i use CSB and bot works great ;D

anyway, dont take it personally but BNLS is rather slow for me, and i see other bots using hases to connect. Is it possible to use hashes to connect with CSB (cleanslatebot) and/or what would i do/need to incorporate them ::) as i am rather clueless when it comes to hashes

Thx Guys! :D

No, CleanSlateBot does not support local hashing.

Hashes may seem faster to connect with, but most public CheckRevision functions are slower than the BNLS Check Revision, therefore you usually get a better ping time when using BNLS. (At least this is the case for me)

You can use Hashes with exileasy.ocx though :)

and exileasy.ocx is???

[quote author=CodeMaster link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59136 date=1084084611]
Hashes may seem faster to connect with, but most public CheckRevision functions are slower than the BNLS Check Revision, therefore you usually get a better ping time when using BNLS. (At least this is the case for me)
[/quote]
Despite the fact that the CheckRevision() BNLS uses is slightly faster than most, the time it takes for you to transfer the data received from Battle.net to BNLS, BNLS to transfer it back to you hashed and then sending it to Battle.net, in most cases, would take much longer than just localy hashing the values and sending them directly to Battle.net.

[quote author=CodeMaster link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59136 date=1084084611]
Hashes may seem faster to connect with, but most public CheckRevision functions are slower than the BNLS Check Revision, therefore you usually get a better ping time when using BNLS. (At least this is the case for me)
[/quote]
Calculating the results for 0x51 should not effect the speed at which you reply to 0x25.

[quote author=phvckmeh link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59140 date=1084086330]
and exileasy.ocx is???
[/quote]

anyone know? im interested
searched google, nothing
searched here, nothing

The time CheckRevision takes to complete has nothing to do with your ping time.

[quote author=Maddox link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59145 date=1084088560]
The time CheckRevision takes to complete has nothing to do with your ping time.
[/quote]
[quote author=Soul Taker link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59143 date=1084088505]
Calculating the results for 0x51 should not effect the speed at which you reply to 0x25.
[/quote]
:P

[quote author=LoRd[nK] link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59142 date=1084087956]
[quote author=CodeMaster link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59136 date=1084084611]
Hashes may seem faster to connect with, but most public CheckRevision functions are slower than the BNLS Check Revision, therefore you usually get a better ping time when using BNLS. (At least this is the case for me)
[/quote]
Despite the fact that the CheckRevision() BNLS uses is slightly faster than most, the time it takes for you to transfer the data received from Battle.net to BNLS, BNLS to transfer it back to you hashed and then sending it to Battle.net, in most cases, would take much longer than just localy hashing the values and sending them directly to Battle.net.
[/quote]

Actually I don't believe that's true. I've timed the time it takes from when I sent the packet, to when BNLS sent it back to me, and it was roughly one 3rd of the time it takes to do it locally with Yobguls' function - Try it your self on the War3 files

[quote author=phvckmeh link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59144 date=1084088520]
[quote author=phvckmeh link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59140 date=1084086330]
and exileasy.ocx is???
[/quote]

anyone know? im interested
searched google, nothing
searched here, nothing
[/quote]

Something clan exile made.

[quote author=UserLoser. link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59153 date=1084103409]
Actually I don't believe that's true. I've timed the time it takes from when I sent the packet, to when BNLS sent it back to me, and it was roughly one 3rd of the time it takes to do it locally with Yobguls' function - Try it your self on the War3 files
[/quote]

This is likely to be very dependent on your ping time to vl.com. What times did you get when you measured it?

[quote author=Soul Taker link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59149 date=1084096362]
[quote author=Maddox link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59145 date=1084088560]
The time CheckRevision takes to complete has nothing to do with your ping time.
[/quote]
[quote author=Soul Taker link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59143 date=1084088505]
Calculating the results for 0x51 should not effect the speed at which you reply to 0x25.
[/quote]
:P
[/quote]

I was going to say that too. Ah, what the hell.

The speed that you do checkrevision doesn't affect your ping. Unless you're sending your SID_PING to bnls and waiting for it to tell you how to respond.

[quote author=iago link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59177 date=1084116052]
[quote author=Soul Taker link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59149 date=1084096362]
[quote author=Maddox link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59145 date=1084088560]
The time CheckRevision takes to complete has nothing to do with your ping time.
[/quote]
[quote author=Soul Taker link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59143 date=1084088505]
Calculating the results for 0x51 should not effect the speed at which you reply to 0x25.
[/quote]
:P
[/quote]

I was going to say that too. Ah, what the hell.

The speed that you do checkrevision doesn't affect your ping. Unless you're sending your SID_PING to bnls and waiting for it to tell you how to respond.
[/quote]
Then you'll be getting a -1 ping, or won't be logging on at all, depending on how you handle the situation.

[quote author=CodeMaster link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59136 date=1084084611]
Hashes may seem faster to connect with, but most public CheckRevision functions are slower than the BNLS Check Revision, therefore you usually get a better ping time when using BNLS. (At least this is the case for me)
[/quote]

idk what BNLS or local hashing has to do with Bnet ping time anyway. My bot is set up to send the ping packet to Battle.net as soon as it receives it.

[quote author=Forged link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59138 date=1084085577]
You can use Hashes with exileasy.ocx though :)
[/quote]

so where can i find it?

probably could ask on the Exile forums.

[quote author=phvckmeh link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59134 date=1084084252]
Is it possible to use hashes to connect with CSB (cleanslatebot) and/or what would i do/need to incorporate them ::)
[/quote]

While you can't use hashes from within CSB, you can write a hashed connection and call your existing CSB event subroutines based on things that happen in hashing. For example, you can parse a join event in your hashing connection handler and call CSB_UserJoins(), filling out the necessary variables, so that you don't have to code those events twice.

You could impliment a hashed connection along a CSB one I sure its possible.

ExileEasy is made by CrAz3D it allows for both hashing and BNLS connections. ( Must have your own BNLS ID ). Very similar to CSB possibly better. Connects to all clients via BNLS and to most clients while using hashes. Allows for checking Profile system keys among other things like a included addchat sub. Too bad it requires an auth and CrAz3D is the only one that'll give you one.

It is beter than csb, I don;t thikn he is that picky on the auth, just pm him.

[quote author=Forged link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=15#msg59279 date=1084155638]
It is beter than csb, I don;t thikn he is that picky on the auth, just pm him.
[/quote]

ok so now, how would i get this? there is no CrAz3D on that site

There is a CrAz3D on this site :P

[quote author=ChR0NiC link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=15#msg59306 date=1084165559]
There is a CrAz3D on this site :P
[/quote]

https://davnit.net/bnet/vL/phpbbs/index.php?board=;action=viewprofile;user=CrAz3D
weird how i searched for him and nothing???

Your checkrevision time could certainly affect your ping time... What if you received SID_PING while you were processing checkrevision, and had to wait until that was compelte to respond to the ping?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=15#msg59319 date=1084187880]
Your checkrevision time could certainly affect your ping time... What if you received SID_PING while you were processing checkrevision, and had to wait until that was compelte to respond to the ping?
[/quote]
SID_PING is always received before you receive the packets containing the values required to process a checkrevision.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=15#msg59319 date=1084187880]
Your checkrevision time could certainly affect your ping time... What if you received SID_PING while you were processing checkrevision, and had to wait until that was compelte to respond to the ping?
[/quote]
It's called "multithreading." ;)
[quote author=LoRd[nK] link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=15#msg59343 date=1084202453]
SID_PING is always received before you receive the packets containing the values required to process a checkrevision.
[/quote]
I'm not sure about that.... That may be how it has been observed, and it makes sense. I just hate to say "always" or "never" about much of anything....

[quote author=Myndfyre link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=15#msg59350 date=1084204520]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=15#msg59319 date=1084187880]
Your checkrevision time could certainly affect your ping time... What if you received SID_PING while you were processing checkrevision, and had to wait until that was compelte to respond to the ping?
[/quote]
It's called "multithreading." ;)
[quote author=LoRd[nK] link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=15#msg59343 date=1084202453]
SID_PING is always received before you receive the packets containing the values required to process a checkrevision.
[/quote]
I'm not sure about that.... That may be how it has been observed, and it makes sense. I just hate to say "always" or "never" about much of anything....
[/quote]

I believe it's always sent from the server before the packets containing the hash values are sent and believe it is sent this way to ensure that what Arta said won't occur.

Ping request is sent from BNET to bot, why wouldn't the bot automatically send the answer back to BNET?...why would it send the request to BNLS first?

The ping request doesn't coem from BNLS, why BNLS effect the ping value?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=15#msg59357 date=1084206739]
Ping request is sent from BNET to bot, why wouldn't the bot automatically send the answer back to BNET?...why would it send the request to BNLS first?

The ping request doesn't coem from BNLS, why BNLS effect the ping value?
[/quote]

Which was exactly my point. What Arta was suggesting was that, if you're operating on a single thread and you're servicing the CheckRevision function before the ping function, you have to wait for the CheckRevision request to complete -- which, if you're using BNLS, may take some time, causing your response to the ping to slow down.

CrAz3d is right here, now you may ask him ;D

Edit: Ouch, I just got bit by a mosquito :(, and it itches badly

My head is aching from trying to make sense out of the stupidity of this thread.

Battle.net seems to always send 0x25 before sending 0x50. If you're not multithreading your bot, then I do not see how using CheckRevision verses BNLS can affect your ping time.

You send 0x50.
Battle.net receives 0x50, and replies with 0x25 and 0x50 (in that order).
You receive 0x25, and reply.
You receive 0x50 and calculate CheckRevision or pass the data off to BNLS.
Battle.net receives 0x25 reply while you're doing your thing with CheckRevision or BNLS.
Battle.net then moments later receives your 0x50 reply, and sends 0x51 reply.
The connection continues...

What's the matter? Is it only me that sees it this way? >:( ::)

Would someone mind explaining to me how this method of processing can or will adversely affect your ping time?

Edit: Minor grammar corrections...

Every single bot that I have tried that uses BNETAuth.dll for Hashing has on average a higher ping than if I were to use BNLS. I do not know why this is, but this is the case.

Edit: Where as if I use zDS Bot, I seem to get a fairly low ping on average, Eurijk! must've used a more efficient hashing method.

[quote author=ChR0NiC link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=30#msg59568 date=1084295839]
Every single bot that I have tried that uses BNETAuth.dll for Hashing has on average a higher ping than if I were to use BNLS. I do not know why this is, but this is the case.

Edit: Where as if I use zDS Bot, I seem to get a fairly low ping on average, Eurijk! must've used a more efficient hashing method.
[/quote]

Even though I've never experienced such a problem in any of my bots, the most logical explanation for this would be that the bots that use BnetAuth.dll were all coded in Visual Basic whereas zDS was programmed in C++.

[quote author=tA-Kane link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=30#msg59491 date=1084253262]
My head is aching from trying to make sense out of the stupidity of this thread.

Battle.net seems to always send 0x25 before sending 0x50. If you're not multithreading your bot, then I do not see how using CheckRevision verses BNLS can affect your ping time.

You send 0x50.
Battle.net receives 0x50, and replies with 0x25 and 0x50 (in that order).
You receive 0x25, and reply.
You receive 0x50 and calculate CheckRevision or pass the data off to BNLS.
Battle.net receives 0x25 reply while you're doing your thing with CheckRevision or BNLS.
Battle.net then moments later receives your 0x50 reply, and sends 0x51 reply.
The connection continues...

What's the matter? Is it only me that sees it this way? >:( ::)

Would someone mind explaining to me how this method of processing can or will adversely affect your ping time?

Edit: Minor grammar corrections...
[/quote]

No Kane, you're not the only one. That's exactly what I've been trying to say the entire time.

I use checkrevision and for some reason I occasionally get high ping and then use stealthbot and its quite low. Why might this occur and how can I help myself :) ?

[quote author=Networks link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=30#msg59581 date=1084299349]
I use checkrevision and for some reason I occasionally get high ping and then use stealthbot and its quite low. Why might this occur and how can I help myself :) ?
[/quote]

After I enabled flood protection on my bot (read: I added a timer to send out packets on the Tick), I had really high ping. Make sure that your flood protection isn't enabled until you've at the very least, entered chat, or as I like, send your first SID_JOINCHANNEL instance.

[quote author=Myndfyre link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=30#msg59582 date=1084299676]
[quote author=Networks link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=30#msg59581 date=1084299349]
I use checkrevision and for some reason I occasionally get high ping and then use stealthbot and its quite low. Why might this occur and how can I help myself :) ?
[/quote]

After I enabled flood protection on my bot (read: I added a timer to send out packets on the Tick), I had really high ping. Make sure that your flood protection isn't enabled until you've at the very least, entered chat, or as I like, send your first SID_JOINCHANNEL instance.
[/quote]

Should only apply flood protection to the packets that require it.

[quote author=Insecure link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=30#msg59588 date=1084300327]
Not to change the subject but something I noticed is the first 2 post of everything is ontopic then it goes off. Such as here...CSB Hash Connect INSIDE...now your talkin about ping....I would have been more interested in the CSB than the Ping...since we all understand the ping senerio unless your new here!
[/quote]

CleanSlateBot.ocx can be obtained at this link. If you want to learn how it works, go here

Very simple to use and good for starting, but if you want to move onto to more complex things, don't get used to the structures of it.

[quote author=Insecure link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=30#msg59588 date=1084300327]
Not to change the subject but something I noticed is the first 2 post of everything is ontopic then it goes off. Such as here...CSB Hash Connect INSIDE...now your talkin about ping....I would have been more interested in the CSB than the Ping...since we all understand the ping senerio unless your new here!
[/quote]

I don't know where this quote stems from, but the ping discussion began with this post:

[quote author=CodeMaster link=board=17;threadid=6710;start=0#msg59136 date=1084084611]
Hashes may seem faster to connect with, but most public CheckRevision functions are slower than the BNLS Check Revision, therefore you usually get a better ping time when using BNLS. (At least this is the case for me)
[/quote]
emphasis mine.