Cheat Engine :: View topic - Is there any idea about code activation methods?

Cheat Engine
The Official Site of Cheat Engine

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Is there any idea about code activation methods?
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Cheat Engine Lua Scripting

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Corroder
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme

Reputation: 75

Joined: 10 Apr 2015
Posts: 1668

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:18 am Post subject:

Quote:

Aylin: @Corroder, the function you provided doesn't want wildcards (in the exchange code)

That just an example for I am usually used to scan AOB. If need scan and replace AOB contains some wild char, then, of course, we can use other methods, for example as shown by Panraven, DaSpammer, Zanzer scripts, etc. Anyhow, I agree with DaSpammer:

Quote:

Anyway we have given you some solutions and ideas, the very same result can be done through many different techinques, it isnt really related to ce functionallity, if you dont like it then change it or they way you are working.

The other thing is important to me is:
The first, hacks code works then how much progress times spent for those hacks code is the last thing.
_________________

Stealing Code From Stolen Code...
And Admit It.. Hmmm....Typically LOL

AylinCE
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme

Reputation: 37

Joined: 16 Feb 2017
Posts: 1549

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:38 am Post subject:

Thanks for the example @DaSpamer.
Also, thank you for deciding to help.

Every step; it is an aid, an idea, and a lesson.
Thank you for this test idea.

Code:

local ts = os.clock();
...
print('it took',os.clock()-ts,'sec');

I pushed your code a bit, the results are below.

Code:

aobswap('02 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01','64 00 00 00 64 00 00 00')
Aobs Count: 1418
changed bytes? - true
it took 6.0710000000008 sec

Code:

aobswap('03 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01','64 00 00 00 64 00 00 00')
Aobs Count: 967
changed bytes? - true
it took 5.527 sec

This code; I think the AobSwap method is the first level increase.
It works fine. Thanks again. Smile

Hopefully, ideas come from other masters on the list.
Comparing together will increase the experience. Rolling Eyes

------------------------- EDIT :
@Corroder;
The code you share has something similar in the subject title.
I wrote an answer to indicate this.

In addition, this opened topic (Forum); It is only to request more advanced "Search - Change" code samples (if they have time and patience) from the masters.

Although this request seems personal; People will use these codes and will benefit from this code.
So the desire is not personal but global.
Result; Contributing to the code of CE.
I am sorry if I hurt you.
_________________

Hi Hitler Different Trainer forms for you!
https://forum.cheatengine.org/viewtopic.php?t=619279
Enthusiastic people: Always one step ahead
Do not underestimate me Master: You were a beginner in the past

Last edited by AylinCE on Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:55 am; edited 1 time in total

daspamer
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme

Reputation: 54

Joined: 13 Sep 2011
Posts: 1588

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:51 am Post subject:

6 seconds is quite reasonable (depends on computer spec), especially when your aob has to be filtered from several (hundreds?) thousands of results because of the single byte led by zeros pattern, which is really the culprit, either get an aob with a bit more 'meat' into it, or limit scan range by using memscan with probably several threads.
Another way to optimize it a bit would be supplying only required bytes
so instead of

Code:

'64 00 00 00 64 00 00 00'

supply

Code:

'64 00 00 00 64'

you will save 3 calls to writeBytes per aob result.
another method to optimize would be call writeBytes with chunk(s)
lets say you want to write

Code:

64 00 00 00 64 00 00 00

calling

Code:

writeBytes(address,{100,0,0,0,100,0,0,0}); or writeBytes(address,100,0,0,0,100,0,0,0);

would be much better than calling for each byte separately, but once you insert wildcards to replace pattern then you must split it.

Code:

64 00 00 ?? 64 00 00 00

it would result in 2 different calls (in this case)

Code:

writeBytes(address,100,0,0);
writeBytes(address+4,100,0,0,0);

it might save you some (insignificant) time, but I think it is fine as it is.
_________________

I'm rusty and getting older, help me re-learn lua.

AylinCE
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme

Reputation: 37

Joined: 16 Feb 2017
Posts: 1549

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:47 am Post subject:

DaSpamer wrote:

it might save you some (insignificant) time, but I think it is fine as it is.

Yes, I am considering using it as it is.
However, I do not set exchange codes.
I have some functions that delegate this right to the user.
Sample;

Code:

function CEButton3Click(sender)
UDF1.CEButton3.Caption="Wait";
newvalue = UDF1.CEEdit1.Text
newvalue = tonumber(newvalue)
if not newvalue then return end
newvalue = dwordToByteTable(newvalue)
newvalue = byteTableToAobString(newvalue)
codescan2 = '?? 02 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 '
codescan3 = '?? 03 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 '
codescan4 = '?? 04 00 00 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 '
codescan5 = '?? 05 00 00 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 '
codescan6 = '?? 06 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 '
codescan7 = '?? 07 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 '

Aobswap(codescan2,('?? %s %s '):format(newvalue, newvalue))
Aobswap(codescan3,('?? %s %s '):format(newvalue, newvalue))
Aobswap(codescan4,('?? %s %s '):format(newvalue, newvalue))
Aobswap(codescan5,('?? %s %s '):format(newvalue, newvalue))
Aobswap(codescan6,('?? %s %s '):format(newvalue, newvalue))
Aobswap(codescan7,('?? %s %s '):format(newvalue, newvalue))

UDF1.CEButton3.Caption="ON";
end

Here is a test;

Code:

Aobs Count: 1416
changed bytes2? - true
Aobs Count: 846
changed bytes3? - true
Aobs Count: 154
changed bytes4? - true
Aobs Count: 984
changed bytes5? - true
Aobs Count: 184
changed bytes6? - true
Aobs Count: 967
changed bytes7? - true
Aobs Count: 366
changed bytes8? - true
it took 36.475 sec

Again Thanks @DaSpamer
_________________

daspamer
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme

Reputation: 54

Joined: 13 Sep 2011
Posts: 1588

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:59 am Post subject:

Aylin wrote:

DaSpamer wrote:

it might save you some (insignificant) time, but I think it is fine as it is.

Yes, I am considering using it as it is.
However, I do not set exchange codes.
I have some functions that delegate this right to the user.
Sample;

Code:

Here is a test;

Code:

Again Thanks @DaSpamer

Remove the leading ??, as it penalizes the performance quite much!
Try to place as much as you can static data at the beginning of the aob.
By removing leading ?? (first byte), performance improved by almost 20%

Perhaps threads might help a bit more,
Shoving some random aobscan into thread at 300MB process size yields 0.5-0.6sec reductions or about ~10%, without any flag assigned, with flag set performance increased by another ~20% or ~1.2 second less!

Code:

myThreads = myThreads or threadClass(); -- auto created 12 threads earlier..
myTracker = myTracker or threadClass().createThread();
local ts = os.clock();
local taskCount,totalWork = 0,12;
myTracker.addQueue(function(thread,threadid) -- thread class splits work across threads... can accidentally assign the tracking thread a job
print('Thread work');
while taskCount < totalWork do
sleep(100)
end
print('took in total',os.clock()-ts,'secs');
end)
for i=1,totalWork do
myThreads.addQueue(function(thread,threadid)
local ts = os.clock();
aobs = AOBScan("AA BB CC");
if (aobs) then
aobs.destroy();
end
taskCount = taskCount + 1;
print('took',os.clock()-ts,'secs \tthreadid =',threadid);
end);
end

print('Normal work');
local ts = os.clock();
local taskCount,totalWork = 0,12;
for i=1,totalWork do
(function()
local ts = os.clock();
aobs = AOBScan("AA BB CC");
if (aobs) then
aobs.destroy();
end
print('took',os.clock()-ts,'secs');
end)();
end
print('took in total',os.clock()-ts,'secs');

yields this

Code:

Thread work
took 2.5519999999997 secs threadid = 3
took 4.9000000000015 secs threadid = 11
took 4.9020000000019 secs threadid = 5
took 4.9200000000019 secs threadid = 10
took 4.9629999999997 secs threadid = 12
took 4.9629999999997 secs threadid = 4
took 4.9639999999999 secs threadid = 2
took 4.9639999999999 secs threadid = 1
took 5.0610000000015 secs threadid = 9
took 5.0889999999999 secs threadid = 6
took 5.1730000000025 secs threadid = 7
took 5.331000000002 secs threadid = 8
took in total 5.3460000000014 secs
Thread work
took 4.7950000000019 secs threadid = 9
took 4.9180000000015 secs threadid = 5
took 4.9180000000015 secs threadid = 7
took 4.9390000000021 secs threadid = 6
took 4.974000000002 secs threadid = 10
took 4.9830000000002 secs threadid = 8
took 4.9840000000004 secs threadid = 11
took 4.9860000000008 secs threadid = 12
took 4.987000000001 secs threadid = 1
took 4.9940000000024 secs threadid = 2
took 4.9960000000028 secs threadid = 3
took 5.1680000000015 secs threadid = 4
took in total 5.2479999999996 secs
Thread work
took 4.9310000000005 secs threadid = 11
took 4.9360000000015 secs threadid = 9
took 5.010000000002 secs threadid = 1
took 5.010000000002 secs threadid = 6
took 5.0280000000021 secs threadid = 3
took 5.1700000000019 secs threadid = 8
took 5.1920000000027 secs threadid = 10
took 5.2010000000009 secs threadid = 2
took 5.2020000000011 secs threadid = 12
took 5.2020000000011 secs threadid = 5
took 5.2330000000002 secs threadid = 4
took 5.4459999999999 secs threadid = 7
took in total 5.4470000000001 secs
==========================
==========================
==========================
Normal work
took 0.48800000000119 secs
took 0.48799999999756 secs
took 0.48699999999735 secs
took 0.48400000000038 secs
took 0.48800000000119 secs
took 0.48500000000058 secs
took 0.48600000000079 secs
took 0.48500000000058 secs
took 0.48599999999715 secs
took 0.49499999999898 secs
took 0.48799999999756 secs
took 0.4900000000016 secs
took in total 5.9700000000012 secs
Normal work
took 0.48100000000341 secs
took 0.48300000000017 secs
took 0.50300000000061 secs
took 0.47999999999956 secs
took 0.48699999999735 secs
took 0.48999999999796 secs
took 0.48600000000079 secs
took 0.48800000000119 secs
took 0.48899999999776 secs
took 0.49199999999837 secs
took 0.48600000000079 secs
took 0.48400000000038 secs
took in total 5.9390000000021 secs
Normal work
took 0.48800000000119 secs
took 0.48700000000099 secs
took 0.47599999999875 secs
took 0.48099999999977 secs
took 0.48700000000099 secs
took 0.48899999999776 secs
took 0.47899999999936 secs
took 0.53399999999965 secs
took 0.49099999999817 secs
took 0.4890000000014 secs
took 0.48099999999977 secs
took 0.4800000000032 secs
took in total 5.9249999999993 secs

It wouldn't really speed things up as long as we are using aobscan, but if you really 'maximize' potential then perhaps a thread might help your case.

Edit:
Posted my threads class source;
https://forum.cheatengine.org/viewtopic.php?p=5758759#5758759
_________________

I'm rusty and getting older, help me re-learn lua.

Display posts from previous:

	Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Cheat Engine Lua Scripting	All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum