mpdugas

Whatever decision you make, be sure you couple the GPU with a CPU with strong, single-thread performance. I've an R9 295X2 coupled with a weak CPU; nothing can be done to bring graphics performance into better shape until I correct the CPU. Just saying...

Thanks for your service to our country!!

Well, I want to thank everyone who helped me with this...I just concluded a call with technical support from Wibu, and found that adding the entries for server and client IP addresses to the server and client list on the WebAdmin website was causing the problem. Once they were removed, the session for license sharing worked as hoped for... All is well, thanks to Mr. Christian Muselimovic! His English is very much better than my German, Gott sei Dank! :drink:

I think we have perhaps pressed this as far as logic permits. I tried to buy two unlimited Steel Beasts Pro PE licenses so that my son and I can play together on our LAN. That was my intent when I bought the USB stick with the second license in it. Perhaps it is time to consider other possibilities: 1) eSim Games could simply send me another USB stick with my son's license on it, since I know it plays when the USB stick is present (I'm sure there is a way for CodeMeter to disable the second license on the USB stick that I have); or 2) eSim Games could issue my son a license from their server, with an unlimited time (as a substitute for the extra license I paid for on the initial purchase) tied to his machine. I would like to upgrade his PC in the future, so I don't know how such licenses can move to a new machine, but I suppose it is possible, so long as it does not result in two licensed machines. 3) eSim Games could simply refund the price I paid, and I will return the USB stick, of course. My desire is that we play SB Pro PE over our home LAN. My first two suggestions, above, should accomplish that, while protecting eSim Games' interests. Please bear in mind that I have been waiting since 12/27 to play this with my son, and I believe that I have been unfailingly patient and polite while working through the troubleshooting efforts. Please let me know if this suggested solution is possible.

Thanks for confirming the configuration of the ping command parameters. The "...host..." error was puzzling. I could not find any 'ping' parameters like the use of the colon as suggested. Using telnet as you suggested, I can confirm that 22350 is reachable by both machines, one to the other. CodeMeter runtime services are enabled in the Firewall, but only for inbound (there are no outbound CodeMeter services listed at all on either machine). I previously added a rule to open the port on each machine as well, inbound and outbound. It is still present. I added the server IP and the client IP under 'server' and 'access control' on the WebAdmin page. The game does not play on the client without the USB present. "...error 231, access denied." You've been extraordinarily helpful, many thanks!! :bigsmile:

Both logs re-sent to you this morning.

With firewall off on both machines, I cannot ping the specific port using "ping 10.0.0.12:22350" (from server machine) or "ping 10.0.0.04:22350" (from client machine). I get a "...host not found...error". I can ping both machines w/o the port restriction. I cannot start the game from the client machine: "error 231, access denied".

ok...ping to the specific port, 22350, from either machine, says '...could not find host...' I've set Windows firewall rules on both machines which opens that port on both machines. No joy...same error as above. I'll be glad to re-send the CMDust logs, but I cannot attach them to these messages, unless you allow *.log files entry. Where can I send them to? What e-mail address? The address ranges are assigned by the Comcast router.

yep, ping works in both directions, server to client and vice versa. btw...many, many thanks for persevering!!

Both machines are on. I run ipconfig on both machines. I do not see the expected local network IP addresses, like the examples you gave. I do get an IPv4 and an IPv6 address, though. Server PC shows 10.0.0.4 for an IPv4 address; client shows 10.0.0.12. Both have the normal 255.255.255.0 submasks. The server is on an W8.1 OS, the client is on a W7 OS. Both are in the same Homegroup. Is this information what you wanted?

Thanks for your thoroughness. Yes, the machines are on my home LAN. I can access both from either machine. The only thing that varies the CodeMeter displays is which machine the USB stick is plugged into. I think the red icon appears when the CodeMeter software kicks in to launch, and does not find the license. That occurs whenever the the USB stick is not present. Somehow, the client machine is not talking to the server machine and vice versa. I think you are on the right track; I was confused when I saw the red icon on the client machine; I thought it meant that the 'stick' was seen by both machines. Now I realize it is not...it simply means that CodeMeter does not 'see' a license. It looks like I have a network communication issue here. I'll troubleshoot that when I have access to both machines.

I sent the CMDust files on both machines to you, about a week ago. The red CodeMeter icon always shows up on the machine without the USB stick. Whether it is my son's machine or mine, it does not matter. Please see my reply to Gibsonm, next in this sequence. I cannot attach the *.log files to this message; however, I previously sent them to you as attachments to an earlier e-mail. Let me know how to send them on, and I'll gladly do so.

I removed version 5.00d of CodeMeter and did an new installation of CodeMeter 5.10a, from the link you provided, on both machines. However, I still cannot run SB Pro 3.0 PE on the client machine; it continues to report a missing dongle. I really believed that I would do a great service to my son as an M1 tank crewman, using this software to learn on. I believed that this arrangement would have allowed us to train together so that he would be a more effective soldier. Perhaps I will just have to return these licenses for a refund.

I am running Windows 8.1 Firewall, with Windows Defender and Malwarebytes Pro on the server machine. On the Client machine, I am running Windows 7 Home edition, Microsoft Security Essentials, Windows Firewall and Malwarebytes Pro as well. Both machines now have incoming and outgoing rules for port 22350 for the LAN only. I'm going to try the CodeMeter re-installation, as you suggest and see what happens...I have version 5.00d on now.

Sorry, just realized this is in the wrong forum subsection...my bad.

I created incoming and outgoing port rules on both machines' firewalls, allowing port 22350, using TCP over my private network. I'm using Windows Firewall. I used webadmin on the CodeMeter website to set the USB stick machine to act as server. It, too, shows port 22350. I restarted both machines. I made sure the CodeMeter Control Center (CCC) was running on the server machine. It shows a blue icon. The client machine shows a red CCC icon. I attempted to load SB Pro on the client machine; I get the error that the USB stick is missing. I exited the CCC on both machines and again attempted to run SB Pro on the client machine. Same error message. I previously sent the CMDust files to you by separate e-mail. Am I missing something?

Hello, all; I bought a USB stick with two licenses, so that my son and I might practice his M1 tanking skills before he gets called up into the USMC as an M1 crewman. We planned on playing on the home LAN to practice before he leaves. I‘ve run a few tutorial missions to begin my refresher course in SB Pro 3.0. I’m enjoying my renewed acquaintance. Knowing that it was up and running, I downloaded the same game to my son’s machine, as I originally indicated in my plans for him as a USMC tanker. For some reason, his version of CodeMeter control center does not see the dongle partition that actually has the two licenses installed that I bought with SB Pro 3.0; it only sees one that has a single disabled license in a partition labeled ESIMGAMES which is a CmActLicense 1.18 partition. It’s called an empty license container. It is disabled. It is represented by a red symbol on his system tray. So, I can tell that the dongle is seen by his machine and that I am not having a firewall problem. On my machine, the CodeMeter program sees that partition as well as another one called CmStick 2.02 with two licenses present. This partition is enabled. It is represented in my system tray by a blue symbol. Shouldn’t his machine see that partition and draw the 2nd license from it? If I move the dongle to his machine, the game plays correctly. However, the situation with the license reverses; I can no longer see the license from my machine. He gets the blue CodeMeter symbol and my machine sees a red one. he can play, I cannot. I can’t see how to get this going: 1) I installed the main license first, then the 2nd one. 2) I’ve enabled ‘server’ where the dongle is plugged in. 3) I’ve done the hardware update. 4) I've sent a help request to Codemeter. 5) I sent the CMDust files to Nils. What am I missing? best regards, mpdugas

This is the only version of the old DirectX that installs w/o an error message on Window 8.1; I'm hoping for success when the Codemaster stick arrives. Time for DirectX 11, folks.

DX11...

Oddly enough, most of the pointer problems I have solved involved a problem with video drivers, and not the mouse at all. So, even as you follow these other recommendations, make sure your video soft/hard-ware is up-to-snuff. Good hunting!

I am truly sorry to see Al Delaney go, and I wish him God Speed in all that he and his family do. Thanks for your vision; we should take a moment to remember that SB would be nothing without him

It will not run unless your video card supports the lower 640 x 480 resolution; check that first. I parked my copy permanently because my old AMD/ATI card won't go lower than 800 x 600. /sniff!

I have taken great care to be polite, patient and circumspect in all of my posts, and I have never criticized anyone personally. I have attempted, in every writing, to be thoughtful and offer positive suggestions and solutions. So much of what has been written in this thread does not seem to flow from what I have actually said in my posts. A great deal seems to be replies written in response to another author's post. It reminds me of the game that children play when they tell a story by whispering into the ear of their neighbor while sitting in a large circle; the story is very different when it returns back to the beginning of the circle. I think that is the way that flame wars propagate. However, that said, I have also seen posts that were reflective and thoughtful, too. Yes, this issue of graphics improvement has been raised before, as a concern and as a request by users of SB. Too often the user requests are just that; someone wants this or that new feature added, or perhaps another model to operate, a scenario, etc. My suggestion was somewhat different: I offered a request and a practical way to implement it. A request and a potential solution. It is gratifying to see, out of all of this Sturm-und-Drang, that there has arisen an interest in giving, from the SB user community itself, just the sort of user-based development support that I have proposed. Of course, many more such resources exist, and I have offered suggestions for ways to access those as well. I think that something like I proposed might happen now. I think that is a good thing for the simulation. Thanks for listening to my suggestions.

Like SB, I played Falcon from its inception, from version one. I am well-versed in the trials-and-tribulations of its story. Falcon source code release is not the issue here. The repeated referral to the how-and-why of the source code release, and the subsequent years of conflicting versions and so forth is but a red herring in the mix. There is nothing that I have suggested in my comments that would lead eSim to repeat that trial. No one can use BMS 4.32 without respecting the ownership rights of Atari. Falcon's transformation is not unique, however. There are other games which have benefited enormously from the user base involvement. Another success story can be found in the post-production version of Grand Prix Legends. That user-base of very talented enthusiasts utterly transformed a good simulation into an extraordinary one. They used a development structure similar to that of the avid fans of Falcon. You cannot use the various iterations of GPL without owning the original product, either. So, in answer to your question, yes, there are others who have tread this path. In each instance, the ownership rights of the original authors were protected. What I suggested to eSim, and nothing more, is this: the concept of distributed development might be of benefit to eSim if, and only if, lack of resources is the sole factor in the graphical transformation of this simulation. The only difference here, in apposition to F4 and GPL, is that eSim is still actively involved in the coding of the simulation, which I believe is a benefit. The community support team can now interact with the original author of the code as development proceeds. This seems to me to be a GOOD THING. Is it possible that eSim feels otherwise? Surely, they would not feel uncomfortable with a process that they controlled, would they? Maybe eSim will become renown for developing a new, cooperative business model not seen before. The "power of the Internet" and all that likable, sale-able stuff. This is truly "opportunity knocking..." I already see, in this thread alone, the stirrings of positive interest by your users. Events are overtaking the moment. Hopefully, eSim will discuss this structure with others who have a more seasoned experience with it; I truly believe that there is much to be learned here, and enormous benefits to be realized. Their mistakes need not be eSim's. Change is always a hard thing, particularly when you do not initiate it yourself. No growth occurs, however, without change. So, I answer your question, even though I still find your public revelations about my demo license use to be inappropriate and offensive, particularly when you use it to disparage my knowledge of the product, as if those 30 minutes of setup time were all that I had considered in my proposal. Perhaps you will answer my question?

The foregoing an interesting comment by Sean: I just loaded the new demo two days ago and ran it briefly to make sure it worked correctly. In the mean time, to be fair to the game itself, I am reading the manuals that came with it. Then, when I have some familiarity with it, I'll give it a go. So 30 minutes, at this point in my evaluation, is not inappropriate to make sure the game is functioning. But I have played SB before. Most of my comments come from that and from watching videos of the current game itself. Reading my earlier posts would show that. I've been very forthcoming about where my opinion came from. But...I think it is entirely inappropriate for a moderator of this forum to comment publicly on my usage time of a product based on what should be private information between me and eSim, i.e. CodeMeter license usage time. If eSim disagrees with a customer opinion, does it feel it has the right to reveal private matters about that person to disparage them? Is this how eSim conducts its business?