+ Reply to Thread
Page 60 of 60 FirstFirst ... 1050585960
Results 886 to 890 of 890

Thread: RatioMaster Plus 2.1

    1. RatioMaster Plus 2.1 Details »»

      RatioMaster Plus 2.1

      Version: 2.1, by (Coder) Lucius is offline

      Developer Last Online: Sep 2022 Show Printable Version Email this Page
      Category: [Ratio Tool] Rating:  Downloads: 98940
      Released: 26.11.16 Last Update: 22.04.17 Installs: 104
      bugicon Bugs: 1 / 2 featureicon Features: 3 / 3 taskicon Tasks: 0 / 0
      • Supported
      • Free for all

      What's New:
      - New: Auto stop conditions (Leechers/Seeders are less than X).
      - New: Automatic speed with (Announce, Interval, Ratio or Leechers) conditions.
      - New: Torrent label column.
      - New: Groups support (Name, Status, Memory Readed, Emulation, Tracker and Label). (Windows Vista+ only)
      - New: Shortcut key "R" to refresh UI (Use it to refresh grouping).
      - New: Custom TextBoxes for Speeds and Storage bytes which have better cosmetic and features.
      - Fixed: Can't load all .rmt files if one of them is corrupted.
      - Fixed: Possible fix for high CPU usage when tracker respond delayed.
      - Fixed: Auto stop Upload, Total upload, Download, Total download doesn't accept GBs and TBs.

      Notice: This version will cause column reorder at the first launch.

      Code:
      File: RMP.exe
      CRC-32: ea030845
      SHA-1: fd81304eeb91f163dfd1538915feb6de7f9d175c
      SHA-256: 56efbecb982c1778a3b4b1538d66b1802c5d8a74f2d4d8511669c71192b344f4
      SHA-512: 5d226bc55a46570afb62266b8731eead73e4f1f47d5658056192e5e66664292f08e218e5b5311c2fdc67d89b559e8b2484c9283b2e61c7335ed2fde93710d546
      Spoiler Complete changelog:
      RMP 2.1:
      - New: Auto stop conditions (Leechers/Seeders are less than X).
      - New: Automatic speed with (Announce, Interval, Ratio or Leechers) conditions.
      - New: Torrent label column.
      - New: Groups support (Name, Status, Memory Readed, Emulation, Tracker and Label). (Windows Vista+ only)
      - New: Shortcut key "R" to refresh UI (Use it to refresh grouping).
      - New: Custom TextBoxes for Speeds and Storage bytes which have better cosmetic and features.
      - Fixed: Can't load all .rmt files if one of them is corrupted.
      - Fixed: Possible fix for high CPU usage when tracker respond delayed.
      - Fixed: Auto stop Upload, Total upload, Download, Total download doesn't accept GBs and TBs.

      RMP 2.0.1:
      - New: Reconnect on errors with trackers.
      - Change: Error tooltip and icon if there is an error to show.
      - Change: Bug report is now encrypted.
      - Fixed: Speed rates goes over speed limits.
      - Fixed: Speed rates stuck at last used rates when setting limits to 0 KB/s.
      - Fixed: Checking randomize speeds while adding will make it stuck check for ever.
      - Fixed: Cannot access a closed file bug.
      - Fixed: General redirection (301 & 302) support, Closes CloudFlare redirection bugs.

      RMP 2.0:
      - New: First release.


      Known Issues:
      An issue with Zamunda tracker that appear sometimes.

      The story behind this new version:
      The original RatioMaster was created by a person with the same name for a site called Moofdev, and shortly became one of the most popular and well-known ratio cheating programs. New versions were released semi-regularly until 2011, when the moofdev.net forums ceased to function. Despite the resulting lack of updates, a loyal userbase stuck to it due to its effectivity and ease of use.

      On 2014, Lucius released a patched executable for version 1.9.2 Beta that fixed automatic client updating, as well as some known bugs. Reception was so positive, work continued into fixing further bugs as well as adding new features, eventually deriving into a full-fledged fork called RatioMaster Plus.

      As of version 2.0, RatioMaster Plus is a completely new program and not based on any previous code. However, it retains its name and icon as an homage to all the work spent on the project it would eventually succeed.
      Requirements:
      Microsoft .NET Framework 4

      Can I have the tool that makes client files for this version?
      Yes, see https://www.sb-innovation.de/showthread.php?t=35076.

      "Received an unexpected EOF or 0 bytes from the transport stream" and "Tracker response is empty" errors
      Windows Vista and above: see https://www.sb-innovation.de/showthread.php?p=352891 for a fix.
      Windows XP: see https://www.sb-innovation.de/showthread.php?t=33804 for a possible fix.

      Password

      Password:
      m9dqVF95RP5JDQ76E7ym

      Supporters / CoAuthors


      Show Your Support

        -->
      • For request features, report bugs or view current tasks, please use the Bugtracker.
      • For saying thanks to the author, please click here.
      • This modification may not be copied, reproduced or published elsewhere without author's permission.

    Who Said Thanks:

    There are too many to display.


  1. #887
    Moderator anon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.02.08
    Posts
    38,464
    Activity Longevity
    12/20 19/20
    Today Posts
    1/5 ssss38464
    Quote Originally Posted by hazz030 View Post
    when i need to manually edit the upspeed with a custom value via the context menu once i started the torrent it`s somehow capped at 250kb/sec despite manually entering a higher value and confirming with the enter button.
    Does this happen even after disabling safe speed limits?

    when i want to leech a torrent with 0 leechers and in the settings / quick add tab i set the downspeed to my preferred value but leave the upspeed at 0 and choose to randomize within a radius of x it will also randomize the upspeed altough i set it to 0 and there are no leechers. it seems a bit counter-intuitive. i have looked for a setting to never upload when there are no leechers but i haven`t found it. only auto-stop the entire torrent if there are no leechers in the advanced menu for individual torrents.
    I'll look into the former. As for the latter, there is indeed no setting to change upload speeds to 'x' if there are less than 'y' leechers, and even if the value of 'y' may be unreliable or unavailable, it should be added nonetheless.

    i don`t know if it would be that useful since it is the same error i got in the beginning

    [ERROR] "Object Reference Not Set to an instance of an object.” with an error code like this
    Can you send me a copy of some offending .torrent files? I'm sure this error is already fixed for the new version, but it can't hurt to check.

    it`d really love to automate the cheating a bit. essentially i`d need a tool that could run mostly unattended 24-7 at least to farm seedtime for the hit & run requirements of the trackers and to farm bonus points.
    Fake seeding is a very simple yet effective tactic, and requires nearly zero micromanagement past the initial setup. Just pick torrents where the amount of seeders is high enough to blend in with and unlikely to change, and keep in mind the total and piece size limits for the client you're emulating (at least two major trackers are checking this!).
    "I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

  2. #888

    Join Date
    04.04.22
    Location
    Isle de peurt
    P2P Client
    qbit
    Posts
    40
    Activity Longevity
    8/20 1/20
    Today Posts
    0/5 sssssss40
    Quote Originally Posted by anon View Post
    ...keep in mind the total and piece size limits for the client you're emulating (at least two major trackers are checking this!).
    Can you please expand on this a little bit more?

    I have read something similar to this from you itself, on some other post. To keep in mind the piece sizes, I know that piece sizes are calculated based on file sizes, but how are they checked? is it based on ratio or the amount of upload that someone has done?

    I might entirely be missing the point, and thats why maybe a little more details on this could really help. I have never done anything regarding piece sizes while I was using any of the tools and I dont think starting this now would in anyway hurt and might just as well make using tools a better practise all together.
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

  3. #889
    Moderator anon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.02.08
    Posts
    38,464
    Activity Longevity
    12/20 19/20
    Today Posts
    1/5 ssss38464
    Quote Originally Posted by Rupel89yt View Post
    I know that piece sizes are calculated based on file sizes
    Not exactly. Piece size is a tradeoff between how much protocol traffic is spent on piece requests vs. how much "real" traffic is spent retransmitting them in the event of data corruption. Algorithms, advice and private tracker rules dealing with this matter follow the relatively simple logic of making it proportional to a torrent's total size, but in principle you can make a torrent of an untouched BD25 with 16 KB pieces if you want, it would just be highly inefficient.

    how are they checked? is it based on ratio or the amount of upload that someone has done?
    The piece size in bytes is stored inside the .torrent file. Trackers already know it, and so will you, if you look at the value of integer "piece length" inside the info dictionary. All they need to do is write a routine in their anti-cheat scripts that flags an account if the piece size on a torrent exceeds the limit for the client someone is supposedly running.

    There's another check involving this value, but it's taken care of behind the scenes by all modern tools and therefore requires no active measures.

    http://www.sb-innovation.de/attachme...chmentid=20833

    I dont think starting this now would in anyway hurt and might just as well make using tools a better practise all together.
    Then your homework assignment is to find why the advice below is maliciously incorrect and should not be followed, nya.

    "I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

  4. Who Said Thanks:

    Rupel89yt (17.09.22)

  5. #890

    Join Date
    04.04.22
    Location
    Isle de peurt
    P2P Client
    qbit
    Posts
    40
    Activity Longevity
    8/20 1/20
    Today Posts
    0/5 sssssss40
    Quote Originally Posted by anon View Post
    Then your homework assignment is to find why the advice below is maliciously incorrect and should not be followed, nya.
    I think the wrong advice here would be that, utorrent didnt support bigger piece sizes for example anything < 8mb in their old clients, 2.2.1 being one of them.

    And since the second anonymous is advising to grab the largest torrent, there is a very high chance it will have piece size > 8mb which in turn is not supported by 2.2.1, and thus a very high chance of being caught.

    Hope I got it correct :)

    All they need to do is write a routine in their anti-cheat scripts that flags an account if the piece size on a torrent exceeds the limit for the client someone is supposedly running.
    But some of the most common clients like qbit already support piece sizes upto 32 mb, so just emulating these clients should be enough right?
    Last edited by Rupel89yt; 17.09.22 at 10:42.
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

  6. #891
    Moderator anon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.02.08
    Posts
    38,464
    Activity Longevity
    12/20 19/20
    Today Posts
    1/5 ssss38464
    Quote Originally Posted by Rupel89yt View Post
    Hope I got it correct :)
    Mostly. Limits on 2.2.1 are 16 MB for pieces and 1 TB total, and the largest torrents on most trackers will exceed either or both. The values were raised to 32 MB and 17 TB for uTorrent 3.x (but 32 MB was still not good enough for GGn).

    But some of the most common clients like qbit already support piece sizes upto 32 mb, so just emulating these clients should be enough right?
    Yes, but in this era of gigabit seedboxes and multi-terabyte NAS storage there's no telling how things may evolve in the future!

    https://github.com/rakshasa/rtorrent/issues/574
    "I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

  7. Who Said Thanks:

    Lucius (18.09.22) , Rupel89yt (18.09.22) , AngelNet (18.09.22)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 60 of 60 FirstFirst ... 1050585960

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •