473,320 Members | 1,846 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,320 software developers and data experts.

So how do games work?

I'm a newbie, bear with me here.
It has one .exe file, is this where all the instruction is stored?
Everything else is just data like textures, maps, etc? How do these
crackers hack the .exe so that you don't need cds in the drive to play these
games? And there are also DLL files which have methods/functions too,
right?
Nov 15 '05 #1
7 1131

"Pixar Film Rock" <pi***@film.com> wrote in message
news:bs************@ID-198839.news.uni-berlin.de...
I'm a newbie, bear with me here.
It has one .exe file, is this where all the instruction is stored?
Possibly all user written code is in hte exe, although I'd never undertake a
large project in such a monolithic manner. Everything else is just data like textures, maps, etc? Perhaps, it depends on the game. Data has to be stored somehow, its possible
to store it inline with the exe, but that isn't ideal in most cases. How do these
crackers hack the .exe so that you don't need cds in the drive to play these games? CD checks tendto do a few basic things: require files off the drive, check
thedisc at a low level for specific features, etc. A cracker would simply
remove or modify the code so it doesn't bother with the disc. And there are also DLL files which have methods/functions too,
right? Well, to be totally straight, the game certainly calls atleast some system
libraries, however for user code, it depends entirely on the authors. You
can use dll's\libs, or you can use a monolithic executable.

Nov 15 '05 #2
So they decompile and have the source code to the whole game? That doesn't
sound right.


"Daniel O'Connell" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eT**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

"Pixar Film Rock" <pi***@film.com> wrote in message
news:bs************@ID-198839.news.uni-berlin.de...
I'm a newbie, bear with me here.
It has one .exe file, is this where all the instruction is stored?
Possibly all user written code is in hte exe, although I'd never undertake

a large project in such a monolithic manner.
Everything else is just data like textures, maps, etc? Perhaps, it depends on the game. Data has to be stored somehow, its

possible to store it inline with the exe, but that isn't ideal in most cases.
How do these
crackers hack the .exe so that you don't need cds in the drive to play

these
games?

CD checks tendto do a few basic things: require files off the drive, check
thedisc at a low level for specific features, etc. A cracker would simply
remove or modify the code so it doesn't bother with the disc.
And there are also DLL files which have methods/functions too,
right?

Well, to be totally straight, the game certainly calls atleast some system
libraries, however for user code, it depends entirely on the authors. You
can use dll's\libs, or you can use a monolithic executable.


Nov 15 '05 #3

"Pixar Film Rock" <pi***@film.com> wrote in message
news:bs************@ID-198839.news.uni-berlin.de...
So they decompile and have the source code to the whole game? That doesn't sound right.
Well, not generally decompile, although in some cases that may be the chosen
path. Most protection schemes leave a pattern(a specific function call(or
set there of), or whatever) and can seemingly be removed with automated
tools, and all executables can be disassembled and debugged. Anyone with a
decent knowledge of x86 assembly can crack basic protections, someone with
advanced knowledge can crack harder ones.
Imagine a method like this:
bool IsLicenseValid();

assume it uses assembly something akin to(very basic, its been awhile):
;do some stuff
;return false if not valid.
mov ax,0 ;we'll assume the method retuns its value via ax, and 0 is false
ret

all a crack would have to do is change it to
mov ax,1

and the IsLicenseValid function is circumvented. It is generally more
complicated in real life, but that is a simple explination.

A good protection scheme can do little but make it difficult to get around,
it is never possible to make it unbreakable. It is the same with IP
protection. A good reverse engineer will pull your IP right out of the x86
assmebly(and crackers do, its how they produce keygens), they don't need the
source code. When you ship your executable you ship your technology, you
cannot prevent people from examining it, simply make it more difficult to
figure out. Thats where managed obfustication comes in, although as a
general rule I don't think its always worth it. A dedicated attacker will
break the obfustication just as he will break x86 assembly, pseudo
assembly(if your mad enough to run your app via your own VM), or any other
scheme you can dream up. When it comes down to it, developers can't win, we
can only delay.


"Daniel O'Connell" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eT**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

"Pixar Film Rock" <pi***@film.com> wrote in message
news:bs************@ID-198839.news.uni-berlin.de...
I'm a newbie, bear with me here.
It has one .exe file, is this where all the instruction is stored?
Possibly all user written code is in hte exe, although I'd never undertake a
large project in such a monolithic manner.
Everything else is just data like textures, maps, etc?

Perhaps, it depends on the game. Data has to be stored somehow, its

possible
to store it inline with the exe, but that isn't ideal in most cases.
How do these
crackers hack the .exe so that you don't need cds in the drive to play

these
games?

CD checks tendto do a few basic things: require files off the drive,

check thedisc at a low level for specific features, etc. A cracker would simply remove or modify the code so it doesn't bother with the disc.
And there are also DLL files which have methods/functions too,
right?

Well, to be totally straight, the game certainly calls atleast some system libraries, however for user code, it depends entirely on the authors. You can use dll's\libs, or you can use a monolithic executable.



Nov 15 '05 #4
Hi Daniel,

So how do you get around the issue of a signed EXE that supposedly can't be
tampered with? I understand that you can change the binary sohow, but you
still need to change the final EXE - how would you get around that?

Or are you saying pull everything out into IL first, make the change then
rebuild to a new Exe? Seems like something as big as monulithic game it'd be
real hard to get all the IL out in a form that it would just rebuild?

Sorry, ignorant on this topic too, but I am curious for reasons that are
similar. I've built a simple reg key scheme into my apps, which for a simple
way of doing things seems to work well. However, if one can go in and tweak
the IL it would be relatively easy to get around it.

I'm not too worried about it, but interesting discussion...

thanks,
+++ Rick ---

--

Rick Strahl
West Wind Technologies
http://www.west-wind.com/
http://www.west-wind.com/webblog/
----------------------------------
Making waves on the Web
"Daniel O'Connell" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OW**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"Pixar Film Rock" <pi***@film.com> wrote in message
news:bs************@ID-198839.news.uni-berlin.de...
So they decompile and have the source code to the whole game? That doesn't
sound right.


Well, not generally decompile, although in some cases that may be the

chosen path. Most protection schemes leave a pattern(a specific function call(or
set there of), or whatever) and can seemingly be removed with automated
tools, and all executables can be disassembled and debugged. Anyone with a
decent knowledge of x86 assembly can crack basic protections, someone with
advanced knowledge can crack harder ones.
Imagine a method like this:
bool IsLicenseValid();

assume it uses assembly something akin to(very basic, its been awhile):
;do some stuff
;return false if not valid.
mov ax,0 ;we'll assume the method retuns its value via ax, and 0 is false
ret

all a crack would have to do is change it to
mov ax,1

and the IsLicenseValid function is circumvented. It is generally more
complicated in real life, but that is a simple explination.

A good protection scheme can do little but make it difficult to get around, it is never possible to make it unbreakable. It is the same with IP
protection. A good reverse engineer will pull your IP right out of the x86
assmebly(and crackers do, its how they produce keygens), they don't need the source code. When you ship your executable you ship your technology, you
cannot prevent people from examining it, simply make it more difficult to
figure out. Thats where managed obfustication comes in, although as a
general rule I don't think its always worth it. A dedicated attacker will
break the obfustication just as he will break x86 assembly, pseudo
assembly(if your mad enough to run your app via your own VM), or any other
scheme you can dream up. When it comes down to it, developers can't win, we can only delay.


"Daniel O'Connell" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eT**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

"Pixar Film Rock" <pi***@film.com> wrote in message
news:bs************@ID-198839.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I'm a newbie, bear with me here.
> It has one .exe file, is this where all the instruction is stored?

Possibly all user written code is in hte exe, although I'd never undertake
a
large project in such a monolithic manner.
> Everything else is just data like textures, maps, etc?
Perhaps, it depends on the game. Data has to be stored somehow, its

possible
to store it inline with the exe, but that isn't ideal in most cases.
> How do these
> crackers hack the .exe so that you don't need cds in the drive to play these
> games?
CD checks tendto do a few basic things: require files off the drive,

check thedisc at a low level for specific features, etc. A cracker would simply remove or modify the code so it doesn't bother with the disc.
> And there are also DLL files which have methods/functions too,
> right?
Well, to be totally straight, the game certainly calls atleast some system libraries, however for user code, it depends entirely on the authors. You can use dll's\libs, or you can use a monolithic executable.
>
>



Nov 15 '05 #5

"Rick Strahl [MVP]" <ri********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:up**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Hi Daniel,

So how do you get around the issue of a signed EXE that supposedly can't be tampered with? I understand that you can change the binary sohow, but you
still need to change the final EXE - how would you get around that? A signed exe(assuming you mean strongly named assemblies) basically just
allows you to verify that it hasn't been modified, it does not keep people
from performing modifications. A crack would change the signature and make
it easier to verify that a crack(or unsupported patch) has been applied but
does nothing to stop it.
Or are you saying pull everything out into IL first, make the change then
rebuild to a new Exe? Seems like something as big as monulithic game it'd be real hard to get all the IL out in a form that it would just rebuild?
That is one benifit, even if the entire game is decompiled(which is possible
in .NET, as it is with java), the result is an entire rebuild of the source,
dependent assemblies and all. It results with a large patch(every binary
file would have to be patched in several places), but doesn't stop anyone
from producing such a patch.

Sorry, ignorant on this topic too, but I am curious for reasons that are
similar. I've built a simple reg key scheme into my apps, which for a simple way of doing things seems to work well. However, if one can go in and tweak the IL it would be relatively easy to get around it.

I'm not too worried about it, but interesting discussion...
In reality, anyone who intends to crack your program isn't going to pull out
ildasm, arkinio, or reflector and remove the check, they are going to hop
onto a crack search site and find a patch. In my opinion, a protection
scheme only needs to be as strong as needed for the target market. Most
schemes need only keep breaking copyright as more work than the app costs.
In the end, the people who are going to buy it will buy it, those that will
crack it are going to crack it, no protection scheme in the world is going
to change that. Its the middle fringe we have to be concerned with, people
not honest enough to not steal but too lazy to go to great extents to steal
it. Its a bigger market that one would initally think.

All in all, your reg method hsould be fine assuming its not a 50mill a
license app, ;)
thanks,
+++ Rick ---

--

Rick Strahl
West Wind Technologies
http://www.west-wind.com/
http://www.west-wind.com/webblog/
----------------------------------
Making waves on the Web
"Daniel O'Connell" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OW**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"Pixar Film Rock" <pi***@film.com> wrote in message
news:bs************@ID-198839.news.uni-berlin.de...
So they decompile and have the source code to the whole game? That

doesn't
sound right.


Well, not generally decompile, although in some cases that may be the

chosen
path. Most protection schemes leave a pattern(a specific function call(or
set there of), or whatever) and can seemingly be removed with automated
tools, and all executables can be disassembled and debugged. Anyone with a decent knowledge of x86 assembly can crack basic protections, someone with advanced knowledge can crack harder ones.
Imagine a method like this:
bool IsLicenseValid();

assume it uses assembly something akin to(very basic, its been awhile):
;do some stuff
;return false if not valid.
mov ax,0 ;we'll assume the method retuns its value via ax, and 0 is false ret

all a crack would have to do is change it to
mov ax,1

and the IsLicenseValid function is circumvented. It is generally more
complicated in real life, but that is a simple explination.

A good protection scheme can do little but make it difficult to get

around,
it is never possible to make it unbreakable. It is the same with IP
protection. A good reverse engineer will pull your IP right out of the x86 assmebly(and crackers do, its how they produce keygens), they don't need

the
source code. When you ship your executable you ship your technology, you
cannot prevent people from examining it, simply make it more difficult to figure out. Thats where managed obfustication comes in, although as a
general rule I don't think its always worth it. A dedicated attacker will break the obfustication just as he will break x86 assembly, pseudo
assembly(if your mad enough to run your app via your own VM), or any other scheme you can dream up. When it comes down to it, developers can't win,

we
can only delay.


"Daniel O'Connell" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eT**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> "Pixar Film Rock" <pi***@film.com> wrote in message
> news:bs************@ID-198839.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > I'm a newbie, bear with me here.
> > It has one .exe file, is this where all the instruction is stored?
>
> Possibly all user written code is in hte exe, although I'd never

undertake
a
> large project in such a monolithic manner.
> > Everything else is just data like textures, maps, etc?
> Perhaps, it depends on the game. Data has to be stored somehow, its
possible
> to store it inline with the exe, but that isn't ideal in most cases.
> > How do these
> > crackers hack the .exe so that you don't need cds in the drive to play > these
> > games?
> CD checks tendto do a few basic things: require files off the drive,

check
> thedisc at a low level for specific features, etc. A cracker would

simply
> remove or modify the code so it doesn't bother with the disc.
> > And there are also DLL files which have methods/functions too,
> > right?
> Well, to be totally straight, the game certainly calls atleast some

system
> libraries, however for user code, it depends entirely on the

authors. You
> can use dll's\libs, or you can use a monolithic executable.
> >
> >
>
>



Nov 15 '05 #6
Hi Rick,

I fully agree with Daniel and that's what I've been taught on my university
lectures on IT security - the price of the protection scheme should never
exceed the estimated loss resulting from breaking the scheme.

BTW: There's microsoft.public.dotnet.security newsgroup, should we move our
discussion there?

--
Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]
X-Unity Test Studio
http://x-unity.miik.com.ua/teststudio.aspx
Bring the power of unit testing to VS .NET IDE

"Rick Strahl [MVP]" <ri********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:up**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Hi Daniel,

So how do you get around the issue of a signed EXE that supposedly can't be tampered with? I understand that you can change the binary sohow, but you
still need to change the final EXE - how would you get around that?

Or are you saying pull everything out into IL first, make the change then
rebuild to a new Exe? Seems like something as big as monulithic game it'd be real hard to get all the IL out in a form that it would just rebuild?

Sorry, ignorant on this topic too, but I am curious for reasons that are
similar. I've built a simple reg key scheme into my apps, which for a simple way of doing things seems to work well. However, if one can go in and tweak the IL it would be relatively easy to get around it.

I'm not too worried about it, but interesting discussion...

thanks,
+++ Rick ---

--

Rick Strahl
West Wind Technologies
http://www.west-wind.com/
http://www.west-wind.com/webblog/
----------------------------------
Making waves on the Web
"Daniel O'Connell" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OW**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"Pixar Film Rock" <pi***@film.com> wrote in message
news:bs************@ID-198839.news.uni-berlin.de...
So they decompile and have the source code to the whole game? That

doesn't
sound right.


Well, not generally decompile, although in some cases that may be the

chosen
path. Most protection schemes leave a pattern(a specific function call(or
set there of), or whatever) and can seemingly be removed with automated
tools, and all executables can be disassembled and debugged. Anyone with a decent knowledge of x86 assembly can crack basic protections, someone with advanced knowledge can crack harder ones.
Imagine a method like this:
bool IsLicenseValid();

assume it uses assembly something akin to(very basic, its been awhile):
;do some stuff
;return false if not valid.
mov ax,0 ;we'll assume the method retuns its value via ax, and 0 is false ret

all a crack would have to do is change it to
mov ax,1

and the IsLicenseValid function is circumvented. It is generally more
complicated in real life, but that is a simple explination.

A good protection scheme can do little but make it difficult to get

around,
it is never possible to make it unbreakable. It is the same with IP
protection. A good reverse engineer will pull your IP right out of the x86 assmebly(and crackers do, its how they produce keygens), they don't need

the
source code. When you ship your executable you ship your technology, you
cannot prevent people from examining it, simply make it more difficult to figure out. Thats where managed obfustication comes in, although as a
general rule I don't think its always worth it. A dedicated attacker will break the obfustication just as he will break x86 assembly, pseudo
assembly(if your mad enough to run your app via your own VM), or any other scheme you can dream up. When it comes down to it, developers can't win,

we
can only delay.


"Daniel O'Connell" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eT**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> "Pixar Film Rock" <pi***@film.com> wrote in message
> news:bs************@ID-198839.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > I'm a newbie, bear with me here.
> > It has one .exe file, is this where all the instruction is stored?
>
> Possibly all user written code is in hte exe, although I'd never

undertake
a
> large project in such a monolithic manner.
> > Everything else is just data like textures, maps, etc?
> Perhaps, it depends on the game. Data has to be stored somehow, its
possible
> to store it inline with the exe, but that isn't ideal in most cases.
> > How do these
> > crackers hack the .exe so that you don't need cds in the drive to play > these
> > games?
> CD checks tendto do a few basic things: require files off the drive,

check
> thedisc at a low level for specific features, etc. A cracker would

simply
> remove or modify the code so it doesn't bother with the disc.
> > And there are also DLL files which have methods/functions too,
> > right?
> Well, to be totally straight, the game certainly calls atleast some

system
> libraries, however for user code, it depends entirely on the

authors. You
> can use dll's\libs, or you can use a monolithic executable.
> >
> >
>
>




Nov 15 '05 #7

"Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]" <x-****@no-spam-please.hotpop.com> wrote
in message news:uZ**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Hi Rick,

I fully agree with Daniel and that's what I've been taught on my university lectures on IT security - the price of the protection scheme should never
exceed the estimated loss resulting from breaking the scheme.

Sadly, MS's activation feature breaks that rule IMHO. The cost to the end
user(and likely the cost to MS itself) is increased while probably not
providing any real reduction in piracy.
BTW: There's microsoft.public.dotnet.security newsgroup, should we move our discussion there? It would probably be more appropriate, but not worth the energy if this
discussion is starting to wind down.
--
Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]
X-Unity Test Studio
http://x-unity.miik.com.ua/teststudio.aspx
Bring the power of unit testing to VS .NET IDE

"Rick Strahl [MVP]" <ri********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:up**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Hi Daniel,

So how do you get around the issue of a signed EXE that supposedly can't be
tampered with? I understand that you can change the binary sohow, but you
still need to change the final EXE - how would you get around that?

Or are you saying pull everything out into IL first, make the change then rebuild to a new Exe? Seems like something as big as monulithic game it'd be
real hard to get all the IL out in a form that it would just rebuild?

Sorry, ignorant on this topic too, but I am curious for reasons that are
similar. I've built a simple reg key scheme into my apps, which for a simple
way of doing things seems to work well. However, if one can go in and

tweak
the IL it would be relatively easy to get around it.

I'm not too worried about it, but interesting discussion...

thanks,
+++ Rick ---

--

Rick Strahl
West Wind Technologies
http://www.west-wind.com/
http://www.west-wind.com/webblog/
----------------------------------
Making waves on the Web
"Daniel O'Connell" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OW**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"Pixar Film Rock" <pi***@film.com> wrote in message
news:bs************@ID-198839.news.uni-berlin.de...
> So they decompile and have the source code to the whole game? That
doesn't
> sound right.

Well, not generally decompile, although in some cases that may be the

chosen
path. Most protection schemes leave a pattern(a specific function

call(or set there of), or whatever) and can seemingly be removed with automated tools, and all executables can be disassembled and debugged. Anyone with a
decent knowledge of x86 assembly can crack basic protections, someone with advanced knowledge can crack harder ones.
Imagine a method like this:
bool IsLicenseValid();

assume it uses assembly something akin to(very basic, its been
awhile): ;do some stuff
;return false if not valid.
mov ax,0 ;we'll assume the method retuns its value via ax, and 0 is

false ret

all a crack would have to do is change it to
mov ax,1

and the IsLicenseValid function is circumvented. It is generally more
complicated in real life, but that is a simple explination.

A good protection scheme can do little but make it difficult to get

around,
it is never possible to make it unbreakable. It is the same with IP
protection. A good reverse engineer will pull your IP right out of the x86 assmebly(and crackers do, its how they produce keygens), they don't need the
source code. When you ship your executable you ship your technology,
you cannot prevent people from examining it, simply make it more difficult to figure out. Thats where managed obfustication comes in, although as a
general rule I don't think its always worth it. A dedicated attacker will break the obfustication just as he will break x86 assembly, pseudo
assembly(if your mad enough to run your app via your own VM), or any other scheme you can dream up. When it comes down to it, developers can't win, we
can only delay.

>
>
>
>
> "Daniel O'Connell" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:eT**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Pixar Film Rock" <pi***@film.com> wrote in message
> > news:bs************@ID-198839.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > I'm a newbie, bear with me here.
> > > It has one .exe file, is this where all the instruction is
stored? > >
> > Possibly all user written code is in hte exe, although I'd never
undertake
> a
> > large project in such a monolithic manner.
> > > Everything else is just data like textures, maps, etc?
> > Perhaps, it depends on the game. Data has to be stored somehow, its > possible
> > to store it inline with the exe, but that isn't ideal in most cases. > > > How do these
> > > crackers hack the .exe so that you don't need cds in the drive to
play
> > these
> > > games?
> > CD checks tendto do a few basic things: require files off the

drive, check
> > thedisc at a low level for specific features, etc. A cracker would
simply
> > remove or modify the code so it doesn't bother with the disc.
> > > And there are also DLL files which have methods/functions too,
> > > right?
> > Well, to be totally straight, the game certainly calls atleast some system
> > libraries, however for user code, it depends entirely on the

authors. You
> > can use dll's\libs, or you can use a monolithic executable.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>


Nov 15 '05 #8

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

4
by: Nick Mudge | last post by:
Hi, I am learning PHP, but it can be kind of boring. Are there any games where you use PHP programming to play the game? This way you learn how to use PHP and it is fun. Does anybody know? ...
2
by: Alberto Santini | last post by:
I ported a Jos Stam's demo about Fluid mech to check the difference of speed between C implementation and Python. I think I achieved good results with Python and there is space to improve, without...
31
by: Brad | last post by:
Without going into detail, how do you make games in C++?
2
by: Developwebsites | last post by:
I have found a few games made in js and in comparison to Java and Flash games, they load much faster. no plug in or java enabled crap needed. java games take much too long to load, I only play...
761
by: Neo-LISPer | last post by:
Hey Recently, I researched using C++ for game programming and here is what I found: C++ game developers spend a lot of their time debugging corrupted memory. Few, if any, compilers offer...
12
by: David | last post by:
Does anybody know what language computer game programmers use? can you program games with visual studio .net? would they be of good quality?
4
by: ώε↮øй | last post by:
I have the whole group of .NET 2003 platforms sitting here from a dream I have of building some simple web based games (much like on msn zone) Any guidance as to where I start and what I need to...
7
Atli
by: Atli | last post by:
Hi I've been playing arround with Linux (Fedora) for a while now and I've pretty much found a Linux alternetive to most of the stuff I do on Windows. Infact, I'm almost ready to switch over to the...
4
by: viper888 | last post by:
Kindly check this VBscript that i used in Win2000 server, It doesn't seem to work. What seems to be the problem? Can you help me? dim strExcludedPC ServerFileSave="\\S06-admin-06\User...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
The formulas of 101 quantitative trading alphas used by WorldQuant were presented in the paper 101 Formulaic Alphas. However, some formulas are complex, leading to challenges in calculation. Take...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
0
by: af34tf | last post by:
Hi Guys, I have a domain whose name is BytesLimited.com, and I want to sell it. Does anyone know about platforms that allow me to list my domain in auction for free. Thank you
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.