bring it to the attention of the devs so it can be considered/ looked into / patched or even denied.

 

So please stop Flaming.. as the vast majority of us would rather see this thread kept open for information purposes,which might even help identify what really is going on...

[Granrick]

The more I look into this, the more I doubt it's being done.

 

It's more likely that lag from multiple users is simply poor optimization. Any game will lage at some point if you keep adding models to the viewport, what point that happens depends on the machine's capability and the optimization of the software. As others have stated, running a second process to do something, possibly rendering, does not prove in any way that DRM or downloading of resources is occuring, however a bottleneck could occur from the interaction of these processes, and possibly only on certain machines - causing overheating and high CPU usage as things hang.

[miliways]

Is there any actual link between swtor and that paper besides finding it by googling "remote rendering"?

 

Nope and the idea that SWTOR is using software rendering is false; I can force AA in the nvidia control manager. So I KNOW FOR A FACT it is using hardware rendering, and I KNOW FOR A FACT it is running that rendering on my local machine.

 

PROOF THIS IS ALL POPPYCOCK. THE GAME IS RENDERING IN REAL TIME.

 

CAN EVERYBODY PLEASE SHUT UP NOW?

 

/thread closed

 

That "remote renderer" you guys are freaking out about is probably just the Hero Engine subroutine for rendering graphics. SWTOR uses the Hero Engine, a 3rd party engine, in much the same way that an FPS game might use the Source engine for rendering and stuff.

 

 

THIS IS SO BONKERS. PEOPLE WHO ARE WRONG PLEASE STOP MAKING NOISE AND FREAKING EVERYBODY OUT!!!

[Nemecass]

LOL, somebody doesn't understand rendering, or operating systems, or fullscreen applications, or context switching, or hard-drive memory caching...

 

In short, there's a lot of CS that explains exactly why that happens.

 

If you get delay when you alt + tab, play the game in windowed fullscreen, or windowed (but taking up the fullscreen without the windowed - fullscreen video option, some people have problems with it).

 

That has to do with the game taking up the majority of your RAM, and your operating system (windows) attempting to be smart and move that data from your RAM to your HDD when you ALT+TAB so that RAM can be used for other things. It doens't know how long it'll be before you go back to the game, and when you do, it has to read that RAM data back from the HDD.

 

Ironically, your point is an argument that it IS being rendered locally. If it wasn't rendered locally, it would just be a video stream. Does Netflix turn black and take awhile to load when you pause it and then unpause it? Nope.

 

 

Every one of your posts I feel like you think you know more than you actually do. You know some buzzwords but almost everything you're saying is wrong.

 

>being pretentious and using "LOL" in an argument while not being a 14 year old girl.

>2012

>ISHYGDDT

[Superpescado]

This game certainly has performance issues in my eyes but take a step back before blindly jumping on the 'OMG ITS THE DLL THAT IS BREAKING MY GAME RAAAAAAAGE!' bandwagon.

 

A quick read of the hero engine wiki may reveal the purpose of this dll.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroEngine

 

The hero engine was designed like many development tools at this point in history. I'll cite the wiki.

 

"The engine has online creation. For example, one developer can be creating a house and the entities inside, while another works on the landscaping and terrain around it. Each sees the other's work in real time.[3]"

 

This dll could simply be used during the development process and may have no function for the average user. Is it even loaded at run time?

 

Lets get some more info before we gather the mob and sharpen our pitchforks.

[Perderedeus]

This is a rather interesting development. My fiancee noticed the second SWTOR process the other day, while the game was running like a dog on her system -- she thought that perhaps it had even locked up, and went to kill the process. Lo and behold, two SWTOR.exes.

 

I'm not sure what needs to be "processed" or "rendered" outside the main client, and/or what benefit that gives us... likely no benefit whatsoever. If this is a copy-protection method, I'm curious about how exactly that works, and why it is implemented for modeling/rendering. Is Bioware protecting against unlicensed Star Wars machinima in some way? And by that, I mean the sort of machinima where models and maps are viewed/manipulated outside of the game client, not filmed "live" on servers...

 

Yet, on that topic, there are thousands of Star Wars fan films on Youtube. Nobody is paying Lucas royalties for those. You have "Jedi" and "Sith" and Lightsabers and Stormtroopers and all that... on video, or even performing live (Stormtrooper squads, etc.), without any kickback to Lucas.

 

Or perhaps this is a method to curtail Private Servers? I imagine Blizzard would want to do the same for WoW, since private servers are cutting into their revenue, but it may be too late for them to attempt to work in a protection scheme... whereas Bioware has deployed a form of protection from the start?

 

Hrmmm.