You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#151 Re: Technical Help » Can't connect to servers because of router? » 2018-01-13 23:55:20
2 unsuccessful attempts (separately) and one successful (with around 10 attempts):
Hey, that LAN trace is actually very interesting.
The LAN trace is showing that your local machine does receive responses back, all the way through your ISP and local gateway/router. But the responses look "wrong", meaning corrupted or invalid. My guess at this point in the analysis is that the responses are being intentionally dropped by your local Battlefield 1942 game itself. The question is whether the responses actually are invalid, and/or have been modified in a bad way when coming back through the ISP and/or local router.
Could you do the same LAN trace again, but this time connecting to the EA117 server again? I have to step out of the office for a bit, but I'll leave a LAN trace running there all day, until you say you've attempted to connect. I want to compare what the Battlefield 1942 server's "actual response" was, against the response that we will see in your trace when you capture the exact same conversation locally.
Same as before, don't worry about any "map not found / mod not found" response if you don't have DesertCombat installed; that's a "success" response so far as we're concerned. We're just looking to capture one or more instances of the "simply doesn't connect / does nothing" symptom, when you're attempting to connect to this server, same as any other server.
Once you have it, just save and make that LAN trace available same as you did the others, and I'll stop and compare it to the LAN trace I'm capturing here.
-Trench
#152 Re: Technical Help » Can't connect to servers because of router? » 2018-01-13 19:41:53
As I understand, this is what is received from BF1942 server through 23000-23009 ports which aren't responsible for "playing" itself. But this is all what is received (I checked the whole list sorting by IP) - no other ports like 14567.
Yes, the 23000 port work is just for server status and information, and we're only seeing the "return" (reply) data in this screen shot, because the view was sorted by source IP address. But there "must" be port 14567 traffic in this LAN trace, because we saw your game connection attempt make it all the way to the server in our server-side LAN trace. So even if the port 14567 connection attempt didn't get a reply, we should still see the outbound attempt in your LAN trace. In theory it's also possible we might see something else in response, such as an ICMP message indicating some declaration of why the traffic failed and/or was dropped.
If you're willing, I'd be happy to take a look at the actual LAN trace. Meaning, if you save the entire trace as native .PCAPNG format, and send that for analysis. I presume the forums don't take an attachment like that, but if you email it to our [email protected] email address, I could get it that way. If you wanted to use Dropbox or something else and PM the link, that's fine too.
It looks like you "did it right". You don't need to define any capture filters or anything complicated like that; just start the capture, which should default to all interfaces or at least the "Ethernet" interface, and then minimize it and go start the game and try to connect. Once the game has failed to connect (or maybe, if you take another LAN trace, keep trying until it happens to succeed once, so we can see that difference too within the same trace) you can just exit the game, stop the LAN trace in Wireshark, and save it to .PCAPNG format.
No difference between connections, both are Public, and all settings are same.
Too bad. That felt like a difference for "I've changed ISPs and now something doesn't work" that we (or at least I) had been overlooking until now. But another possibility to scratch off the list.
-Trench
#153 Re: Technical Help » BF 1942 local multiplayer » 2018-01-09 00:44:39
I would try to resolve the local LAN issue first, since although running an actual Internet-visible server should also be possible, it's just added layers of complication that aren't necessary for local LAN play.
Did you end up seeing a prompt from the Windows Firewall (or whomever your third-party firewall on Windows might be) when you tried to start the local non-dedicated LAN game server? I don't think BF1942.EXE installation requires or creates a firewall rule by default, so Windows probably would have prompted to ask "do you want to allow this program to accept connections" when the game wanted to open listening ports for the game server. Since the display is in DirectX mode at the time, this prompt can actually end up appearing "behind the game", and isn't visible until you exit the game later.
Go into the Windows 10 "Network & Internet settings", select "Windows Firewall", then "Allow an app through the firewall", then "Change Settings" to enable adding more items to the list shown, then "Allow another app...", then browse to your "C:\Program Files (x86)\EA GAMES\Battlefield 1942\BF1942.EXE" game program. Before hitting "Add", use the "Network Types" button to select both "Public" and "Private" networks. Then use "Add" to save the new program to the list, and then OK your way out to save the change.
This should only be necessary on the machine that is running as the non-dedicated game server. The other game machines (the ones expected to find the local non-dedicated server already running on this LAN) should already work even without an explicit rule.
-Trench
#154 Re: Technical Help » Can't connect to servers because of router? » 2018-01-08 11:18:17
No, I haven't changed anything there, all firewall settings are default, including "Firewall services" off.
Okay, understood now. I assumed seeing "Firewall Services" set to "Off" was a troubleshooting step, and didn't think the router would use that as it's default configuration. But "Off" is exactly what we wanted to test with, so that doesn't hurt us.
Changes:
1) router IP has changed to that external one (see screenshot). It was 10.4.143.65 before;
Ah, that makes sense now. So before, we were "double-NATed", meaning we were going through the NAT in the router itself, but then also going through a NAT for the ISP service provider's own internal network, too. Which isn't too unusual, and just reflects that the ISP doesn't have an abundance of public IPv4 addresses available, and so they only provide external addresses "on demand" when the customer requests them.
Now that you have the "external IP service" enabled, you're going though just a single NAT, the one that is built into the router. And the issue connecting to Battlefield 1942 servers still exists, so we can rule out that the double-NAT of the ISP provider was the part of the issue.
But still, I don't understand:
1) What else does the game need besides ports opened? Internet connection is active, ports are opened, they do work, firewall doesn't block them. What else???
Indeed, that is the puzzling thing. Our expectation here is that when your Battlefield 1942 game running on your computer at 192.168.1.10 makes a connection from, say, ephemeral port 57894 to port 14567 of the Team-SiMPLE or EA117 game server, the router's NAT (and Firewall) are already accounting for "and any replies that come back from port 14567 to port 57894 should be passed back to the computer at 19.168.1.10." Not because you configured or enabled that, but because "that's what it means to be a NAT."
So you're not expected to have to "open port 57894 to allow inbound replies to the game traffic", nor can you predict that 57894 would even be the ephemeral port used, anyway. That's supposed to be automatic behavior of the NAT, and allowed so long as it's not blocked by the firewall.
One thing this has me wondering: We confirmed using the EA117 server that replies are being sent back toward your ISP & router. Might we want to confirm "Are those replies actually making it through your ISP & router, but are being rejected by your computer itself? Versus whether those replies simply never make it past your ISP & router, and you computer never has opportunity to accept or reject them.
Have you ever used Wireshark? Which is the LAN capture utility I used at this end to capture the traffic in and out of the server machine. If you can run that on your machine, start a capture, and then minimize it, launch Battlefield 1942 and attempt to connect to a server, I wonder whether we'll see an absence of replies in that LAN trace. (Which would mean the replies aren't getting back through your ISP and/or your router.)
Versus would we see that the replies ARE visible in the LAN trace, which means they're being rejected/blocked by some firewall or other IP filtering driver on your actual Windows machine itself. Wireshark isn't too difficult of an application to drive; the "hard part" is the analysis of the actual captured LAN trace, but you can just email that if you're able to get it.
2) Why is it possible to join a server on 17th attempt (for example, or just on 4th sometimes)?! What the hell is changing from one attempt to another when I don't even restart the game?! I thought those ephemeral ports can affect it in some way because it was the onliest thing I saw changing...
Yeah, that too is an unexpected behavior. Is as though either the NAT is working on occasion. Or, as bud alluded to, maybe certain ones of the ephemeral port range are actually being "allowed" (not that this makes sense in context of NAT) and the game happens to work if and when the game happens to pick one of these "magic working local ephemeral port numbers." That latter description makes no technical sense; there is no reason "only certain local ephemeral port numbers should have worked."
In trying to picture other possibilities for why "old ISP service worked" and "using my cell phone hotspot instead of my ISP still works", is it possibly some unforeseen difference in the network profile selected by Windows for your latest ISP-provided router connection? e.g. Did Windows classify your previous old ISP connection as "Private", and also classifies your cell phone hotspot connection as "Private", but defaulted to classifying your new router's ISP connection as "Public"? Or maybe vice-versa.
I'm hesitant to suggest that, because I can't think of a way for me to define a rule where "that's going to make a difference." Because for example the Windows firewall, even if a rule no longer applies because the rule is defined for "Private network profiles only", the default for allowing outbound connections is still "allow them unless any rule exists to block them." So even if the network profile is different, it still doesn't seem "likely" to me that this would be the difference.
However, I am familiar with Windows Firewall behaviors such as "on Public networks, inbound UDP traffic is only accepted from the local subnet", whereas on Private or Domain profile networks, it's allowed even from remote networks. But I've only encountered that affecting things like BOOTP/DHCP traffic, and not application data. But maybe it's worth looking at.
You can see the network profile in the Windows settings "Network & Internet settings". The main page will show something like "Ethernet - Private network" or "Ethernet - Public network" in the pseudo-diagram of your network. Once you see what profile its showing for your current "Ethernet" (ISP connection through your router), perhaps then connect your computer through your cell phone hotspot and see what Windows shows as the network profile (Public or Private) for the Internet connection through your cell phone.
If they are different profiles, then we should probably try making the Windows profile for your Ethernet / router ISP connection to be the same as whatever is working for how Windows classifies your cell phone hotspot, to see or rule out whether that's any part of the issue that is still occurring here.
-Trench
#155 Re: Technical Help » Can't connect to servers because of router? » 2018-01-06 22:07:16
bud wrote:Checked the port the game binds to on my computer just for curiosity (connected to server), and got this (every possible IP or Loopback?). Dunno if this is praxis for all games.
I tried to check that earlier and discovered that the game uses port numbers like that for some purpose.
This is actually normal, and is how IP communication always works over UDP and TCP. The application (Battlefield 1942 in this case) is connecting to a "well known port" of the server such as 14567. That's the port you're sending to. The port your local computer uses to send that communication -- meaning the local port the server will see this communication as coming from -- is actually what's referred to as "an ephemeral port number", which simply means "an unused, available local port number." These will typically be from the high end of the 65535 port range, since well known services live in the lower port numbers.
So think of it like making a phone call. You're calling the Battlefield 1942 server (port 14567), but your phone call is coming from somewhere, and your local computer "randomly" assigned an available local port number such as 55984 for making that call. Or, go find someone who has made a better explanation.
With regard to bud's observation of the application binding to address 0.0.0.0, that's typically the representation of INADDR_ANY or "unspecified address", meaning the application has no desire or intention to bind to "just a specific one of the available local network interfaces", and instead is happy to use any of them (for sending ) or all of them (for listening).
Something really weird is going on. I called ISP, they said "external IP" service should be a solution. I activated it, all ports now can be checked via PFPortChecker - they are all opened (UDP - 14567, 14690, 23000-23009, TCP - 28900). And guess what? Still nothing works, fuсking "Failed to connect to server", that's all!
Well, you certainly still needed to try their "external IP" service as a possible solution. But it sounds like this alone wasn't the root cause. Or at least, that you'll need to understand more about what the "external IP" service is actually providing, before being able to make a conclusion about whether it's necessary to keep or not.
The key point for me -- based on the screen shots you had posted -- was that you had simply disabled the router's firewall, even if just for troubleshooting purposes. The other configurations -- Port Forwarding, Port Triggering -- are unnecessary for this situation, but there was no harm in doing them either. You shouldn't have to disable the firewall on your router, but doing so eliminated the major source of "variable decisions within the router itself for allowing traffic to pass."
Now that you have the "external IP service" from your ISP, what exactly do you "have" or see that is different? Meaning is there a new web page in your ISP account you have access to where you have new controls, or is there just "nothing different" at your end and they simply say you "have it"? Since it's a service provided by your ISP and not a VPN service or similar, I'm not exactly sure what "external IP service" from your ISP really means in technical terms.
If you can describe whatever you know about this new service that is now in the mix, we can try and decide from there what configuration or troubleshooting might make the most sense to perform next.
One generic thing I might try at this point, with the unknown "external IP service" now added to the mix, is to simply reset the router to factory defaults again, to erase all the attempts at troubleshooting and explicit port configuration, and get back to the default "we want this to work for our customers when they turn on the router" defaults. i.e. Firewall will be back on, port forwarding list will be empty, etc.
-Trench
Just to provide some background (you can skip this until later if desired):
Let me start by saying "what normally allows you to play after simply installing your Internet service and turning it on" is the firewall. Not the fact that you explicitly "open ports" through your router. There isn't anything wrong with opening ports through the router, but typically that's a "required" activity because you intend to run a server behind your router, and not just a game client.
Firewalls differ in both functionality and defaults depending on who made them, but a typical "this needs to work for the customer by default, out of the box" firewall configuration is going to allow by default any "outbound communication" attempt. Meaning when your Battlefield 1942 game client attempts to send from port 57813 (or any other local ephemeral port) to port 14567 of a public game server, the firewall allows this outbound communication because there is no rule blocking "outbound communication attempts to port 14567."
And the firewall then allows replies to that communication, at least for a period of time, since responses coming "back from the server's 14567 port to the local ephemeral port" are now expected by the firewall too, because it had allowed the outbound communication. So a firewall that intends to work "out of the box" without configuration will simply "work" in this scenario, because the outbound communication was allowed by default, and replies were allowed in response to the outbound communication.
That's in contrast to "unsolicited inbound communication." (Unsolicited meaning "not in response to a previous outbound communication.") Typically by default inbound communication is blocked by default. If you're running a Battlefield 1942 server on your computer, although the server might have opened up the necessary ports in your local Windows machine's firewall to allow inbound communication, your ISP's router/gateway likely still blocks such inbound communication by default.
That is when the "opening ports on your router" becomes necessary, because you need to allow any random, unsolicited inbound communication to port 14567 and port 23000, in order to allow game clients around the world to talk to your server.
#156 Re: Technical Help » Can't connect to servers because of router? » 2018-01-04 04:09:45
The LAN trace confirms that ziba128's UDP port 14567 traffic is making it out of his ISP and to the public servers, and the public servers are responding to him. But his BF1942 game client just repeats the initial negation packet three times and then gives up, as though the server replies shown in the LAN trace are simply never seen by the BF1942 game client. So apparently some kind of inbound traffic block, or inadvertent inbound traffic drop at the ISP or the router.
ziba128 also confirmed that the Port Blocking tab does not show any default or defined blocks that are active.
-Trench
#157 Re: Technical Help » Can't connect to servers because of router? » 2018-01-03 02:33:36
Never shown or mentioned, so just to confirm: That "Port Blocking" page we can see the tab for in your router's web interface has an empty list of things, and doesn't show some default entry that even "reset to factory defaults" wouldn't have eliminated?
If it ends up helping in your investigation, if you want to PM me what your current public IP address is, I'd be happy to LAN trace my server to see if any port 14567 traffic is actually making it out through your connection. i.e. Determine whether it's an issue of the game traffic simply never escaping your router, or never escaping your ISP, and therefore never reaches the public servers. Or -- if we do see your traffic in the LAN trace at this end -- whether it's an issue of the traffic not being allowed "back in" when the public server does actually respond to you.
Note I do assume that you're seeing non-9999 pings for the servers you're able to successfully "Update" in the Multiplayer list, which confirms that port 23000 is able to both send and receive at your end. Never played Counter-Strike, but Google suggests to me that their default game port is also in the 23000 range, FWIW.
-Trench
EDIT: English double not negatives.
#158 Re: BF1942 Discussion » Battlefield 1942 Portable » 2017-12-30 15:45:44
If the question is still regarding key location, I don't think there is any "Windows XP versus Windows 7/8/9/10" difference, but rather a "32-bit Windows versus 64-bit Windows" difference. The Battlefield 1942 game is a 32-bit application, and so the registry locations can be different when this 32-bit application runs on a 64-bit version of Windows (whether that's XP or any later version of Windows).
Here are the locations where I swap my registry key values, based on where I found them located after a clean installation many moons ago. Note this covers both the CD-based installation location and also the Origin-based installation locations; i.e. I had installed both versions, and this is where the key(s) had been written to.
For 64-bit Windows:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Electronic Arts\EA GAMES\Battlefield 1942\ergc]
@="1234567890123456789012"
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Electronic Arts\Origin\Battlefield 1942\ergc]
@="1234567890123456789012"
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Electronic Arts\EA Core\Staging\1004264\ergc]
@="1234567890123456789012"For 32-bit Windows:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Electronic Arts\EA GAMES\Battlefield 1942\ergc]
@="1234567890123456789012"
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Electronic Arts\Origin\Battlefield 1942\ergc]
@="1234567890123456789012"
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Electronic Arts\EA Core\Staging\1004264\ergc]
@="1234567890123456789012"As you can see, for 32-bit Windows you're just dropping "Wow6432Node" from the registry path for some of the values.
-Trench
#159 Re: News and Announcements » GameSpy shutdown and Battlefield 1942 » 2017-03-29 20:47:55
Trench wrote:tuia wrote:Added Battlefield 1942 GameSpy patch installer which will automatically replace all necessary files in your Battlefield 1942 directory to redirect to new master server and create compatibility flags for BF1942 (WINXP SP3 and Run as Admin), if you have Windows Vista or newer. In case you install to your Origin Games\Battlefield 1942 folder, original BF1942.exe will be first copied to backup subdirectory. Download: Battlefield 1942 GameSpy patch v1.61
Having an installer sounds great for those who are unfamiliar with .ZIP files, where their game directory is, etc., for getting the patch installed correctly. Can you clarify more regarding /which/ patch(es) are being installed, and/or why the .EXE is named "1.61". For example, which specific files currently listed on http://team-simple.org/download/ would be installed by this .EXE? If both the CD-based Battlefield 1942 and Origin-based Battlefield 1942 are present on the machine, does it install both?
Battlefield 1942 GameSpy patch automatically copies BF1942.exe v1.61 plus the rest of necessary files for a BF1942 Retail install and BF1942.exe v1.612 for Origin BF1942. It creates a backup of BF1942.exe, named BF1942.exe.bak, if it copies to an Origin BF1942 install. Installer checks if it is a BF1942 Origin or BF1942 Retail install comparing the directory chosen with the BF1942 registry values. It also creates WINXPSP3 and RUNASADMIN flags in Windows registry for BF1942.exe.
So, if you have both a CD-based and Origin-based Battlefield 1942, it will decide what files to copy when you choose the BF1942 directory to patch. It defaults to Retail BF1942 directory.
Named it v1.61 because they are practically the same, trying to clean the BF1942 versions mess that EA created.
And for some reason I /still/ hadn't put together until now that this can leave your game installation with differing Battlefield 1942 server compatibility, based on whether you have a retail (CD-based) game install or an Origin-based game install.
I was still in the mode of thinking "battlefield_1942_gamespy_patch_v1.61.exe is the only update anyone will need to run", but in reality you still have to contend with the question of "what version of server am I wanting to play on." If you had a retail (CD-based) game and "battlefield_1942_gamespy_patch_v1.61.exe" applied the 1.61 update, you're still only compatible with 1.61 servers. Any 1.612 servers will appear "grayed out" in your server list, and unable to connect.
So there is still cause to download "Battlefield 1942 v1.612 Retail executable patched (bf1942-v1.612-retail-patched.zip)" and apply that too, even though you already ran battlefield_1942_gamespy_patch_v1.61.exe.
Note I'm NOT saying that you shouldn't run battlefield_1942_gamespy_patch_v1.61.exe in this case. Running the battlefield_1942_gamespy_patch_v1.61.exe installer is still helping you by backing up your original BF1942.EXE and marking the "Run as Administrator" and "Windows XP SP3 compatibility" options for you. For best results run battlefield_1942_gamespy_patch_v1.61.exe /and/ then download and apply bf1942-v1.612-retail-patched.zip afterwards, if your desire is to play against 1.612 servers.
Again, this may have already been obvious to some, but I wanted to spell it out for the benefit of anyone else like me who was still missing part of the plot.
-Trench
#160 Re: Technical Help » Recent Win 10 update breaking 1942? » 2016-01-10 22:22:28
Still can't figure out how to delete the thing though.
I don't have any direct experience with this driver set, nor have an XBox 360 controller to try it with.
http://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-360/ … r-computer is suggesting that on Windows 10 the drivers should come from Windows Update automatically, without any separate driver set installation.
You may have already covered the normal bases for removing the Windows 7 driver set installation, such as "Uninstall" on the controller entry in Device Manager, followed by using the Add/Remove Programs control panel to remove any entry(ies) that the Windows 7 driver installation created. Since we're talking DirectX files, that might also include some kind of "DirectX runtime"-named entry in addition to the XBOX-related entry(ies).
But having performed the "Uninstall" in Device Manger such that the XBox no longer appears there, upon reboot it should detect the connected controller again and go fetch driver support through Windows Update (since you had also uninstalled the locally-installed Windows 7 driver set).
If it seems to be pulling the Windows 7 driver set even after removal and reboot, an additional approach can be to right-click the XBox controller in Device Manager and select "Update Driver" and force Windows to look for an updated driver in Windows Update that way.
All of which you may have already done; just describing it in case.
-Trench
#161 Re: Technical Help » Malware detected? » 2016-01-05 20:33:16
You may also need to look at specifically what the virus program is reporting the "problem" or "infection". Some will declare a vague condition like "reputation" because the file hasn't been seen on very many computers where their product runs. They might also declare it as a "potentially unwanted program" if they think the software or its installer prompts with advertisements, even when it's exactly the program you wanted. Have to look deeper at exactly what Total Security says it is flagging these files for.
-Trench
#162 Re: Technical Help » Laptop/Notebook » 2016-01-05 20:25:32
Definitely 15" is very common, but in my opinion it's because 15" is "the largest you want to travel with daily for business." For "a system I'm using at home and rarely move it, but just need to be able to pick it up and move it easily when necessary", there is no reason not to go with 17" especially for gaming.
But my additional opinion is that there is a very diminishing value return trying to push past 17". Instead of looking for some Frankenstein 18" or larger laptop that will be like carrying a briefcase around, maybe just get an external monitor to plant where you normally play. (I'm partial to Dell's 27" at the moment as being a good value point. 4K if you want it, or 1080p for better value.) And then whenever you do "pick up and leave the room", /that's/ when you'll be playing on the 17" screen. Otherwise you're normally playing "on a 27" laptop."
-Trench
#163 Re: Technical Help » Copying over files after reinstalling » 2015-12-21 07:06:26
All you guy getting Windows prompts to run DirectPlay. The only thing I got was a blank screen!
It seems like "just a blank screen" is something I had seen during the Windows 10 beta. But when I installed on the July 2015 initial release, and most recently when I installed on the November 2015 release that was just made, when launching BF1942.EXE for the first time I get Windows dialog prompting me to add the DirectPlay feature that the current application is attempting to use.
So maybe it is still a "random" or timing issue, and I've just been lucky the past couple times that I've installed on Windows 10. But yes, it is possible to get a prompt instead of just a blank screen.
But it's certainly possible to "pre-emptively install the DirectPlay feature before launching BF1942", and you already linked to one of the pages that shows how to do this. Are you saying you still get a blank screen even though you manually add the DirectPlay feature as described in https://windowsforum.com/threads/turn-o … 10.205952/?
-Trench
#164 Re: Technical Help » Lag and high ping in Windows 10 » 2015-12-20 21:59:00
By clicking on the on and off button you can turn off the P2P feature of Windows 10.
"Off" is fine, and completely understandable. "On" with "PCs on my local network" selected might be more advantageous overall, especially if you have more than one Windows device in your household. I certainly don't want to be giving away my bandwidth to Microsoft for free by making my computer a download point for other random users on the Internet. But if I have multiple computers at home, I'd rather the 1GB of updates gets pulled across my ISP just once, rather than independently by each computer.
#165 Re: Technical Help » Copying over files after reinstalling » 2015-12-20 09:02:35
When I unstalled the game, I went back in and deleted the entire EA directory, all settings folders all profiles folders (there's the connection) and everything
I could find related to bF42. Then I did a registry cleaner....When I reinstalled BF42, all of my previous settings came back, and along with it, the issue of being "frozen" in game..
For the settings to "come back on their own" without you explicitly restoring them, my expectation is that the settings files had become written to "C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files\...".
This is the area where Windows automatically redirects applications that are attempting to write to the "real" "C:\Program Files\" directory, but the user has insufficient permissions to write there. (Meaning, BF1942.EXE was not launched using Run as Administrator.) Rather than make the application fail, they just silently redirect the application to an area they /can/ write to. So if you deleted the "real" "C:\Program Files\" directory and re-installed, these "VirtualStore" files could have still existed.
But someone on -=aX=- mentioned the other day that their Battlefield 1942 was writing it's profile information under the main "Documents" directory. I've never seen that myself, but I suppose it's another place to check.
For the CD-based version of Battlefield 1942, "ideally" you would never run BF1942.EXE without "Run as Administrator". If you've run /without/ even once, any settings the application tries to write could have ended up in VirtualStore. Because Windows is trying to help pretend "nothing is wrong", it will silently use those alternate files instead of what's actually in the Program Files directory.
For the Origin-based version, they were more aware of Windows Vista and later's security defaults. The "C:\Program Files\Origin Games\" directory actually /is/ writeable by users even if you don't use "Run as Administrator". So with the Origin version you would be less likely to end up in the problem scenario.
But who knows, maybe it's the Origin version that writes files to "Documents". I've just never seen that happen.
Finally switched my game machine permanently to Windows 10 x64 November 2015 build. Using the Origin version of Battlefield 1942 for what it's worth, but everything working well for me including PunkBuster, using the same steps as on Windows 8.1 and earlier. The only thing "new" was that the first time I launched BF1942.EXE, Windows itself prompted me to install DirectPlay, downloaded and installed it automatically for me, asked me to reboot, and then everything was good.
-Trench
#166 Re: BF1942 Discussion » PLZ admin where download bf1942 secret weapons and road to rome ? » 2015-12-20 08:46:59
Fine, I'll do it. Look at what's circled in red above your post in the following screen shot:
#167 Re: Off-Topic » Black friday sales » 2015-11-30 23:32:55
Clearly a testament to how important the holiday shopping season is financially to the stores themselves, else they wouldn't even entertain this bullshit in the slightest. Your store is left in a wreck, all the stuff in boxes has been dropped, thrown around, ripped open and fought over... isn't that just coming back as a return item? And the people fighting over stuff... did you really "win" by coming up with your hand on the shredded cardboard and styrofoam package with god knows what broken or missing?
I never actually participated in Black Friday events, but it used to be I was at least willing to venture outside the house on that day. Now you just have to grab a bottle, hunker down, and pray for daylight... waiting for the signal that The Purge has ended.
-Trench
#168 Re: Feedback » Can SiMPLE create a patch for BF Vietnam? » 2015-11-12 01:18:05
But the latest BFVietnam patch version is 1.21. Why just 1.2 ?
Pretty sure that's the one he did first.
#169 Re: BF1942 Discussion » Which is your least favorite (populated) BF1942 server? » 2015-10-27 20:08:21
So far as I can tell, he really just wanted to post "I hate aX!" And thought adding the poll would make it less petty and crazy-sounding.
-Trench
#170 Re: Server Ban Appeals » unban moon » 2015-10-19 04:21:43
give him a chance pls, no one should get permantly banned from this server. a ban from this server means a ban from battlefield 1942. everyone does studpit things once in a wile.
"Permanent ban" is supposed to be the incentive /not/ to risk cheating in any form, because you won't get a second chance. If everyone knows "sure, go ahead and do it, they'll let you back in if you just act sorry about it afterwards", it won't be any incentive at all. Not to mention a waste of every admin's time who volunteered to help weed these people out of the player population.
Everyone does do stupid things once in a while. All the stupid things I've done, I've had to deal with the consequences. Don't see why it will be any different here. Maybe being permanently banned here will make someone think twice about risking it in the next server or next game they move on to.
-Trench
#171 Re: Technical Help » SiMPLE USA Lag WorkGroup? » 2015-10-12 18:42:34
Until it becomes established that "this particular route is slow /regardless/ of when we measure it", noting the time of day for a particular sample is probably important. So that as additional samples are collected, a picture emerges of whether the router itself gets slower at a certain time of day, or maybe that slow-performing router only /becomes/ part of the route at certain times as Comcast's network reacts and adjusts to loading, etc.
I come out through Dallas, which your Virginia route also crossed through right before the "bad hop". At least when I measured it just now (Monday 11am CDT), it wasn't routed or leaving for Los Angeles using exactly the same routers your trace had shown. But it did enter Los Angeles through the same router, and I saw the same ~30ms bump seen in your trace:
c:\>tracert 162.217.248.97
Tracing route to 162.217.248.97 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Wireless_Broadband_Router.home [192.168.1.1]
2 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms xxxx.verizon-gni.net [xx.xx.xx.xx]
3 7 ms 6 ms 9 ms xxxx.verizon-gni.net [xx.xx.xx.xx]
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms 0.ae1.XL3.DFW7.ALTER.NET [140.222.226.99]
6 8 ms 9 ms 6 ms TenGigE0-4-0-3.GW5.DFW13.ALTER.NET [152.63.98.205]
7 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms be-202-pe02.1950stemmons.tx.ibone.comcast.net [66.208.229.169]
8 10 ms 11 ms 9 ms be-11-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.82.133]
9 37 ms 39 ms 39 ms be-11315-cr02.losangeles.ca.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.85.142]
10 37 ms 37 ms 36 ms he-0-0-0-1-pe01.losangeles.ca.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.85.30]
11 44 ms 43 ms 44 ms ae2.Comcast.lax.us.AS40676.net [23.238.223.49]
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 43 ms 44 ms 44 ms hosted-by.iniz.com [104.216.1.50]
14 44 ms 44 ms 44 ms 2.164.161.107.iniz.com [107.161.164.2]
15 45 ms 43 ms 44 ms 162.217.248.97
Trace complete.Which, for getting from Dallas to Los Angeles, I'm not sure whether ~30ms is really to be considered abnormal. Guess we might also need to come up with the proof that it doesn't always take that long.
-Trench
#172 Re: BF1942 Discussion » Qtracker is the master server to save BF1942 » 2015-09-11 23:07:12
The owner of this master server did not even release a copy for the public to use. The man created a private master server and advertised it heavily. This man effectively owns Battlefield 1942. We made a mistake moving to the aX master server, and we would be wise to move to Qtracker.
Other than the bald attempt to drive business toward qtracker, I'm not seeing much technical merit in your argument. It reads more like the man slept with your sister or something personal. We can always switch again if and when something happens to aX or qtracker or one of the other master servers we now have the ability to choose between.
aX's work on providing a replacement master server is appreciated just like all the other BF1942 fixes and tweaks aX has contributed on both previously and since then. If you wanted to force people to choose today, it's clear for me who has done more for the Battlefield 1942 game overall as opposed to just in the realm of server browsing. But there's no real reason such a choice needs to be forced.
A direct link which will update your Battlefield 1942 master server is below. Qtracker BF1942 master server patch: http://www.mediafire.com/download/hgh0d … Server.exe
"Here, download and execute this opaque installer .EXE that requires administrative rights, but doesn't provide any description or clues as to what exactly it's about to do." Seems safe, my grandma does that all the time.
-Trench
#173 Re: BF1942 Discussion » Question about installing Xpacks... » 2015-08-11 20:26:22
For anyone who doesn't feel comfortable patching/modifying their BF1942.EXE file, there is another way to fix this problem.
Fair enough, but someone would really be missing out by not replacing their BF1942.EXE file. The replacement GameSpy master server change being "built in" is only one of the latest improvements made in this replacement BF1942.EXE.
You also get "real" widescreen video support, with the in-game video menu able to show all your graphics card's actual supported resolutions. And you get "no CD" or "no Origin" support, eliminating the requirement to have the game CD in the drive, and/or to launch the Origin client before being able to play. Finally, although perhaps most importantly, you get at least a couple local game crash and issue fixes that have been patched into this .EXE. Which doesn't eliminate all Battlefield 1942's issues, but is at least better than still having the original BF1942.EXE.
You can always keep your original BF1942.EXE and put it back whenever you like, and the installer tuia provided already does that for you automatically too. (Keeps the original BF1942.EXE for you in case you want to put it back.)
If someone did still want to just adjust their HOSTS file, note the helper program that s[sk] provided at http://master.bf1942.sk/ might be the easiest way to achieve it, since editing the HOSTS file directly on Windows requires jumping through some hoops with the default security posture of Windows Vista and later.
-Trench
#174 Re: Technical Help » Windows 10 » 2015-08-06 18:26:36
Not information about Battlefield 1942 on Windows 10 (which I didn't have any problem with, but last tested during the 1013x builds),
But regarding information for the Windows 10 upgrade itself, one point is that if you want the free license being offered by Microsoft for the first year, you /must/ do an upgrade of an existing Windows 7 or Windows 8.x installation on the machine. During the upgrade, Microsoft will record the hardware fingerprint as being a device which is authorized to have the free Windows 10 license.
THEN you can do whatever you want: Format and restore your Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 installation again and keep running that version (knowing you have a Windows 10 license on this device if and whenever you decide to switch), or you can format and install Windows 10 clean from the DVD using the .ISO file link provided earlier.
When you format and do a clean installation of Windows 10, you don't have to enter an activation key; just use the "Skip" and "Do this later" links when prompted. Because you previously performed the upgrade & obtained the free license on this device, when Windows 10 checks the activation server it will find the previous license and activate you automatically without entering a key. Same info and maybe more detail in this post.
I definitely consider Windows 10 "a version of Windows 8.1 you will probably actually like", and will be switching to Windows 10 on any machines I'm currently running Windows 8.x on. But like Windows 8.1, "there isn't really anything you /need/ in this release" as compared to continuing to run Windows 7. Unless features like Cortana float your boat.
The biggest reason I see for Windows 7 users making the move to Windows 10 (and/or at least obtaining the free Windows 10 license while it's being offered) is that Microsoft mainstream support for Windows 7 ended in January 2015. Eventually we're going to be "in Windows XP territory" with neither Microsoft nor application vendors offering Windows 7 support any more.
-Trench
#175 Re: Technical Help » Cant get gamespy patch to work » 2015-08-05 03:14:30
For what it's worth I hit a "No Battlefield 1942! Setup cannot continue" error when trying run the Gamespy fix installer during a clean installation of Origin-based Battlefield 1942 on Windows 8.1 today.
There was a BF1942.EXE and MOD.DLLs under the "C:\Program Files (x86)\Origin Games\Battlefield 1942\" directory, I was giving the "battlefield_1942_gamespy_patch_v1.61.exe" installer the "C:\Program Files (x86)\Origin Games\Battlefield 1942" path rather than the default EA Game path, etc. But it just wouldn't accept that the game was there.
Turned out to be because I had initiated "Download" but not yet "Install" of the Origin game. I don't recall that being a two-step process before (download always did install as I recall, else what's the point of download within the Origin client), but regardless, all the files were in the program directory yet apparently it had never been "Installed". Invoking "Install" on the now-downloaded game in Origin corrected the issue.
So I'm sure it's still the "missing registry information" condition just like SurrenderMonkey is describing; just wanted to relay a specific reason (and specific stupid reason) why I was able to hit that kind of condition.
-Trench
#176 Re: Technical Help » Which file from your download section? / Question about Field of View » 2015-07-24 17:55:57
For what it's worth, "Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 5" compatibility is what I've had the most success with. But it's only available on Windows 7 or earlier; for Windows 8 and later "Windows XP Service Pack 3" is the oldest available "Windows NT" choice.
Had a chance to try Windows 10 build 10240 with Battlefield 1942. Attempting to use "Windows 98" compatibility in that configuration prevented PunkBuster from working; always "service communication failure" when connecting to a PunkBuster server. But the Windows XP Service Pack 3 option still worked fine.
-Trench
#177 Re: BF1942 Discussion » GameSpy shutdown cancelled? » 2014-07-31 22:54:18
I have created a website www.bf1942-multiplayer.com with a new patch with the master server 109.71.69.254 master.gamespy.com
So that people can easily find the solution.
Cool. Any information on what makes this InstallShield version better / preferable / more functional than the HOSTS file patcher -=AX=- already provided for using their master server?
-Trench
#178 Re: BF1942 Discussion » ### The BF1942 Gamespy master server is now DEAD ### » 2014-07-29 08:52:52
...but i use and old Bf1942.exe patch and i had never never a problem because of or since GamespyShutdown.
I think that makes sense, because there are actually two different "fixes" going on here.
The first fix is "the hang fix", which is a BF1942.EXE modification which prevents the game from hanging if "the master server" is offline. Without this fixed BF1942.EXE, if whatever master server you're using goes down, the game hangs when using the "Internet" menu. This issue was known long before the GameSpy shutdown was even proposed, and there were already fixed BF1942.EXE files before 2014 which addressed this issue.
(It sounds like you were already running one of those pre-2014 fixed BF1942.EXE files.)
The latest fix provided in the May 2014 fixed BF1942.EXE files is to change the game code so that it doesn't attempt to query "master.gamespy.com" any more at all, since as of July 26, 2014 those servers are permanently down. The fixed BF1942.EXE will instead query "master.bf1942.sk" which is the -=AX=- replacement master server. The "hang fix" is also present in these BF1942.EXE files, but that's not the "new" fix being provided.
In other words, you could also try and summarize the situation like this:
Applying only the HOSTS file change will fix someone who is currently hanging. But the HOSTS file change simply replaces "master.gamespy.com" with a single specific IP address known to be the -=AX=- replacement master server's current IP address. These users have not actually "fixed the hang", but rather have redirected themselves to a known-responsive master server in order to "avoid the hang." The day the -=AX=- replacement master server is down for maintenance, or the ISP -=AX=- uses is down for maintenance, etc., these player's Battlefield 1942 games are going to hang again. In addition, if -=AX=- ever has to change ISPs or must change the IP address their replacement master server is running at, the player's game will hang again until the player updates their HOSTS file (again) with the new IP address.
A player who does already have one of the pre-2014 BF1942.EXE files which includes the hang fix can simply make the HOSTS file change in addition, and they now have "both parts" of the fix. Their HOSTS file will be redirecting them to the -=AX=- replacement master server, and if the -=AX=- replacement master server is ever down for maintenance, the player's game will not hang because they have the BF1942.EXE hang fix, too. Without the HOSTS file change, this player's game will still not hang, but the player will be unable to use the "Update" button to refresh the Battlefield 1942 servers until they fix the HOSTS file to point to a responsive master server again.
A player who applies one of the May 2014 BF1942.EXE files does not need to make any HOSTS file change. The May 2014 BF1942.EXE fixes contain not only "the hang fix", but also replace "master.gamespy.com" with "master.bf1942.sk" so that the Battlefield 1942 game is querying the -=AX=- replacement master server "directly." This approach has the added bonus of not being dependent on one specific IP address for the -=AX=- replacement master server. If ever -=AX=- changes ISPs or changes which server the replacement master server is running at, this player's game will switch to that new IP address automatically when resolving the "master.bf1942.sk" DNS name.
Sorry for the long read; just seemed like an appropriate context to mention these points.
-Trench
#179 Re: BF1942 Discussion » GameSpy shutdown cancelled? » 2014-07-26 03:30:59
In-game server list update via master.gamespy.com stopped working for me today. (First noticed 1:30am UTC 26JUL2014.) Waiting to see if it's temporary / while they move hardware or something, or finally "the real shutdown".
-Trench
#180 Re: News and Announcements » GameSpy shutdown and Battlefield 1942 » 2014-07-22 17:00:34
Added Battlefield 1942 GameSpy patch installer which will automatically replace all necessary files in your Battlefield 1942 directory to redirect to new master server and create compatibility flags for BF1942 (WINXP SP3 and Run as Admin), if you have Windows Vista or newer. In case you install to your Origin Games\Battlefield 1942 folder, original BF1942.exe will be first copied to backup subdirectory. Download: Battlefield 1942 GameSpy patch v1.61
Having an installer sounds great for those who are unfamiliar with .ZIP files, where their game directory is, etc., for getting the patch installed correctly. Can you clarify more regarding /which/ patch(es) are being installed, and/or why the .EXE is named "1.61". For example, which specific files currently listed on http://team-simple.org/download/ would be installed by this .EXE? If both the CD-based Battlefield 1942 and Origin-based Battlefield 1942 are present on the machine, does it install both?
Thanks. -Trench