Using "value between%" sometimes results in thread 15:Access violation (311)

[ralfonat]

Hi there,

I haven't been able to find a similar thread, so here goes. Sometimes when looking for health bars for me it seems the easiest way to get the health value is by going after estimated percentages.

So health bar is full -> first scan unknown initial value
health bar 50% -> scan value between 40% and 60%.
health bar 25% -> scan value between 20% and 30%. [x] compare against first scan

But very often (and really only in this "method") I get the error message:

Code: Select all

thread 15:Access violation (311)

or similar. and then:

Code: Select all

Scan error:thread 15:Access violation (311)

Can anyone explain if I am doing something wrong?

Using 7.4 (cheatengine-x86_64-SSE4-AVX2.exe) on a 64bit game

[Rhark]

You can search percentages in CE? This is news to me.

[ralfonat]

[Rhark]

Huh, TIL. Are you using any plugins/third-party addons? That's what usually causes me issues.

[ralfonat]

nope, all vanilla.

[ralfonat]

is there a debug log or something of that effect that I can post which would help troubleshooting?

[Frouk]

is there a debug log or something of that effect that I can post which would help troubleshooting?

i think that UI shows you only percentage of health, but try to search the value (can be 1600 but shows 100%)

[ralfonat]

is there a debug log or something of that effect that I can post which would help troubleshooting?

i think that UI shows you only percentage of health, but try to search the value (can be 1600 but shows 100%)

I am really not sure what you are referring to? My problem is an access violation error in cheat engine.

[Frouk]

is there a debug log or something of that effect that I can post which would help troubleshooting?

i think that UI shows you only percentage of health, but try to search the value (can be 1600 but shows 100%)

I am really not sure what you are referring to? My problem is an access violation error in cheat engine.

Restart cheat engine and don't use "value between%"

[ralfonat]

Your solution to a bug report is to avoid the feature entirely? I get it. Well thanks, I know how to use the other features. I am looking for suggestions on how to be able to use the % feature. It can make things much easier.

[LeFiXER]

Your solution to a bug report is to avoid the feature entirely? I get it. Well thanks, I know how to use the other features. I am looking for suggestions on how to be able to use the % feature. It can make things much easier.

I fail to reproduce the bug you are experiencing following your exact steps. Despite the lack of error, it does not find the value I am seeking to find.

[ralfonat]

I fail to reproduce the bug you are experiencing following your exact steps. Despite the lack of error, it does not find the value I am seeking to find.

Hi. Are you working with a huge result set? (Unknown initial Value, Value Type = ALL (at least 4byte, float, double) Should be at least 100million results.

As for the %, it works perfectly. Launch x64 Tutorial in CE Help menu. Step 3:

1. unknown scan, type 4byte
2. press hit me couple times to get the bar to 80%
3. scan value between % + compare to initial scan ticked -> 70-90%
4. repeat
5. you get the address.

[LeFiXER]

I tested with a game. The results were not in the 100s of millions range since I know the type of the health value. I also know how to get the value itself, I just wanted to test your method against a known method.

I just carried out your steps again without any problems using the x64 tutorial. I mean no offence by this, but I do struggle to see how this is any better than traditional methods.

[ralfonat]

Well if you work on something brand new and you don't know the type of value when using percentages you should have a much better confinement of possibly addresses compared to just using increased/decreased.

[LeFiXER]

I tend to scan based on the state of the value rather than the value itself. You can filter a lot of results by scanning for unchanged value when you have not affected the value you want to find. I have yet to find a situation where this method has failed me.