Difference between revisions of "Talk:Decompiling Maps"

From Valve Developer Community
Jump to: navigation, search
(protection)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Better the make it public that VMEX's system sucks then have a few people spread it by word of mouth.  Maybe it'll get changed faster this way.  Public knowledge is the best way to get things changed.  Its the same theory that all these books are comming out now a days about hacking and computer security. --[[User:Red comet|Red Comet]] 13:57, 4 Feb 2006 (PST)
 
Better the make it public that VMEX's system sucks then have a few people spread it by word of mouth.  Maybe it'll get changed faster this way.  Public knowledge is the best way to get things changed.  Its the same theory that all these books are comming out now a days about hacking and computer security. --[[User:Red comet|Red Comet]] 13:57, 4 Feb 2006 (PST)
 +
 +
*Um, as I say on [http://www.geocities.com/cofrdrbob/faq.html my faq page], using a no_decomp key is the easiest to bypass of the protection methods, which is why I also have texture-based and brush-based checks. Brush-based is best, but any method can be defeated by someone with sufficient determination. Ultimately, they could write their own decompiler which ignores all checks. --[[User:Rof|Rof]] 15:25, 4 Feb 2006 (PST)
  
 
Should this article really be discussing how to bypass the "no_decomp" 1 flag? It's purposely violating the author's intent when you remove that keyvalue. --'''[[User:Campaignjunkie|Campaignjunkie]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Campaignjunkie|talk]])</sup> 13:44, 4 Feb 2006 (PST)
 
Should this article really be discussing how to bypass the "no_decomp" 1 flag? It's purposely violating the author's intent when you remove that keyvalue. --'''[[User:Campaignjunkie|Campaignjunkie]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Campaignjunkie|talk]])</sup> 13:44, 4 Feb 2006 (PST)

Revision as of 23:25, 4 February 2006

Better the make it public that VMEX's system sucks then have a few people spread it by word of mouth. Maybe it'll get changed faster this way. Public knowledge is the best way to get things changed. Its the same theory that all these books are comming out now a days about hacking and computer security. --Red Comet 13:57, 4 Feb 2006 (PST)

  • Um, as I say on my faq page, using a no_decomp key is the easiest to bypass of the protection methods, which is why I also have texture-based and brush-based checks. Brush-based is best, but any method can be defeated by someone with sufficient determination. Ultimately, they could write their own decompiler which ignores all checks. --Rof 15:25, 4 Feb 2006 (PST)

Should this article really be discussing how to bypass the "no_decomp" 1 flag? It's purposely violating the author's intent when you remove that keyvalue. --Campaignjunkie (talk) 13:44, 4 Feb 2006 (PST)