Fine, then let's not bother with anti-cheat at all, since an aimbot can work by just filming the screen and sending HID events over USB. Anti-cheat is like DRM: You have to make do with a compromise.
Hundreds of thousands of raycasts per second sounds doable to me, but couldn't you just use a GPU and some simplified level geometry? That ought to scale well enough. It's not free or perfect (knowing the position of a hand a cheat will be able to estimate where the head is anyway), but that's not the goal, right?
There is a video of DYI aimbot of using a camera and sending electrical impulses into his arm to make him do certain adjustments. It's a bit hit and miss but seems refineable.
It's cat and mouse game.
Is cyborg doping even cheating? At least at this stage it's still high effort and DIY. That almost makes it legitimate to me
Re:The issue of anti-cheat on Linux
by internetter on Friday August 22, 2025 @07:08PM
(#44991033)
many sport communities call doping cheating
and that's reasonable! but it's not a given. It's different from other kinds of cheating and some of its motivations are unusual when it comes to cheating restrictions (e.g., long-term health of players)
Re:The issue of anti-cheat on Linux
by dpoloncsak on Monday August 25, 2025 @01:35PM
(#45016430)
This is probably the video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-EbjGSRyKA&pp=ygUZYmFzaWNhb...
BasicallyHomeless has made it his life mission to eradicate cheating in video games.
The problem is that server-side occlusion is only a small piece of the puzzle. A naïve implementation means hundreds of thousands of raycasts per second, which doesn’t scale. Real engines rely on precomputed visibility sets, spatial partitioning, and still have to leak some data client-side for responsiveness.
Basically - the kernel level check is not laziness, but for unsolvable problems without huge compute costs or latency.