Originally Posted by hellsing9
@BobbyBlunt
But now i know a little more, that's the main reason of this image.
Seems that honesty it's not taken into the equation, this time the *joke* was on me.
At this rate we never end with a *happy* conclusion.
The division gap of interests: the ones who one all served on a silver plate and the ones who seeks knowledge is getting bigger.
I trust in
@euss
words since he started to help me in so many occasions that he could denied me that help but instead he gave a big hand. As well in
@sandungas
and all wiki related data.
|
well, this article is not wrong in a sense. May be a bit confusing or unclear but param.sfo/disc.sfo can be use indirectly as security on OFW and was the only file to modify for fews games to boot on cfw (don t remember the titles names, but fews games/updates were signed with old keys but the sys fw version on SFO as 3.56 or 3.60)
Of course it s not the case anymore but obviously the SFO is still annoying to deal with (and in this current period of FIX, it s good to display infos about it so people make theirs own fix in the right way, with also remote psp bonus flag (tell your Anon in case there are more patch)
And this article achieve already some result of displaying infos for patches so it s all good for SFO.
As
@
deank
or
@
sandungas
explained about HDD content and sys version, i ll add a little thing: somes hdd content category are more convenience when you make some tests like for me it was MN (minis games) or the Deroad SFO Tool (i even used again this morning a couple of time). That tool is really convenience because it avoid fews errors related to SFO with classic eboot.bin/pbp.
So i will ask
@
deank
if it s possible to do more patching (about sys version to avoid the game to don t boot being block by the required sys FW) on the eboot/back up launcher (your MultiMan i dont like for my SFO test
, you did really well fixing a lot of possible error for end user) or the FW (trueblue FW didn t manage this problem later?)