Is the Paper/Purpur Anti-Xray Client Intensive?
We've had a recent influx of x-rayers and we've turned on the paper anti x-ray with
engine-mode:1 as followed in the guide here: https://docs.papermc.io/paper/anti-xray Is it client intensive or server intensive to bump it up to say engine mode 2? It's fine if it's a bit server intensive as I think it can handle it but I don't want to reduce fps clientside for innocent players.Configuring Anti-Xray | PaperMC Docs
Paper ships an obfuscation-based Anti-Xray system by default. Learn how to configure it here.
8 Replies
Thanks for asking your question!
Make sure to provide as much helpful information as possible such as logs/what you tried and what your exact issue is
Make sure to mark solved when issue is solved!!!
/close
!close
!solved
!answered
Requested by nunyabizbro#0
yes
type 2 is very not good on client
3 is better but more predictable
generally raytracedantixray is the best
more server intensive tho
^ (it uses engine mode 1)
best for combatting xray, more work on the server, less work on the players
@ProGamingDk have you tried this fork that removes protocollib dep https://github.com/TauCubed/RayTraceAntiXray
GitHub
GitHub - TauCubed/RayTraceAntiXray: Paper plugin for server-side as...
Paper plugin for server-side async multithreaded ray tracing to hide ores that are exposed to air using Paper Anti-Xray engine-mode 1. - TauCubed/RayTraceAntiXray
nop, but interesting
looks promising, but personally havent tested it so not sure how much better it is
Could anyone explain why removing the protocol lib dependency is favorable?
plib abseloutely sucks
performance wise, quality wise etc
its a mess of a plugin/api