Its a very sensitive anti cheat. I recommend just using a server side one like knightmare anti cheat. The developer is updating it consistently. If you want a client side then your better of making your own.
1 Like
Abstract
This paper evaluates the Visionary anti-cheat system, focusing on its functionality, performance, and configuration challenges in multiplayer game development. Visionary is designed to prevent exploits such as teleportation, flying, and speed modifications. However, the system’s practical implementation reveals notable deficiencies, particularly regarding excessive logging, performance degradation, and conflicts with legitimate game mechanics. This study explores these issues through a controlled baseplate environment, offering performance benchmarks and configuration assessments. Based on the findings, recommendations for optimization and flexibility enhancements are proposed to improve the usability and efficiency of Visionary in production environments.
Introduction
In the domain of multiplayer game development, ensuring a fair and enjoyable experience for players is essential. Anti-cheat systems are crucial tools for preventing disruptive exploits that compromise game integrity. Visionary, a modern anti-cheat solution, aims to mitigate cheating behaviors such as teleportation, flying, and speed manipulation. While the system shows promise in this regard, its application in real-world game development uncovers several limitations related to its performance, configuration flexibility, and interference with legitimate game features. This paper critically examines these issues and proposes potential improvements to enhance Visionary’s practical usability.
Methodology
The evaluation of Visionary was conducted within a controlled baseplate environment to isolate the system’s core functionalities without interference from complex game features. This simplified environment allowed for precise testing of Visionary’s impact on performance, its ability to detect common cheats (e.g., teleportation, flying, speed hacks), and its interaction with game scripts. Performance metrics were captured to quantify any impact on gameplay, while configuration challenges were assessed to determine how easily developers can integrate Visionary into their existing workflows. Additionally, the evaluation included an analysis of Visionary’s compatibility with local scripts and standard game mechanics.
Results and Discussion
A primary concern identified during testing was Visionary’s excessive logging, even when debug output is disabled via the DebugMode = false setting. This unmitigated logging causes significant console congestion, which in turn affects game performance, particularly in multiplayer scenarios. As the accumulated log data grows, it exacerbates latency issues, undermining the player experience. To mitigate these problems, it is suggested that Visionary either disable logging by default or provide more granular control over logging verbosity to reduce unnecessary overhead.
In addition to logging issues, the system exhibited performance degradation even without the active debug output. Visionary’s resource consumption was substantial, leading to noticeable latency and interruptions during gameplay. This issue is particularly problematic for large-scale, resource-intensive games, where every millisecond of performance counts. The system’s inefficiency creates a bottleneck that impedes smooth interactions, necessitating optimization to reduce its resource footprint and improve real-time game performance.
Another challenge stems from Visionary’s restrictive management of local scripts. In its default configuration, attempts to modify part properties (e.g., size, position, transparency) through local scripts trigger anti-cheat flags. This poses a significant problem for developers who rely on local scripts to execute dynamic, client-side actions in their games. To overcome this limitation, developers must disable the Anti_Part_Tamper feature, which in turn deactivates vital anti-cheat functions, including protections against teleportation, flying, and speed exploits. This trade-off limits the tool’s flexibility and hampers game design, highlighting the need for a more adaptable system.
The occurrence of false positives further complicates the system’s efficacy. Visionary frequently misidentifies legitimate actions, such as part modifications or client-side animations, as suspicious behaviors. These erroneous flags disrupt gameplay and cause unnecessary frustration for both players and developers. To address this, improvements in detection algorithms are required, especially in distinguishing between normal gameplay actions and malicious exploits.
The configuration process for Visionary also revealed issues. Specifically, the system requires a designated folder within the Workspace, which is not included in the default installation. The omission of this folder leads to player removal from the game, a problem compounded by the lack of clear documentation. Developers unfamiliar with this requirement may face unnecessary complications. Improved setup instructions and clearer documentation of necessary configurations would reduce setup errors and enhance the tool’s usability.
Despite the availability of configurable parameters, such as MaxAnticheatFlags and DoNotCheckTheseProperties, Visionary operates with a relatively rigid structure, limiting developers’ ability to customize specific checks to suit their game’s needs. A more flexible configuration system would allow for tailored adjustments, making the tool more adaptable to a broader range of game environments.
Recommendations
To improve Visionary’s performance and usability, several enhancements are recommended. First, the logging system should be reconfigured to reduce verbosity by default, with the ability to activate detailed logging only when necessary. This would mitigate performance degradation and improve the debugging process.
Second, Visionary must be optimized to reduce its impact on game performance, particularly in large or resource-intensive environments. Performance profiling and optimization of its core functions would significantly reduce latency and allow the system to operate seamlessly.
Third, greater flexibility should be introduced in handling local script modifications. Visionary should be able to distinguish between legitimate game mechanics and malicious exploits, allowing for dynamic part modifications without disabling key anti-cheat features. More accurate detection algorithms would help minimize false positives and improve the system’s overall reliability.
Finally, the configuration process should be streamlined, with comprehensive documentation provided to guide developers through the setup, particularly regarding folder dependencies and other configuration prerequisites. This would alleviate setup errors and facilitate the seamless integration of Visionary into existing game development pipelines.
Conclusion
The Visionary anti-cheat system, while offering valuable protection against common cheats, presents several challenges that limit its applicability in real-world game development. These challenges, including performance issues, rigid configuration options, and false positives, hinder its effectiveness and usability. However, with targeted improvements—especially in performance optimization, flexibility, and configuration—Visionary could evolve into a more robust and adaptable anti-cheat solution. The ongoing refinement of anti-cheat technologies is essential to meet the evolving needs of developers and ensure a fair, secure gaming experience for players.
It appears that the issue may extend beyond mere sensitivity, as there are numerous errors and a considerable volume of console messages being generated. This indicates a potential malfunction rather than solely strict detection parameters. When releasing resources of this nature, it is crucial to consider compatibility with a diverse array of game environments, as many developers depend on such tools for various applications.
Based on my observations, the anti-cheat system appears to be ineffective in a standard gaming environment. This suggests that it may have been optimized for a particular game rather than being designed for broader applicability. If this is indeed the case, enhancing the documentation or adapting the resource for greater compatibility could potentially improve its adoption and effectiveness in public releases.
It has come to my attention that the anti-cheat system does not appear to permit the destruction of components, even in instances where such components are being eliminated due to circumstances such as falling off the map.
For instance, while using my character, I jumped off the map and received warnings indicating that “protected parts are being deleted.” Upon my character’s respawn, I was subsequently removed from the game for alleged hacking.
The sole method to mitigate these types of behaviors is by disabling the anti_part_tamper feature; however, this action compromises numerous essential functionalities, including but not limited to anti-fly and anti-teleport mechanisms.
I recommend revising the anti-part-tamper mechanisms and separating the various detection methods, rather than depending on property changes initiated by the client. For instance, analyzing patterns of flight based on server-side player movement would be a more effective approach.
I conducted an analysis and observed that the anti-cheat system appears to restrict certain behaviors associated with server-side activities. For instance, when I repositioned components, altered their properties, or removed them from the server, these actions were flagged as cheating by the client.
I am beginning to consider the idea that client-based anti-exploit measures may not be fundamentally comprehensive in their design. Instead of directly identifying specific modifications, such as those associated with Extra Sensory Perception (ESP), it may be more effective to assess the manifestations of such cheating through a detailed analysis of player behavior. For instance, one could identify instances of cheating by observing situations in which players demonstrate knowledge of enemy locations that they should not have access to.
In order to implement an effective client-side anti-exploit mechanism, it is essential to validate each action by cross-referencing it with the server. For instance, when an object is moved or destroyed, it is critical to confirm that the corresponding action has been executed on the server. However, it is anticipated that this approach may introduce latency and adversely affect performance.
I have dedicated a considerable amount of time and effort to the evaluation of your anti-cheat system, and I find your dismissive response to be rather disheartening. After investing numerous hours in conducting simulations and tests, I anticipated a more respectful and thoughtful acknowledgment of my feedback.
The observations I have made should not be interpreted as a dismissal of your work; rather, they are intended to promote its improvement. As a fellow developer, and based on my analysis of your code, it is evident that considerable time and effort have been invested in the development of this system.
The concerns I have articulated are aimed at fostering the ongoing enhancement of your anti-cheat system, rather than undermining its efficacy. I contend that, despite their vulnerability to circumvention, client-side anti-cheat mechanisms hold significant promise. Furthermore, it is essential to strike a balance between restrictions and compatibility, as your existing system requires modifications. Neglecting to acknowledge this may hinder your development as a developer.
Upon reviewing the response provided, I observed that my feedback was not sufficiently taken into account. While I acknowledge the emotional investment you have made in the project, it is imperative to maintain a standard of professionalism in our interactions.
1 Like
The execution of a Server Physics-Based Simulation (SPBS) has uncovered several issues within the Visionary Anti-Cheat Client Software (VACCS). Specifically, VACCS demonstrates deficiencies in managing part deletion as a result of natural physics accurately. The SPBS highlights the absence of support for part deletion on both the client and server sides for VACCS.
The SPBS illustrates functional deficiencies within the VACCS, resulting in users being disconnected due to the operation of natural-based part physics and subsequent cleanups. The following section presents the testing operations conducted.
To clarify, Visionary Anti-Cheat Client Software disconnects the local client as a consequence of the Server Physics-Based Simulation (SPBS), which exposes inherent flaws within the VACCS, particularly in its management of component deletions. It is hypothesized that this failure stems from the methodology employed by the VACCS to identify client tampering, as well as its insufficient capability to cross-check the server for modifications.
The Visionary Anti-Cheat Client Software functions under the premise that modifications made on the server are mirrored on the client side, leading to the perception that actions initiated from the server originate from the client. This design flaw in the VACCS imposes constraints on both client and server operations, even in scenarios where exploits do not have direct access to the server. Consequently, this limitation unduly hampers the activities of developers.
Me after opening the backpack ui and try type in the textbox it has
1 Like
a WIP anticheat has a bug… omg…
do you expect everything to work without issue on a WIP build?
What does ur thing even detect? 
1 Like
Nah, citadel is not the best anticheat NOT even close, I doubt it’s better than erlcs anticheat
1 Like
Why do you get so heated when people criticize you?
I get kicked after trying to chat.
That’s insane lol best anticheat 2025!!
1 Like
why would i be mad lol
i honestly couldnt care less what people here think of citadel
a bug that was fixed in the newest build
zzzzz
When I read the messages sent in response to the criticism, it makes me feel that the criticism is being received in offense. As a creator, I can understand that feeling, especially since it occurs a lot in my resource posts from those who look for everything and anything wrong.
However, it’s important to shift this thinking and understand that criticism does serve as a valuable tool for finding issues. For example, the issues those users who responded to you with allowed you to understand some common issues users may experience, which allows you to learn and improve in the future.
Some people are pure trolls, though, and will say anything to get a reaction. But at the same time, people may get frustrated and give you feedback in a rude manner without necessarily being a troll. Understanding this and responding appropriately can serve as a valuable skill as a developer.
1 Like
i really dont care what people on this forum think as most of them are of subpar critical thinking skills so their opinion on my sideproject called citadel is invalid to me
ive known about the chat and inventory issues
and i have not finished or plan to finish the newest build where those are fixed anytime soon as i have more important stuff to work on
also i was too lazy to read the entire msg