[sandungas]

Originally Posted by CaptainCPS-X Indeed, that is how I am actually packing my fixes, I never change the APP_VER, I leave it as it was in the original update, I just change the Minimum FW Version (in PARAM.SFO).

Ops, lol, i never thought it was possible to install a patch 2 times... i had to turn on the PS3 to see myself
Nice one, then this is the way to dont "break" the standard versioning

For people that are connected online and receipts the updates advises this is a problem because the next patches will be signed with bigger keys
Im not very used to multiman, but i think it blocks this updates, right ?

Originally Posted by CaptainCPS-X I have Gran Turismo so I will make some tests and let you know .

In GT5 is where i found TARGET_APP_VER... i dont remember but some of his patches uses it
If you find how it works (or if there is something interesting to do with it) please add it to the wiki, explain it in this thread or send me a pm and i will add to the wiki

Originally Posted by CaptainCPS-X I believe the right approach if there was going to be a "Standard" made for update patches, is like you said @sandungas , just put APP_VER - 09.99 So the user will never update unless a new patch is released, then he can manually update with the new patch fix safely.

Hmmm, maybe this can be "undone" with the TARGET_APP_VER pointing to 9.99.... and a APP_VER of the original "last patch" installed (the fix)

I prefer the first one (same APP_VER) because im not connected online, but 9.99 is more safer to avoid incompatibility problems with other patches, both are fine
************* [ - Post Merged - ] *************
One last thing... the standard "naming" for CONTENT_ID when building the .pkg

The name includes some info taken from PARAM.SFO e.g. the name of one real patch:
JP0005-BLJM60215_00-DISKPATCH0000001-A0101-V0100-PE.pkg
This A0101 at the end means APP_VER = 01.01

So the fix with a "faked" 9.99 would have this name:
JP0005-BLJM60215_00-DISKPATCH0000001-A0999-V0100-PE.pkg

[hellsing9]

Originally Posted by baargle News is Ridiculous.

hahahaha lol ROFL

[BobbyBlunt]

When it comes to messing with the param.sfo I will listen to one of 2 people...either eussNL (and the devwiki) or sandungas (due to experience in messing with such things.) The issue I am having here is your so called "anon" (yet again LMAO) has told us nothing more than we already know. Ummm this has been messed with so many times in the past. So according to your write up the param.sfo doesnt take effect until the database is rebuilt if the param.sfo is changed after the initial pkg is installed. Have you ever tried a 3.56 game on MFW with MultiMAN? That alone makes this point invalid. A 3.56 game launches immediately after MM fixes the param for 3.55.

Sure messing with the param.sfo gave us good results in the past, but when looking for game fixes why is it that I only have to download the eboot?

[hellsing9]

@BobbyBlunt I was *played* again



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.
And all Hax staff @GregoryRasputin @japsander @Annelies @Mackdanny (Pirate i don't even need to name him xD)


So = *Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me* fits perfect with this situation and fits perfect for me.
I can take this as another wake up call or just a call to forfeit...xD

[lolong]

TB is R.I.P

RIGHT NOW, everyone is changing their ps3 to KMEAW 3.55 with DUPLEX NON DRM without Dongle ! including me also !

[Raito]

Guys by the way, those talks are on some public IRC? Efnet is dead for some time and couldn't find any other place to talk with people about this.

@topic
Well that isn't exactly a new fact, but still info is worth posting - could help some newbies :D

[xtrem3x]

Originally Posted by BobbyBlunt When it comes to messing with the param.sfo I will listen to one of 2 people...either eussNL (and the devwiki) or sandungas (due to experience in messing with such things.) The issue I am having here is your so called "anon" (yet again LMAO) has told us nothing more than we already know. Ummm this has been messed with so many times in the past. So according to your write up the param.sfo doesnt take effect until the database is rebuilt if the param.sfo is changed after the initial pkg is installed. Have you ever tried a 3.56 game on MFW with MultiMAN? That alone makes this point invalid. A 3.56 game launches immediately after MM fixes the param for 3.55. Sure messing with the param.sfo gave us good results in the past, but when looking for game fixes why is it that I only have to download the eboot?

If you download a patch from PSN on your PS3 (like when you load a game & it updates it for you), then it is too late. The Param.sfo has already assigned the game to 3.60+. If however you download a game update on your PC & install it through "install pkg files" then you can allow multiman to patch it or you can patch it yourself & swap them over ftp. This is the experience I have had anyway and also sounds like what he is getting at.

[deank]

Originally Posted by BobbyBlunt When it comes to messing with the param.sfo I will listen to one of 2 people...either eussNL (and the devwiki) or sandungas (due to experience in messing with such things.) The issue I am having here is your so called "anon" (yet again LMAO) has told us nothing more than we already know. Ummm this has been messed with so many times in the past. So according to your write up the param.sfo doesnt take effect until the database is rebuilt if the param.sfo is changed after the initial pkg is installed. Have you ever tried a 3.56 game on MFW with MultiMAN? That alone makes this point invalid. A 3.56 game launches immediately after MM fixes the param for 3.55.

You are confusing PARAM.SFO changes for a disc-game (DG) and game-data/hdd-game (GD/HG).

You can change the param.sfo for a disc game anytime - to the PS3 it is just a DISC and only temporary information is stored about the icon/sfo.

GD/HG installations (pkg) however INSTALL new data/files and update the metadata database of the PS3. Once installed - their information is stored in the database and even if you change something in the param.sfo it won't be reflected (unless you start the game - which you can't if the SFO asks for 3.60+ and if you don't have a spoofer). So to overcome this you must install another .pkg which will overwrite the sfo and other files and changes will be reflected in the db.

[Nimation]

good news for some... bad news for some other

[Ada Love Lace]

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?)