It has been released for month now, not only for 3.x but for all firmwares. This coldboot exploit is called Fusée Gelée. E.g SX OS by Team Xecuter uses this exploit. No modding of the hardware is needed. All can be done just with the dongle and jig. If you want, you can do a hardmod instead by e.g. placing a Trinket M0 inside of the switch.
I'm referring to a pure softmod, not one that involves jamming a piece of metal. Not everyone would prefer to do that to their Switch and there are plenty of threads on why its not a good idea for everyone. Also, not everyone is adept or comfortable with opening their console to install the trinket. Some of us would prefer the ease of loading a webpage to load hacks since all it will take is some navigation through Horizon and avoids having to touch the console in any way, shape, or form.
This is a pure softmod. No hardware is modified. You are just using the word 'softmod' wrong.
I'm not going to beat this dead horse a second time. This is a difference in perception on the definition of softmod. All I said was that I cannot use Fusee Gelee without physically touching my console and using some metal to bridge a new connection. I am not calling it softmod or hardmod, I am referring to it by the whole process.
Yes. I'm using the right definition and you are using a different definition. If you'd stop using the wrong definition, others would be able to understand what you are talking about.
If you want me to specify softmod without the introduction of another piece of equipment, I can do that. But enough people have understood the differences between the unreleased webpage-based exploits and the current bootrom exploit. Not to mention that permanent physical damage can occur if you perform the bootrom exploit inappropriately. If you want to name or show me someone that hasn't fully understood the differences, please feel free to do so.
I thought YOU did not understand the difference, because you were calling the RCM thing a hardmod, even if no hardware is modified.
I believe this exemplifies the point I've been trying to make
If I refer to it as hardmod, its to make it easier for the less technical to understand. Whether or not its a hardmod of softmod is not the point because not everything can be categorized as such. Anyways, I usually never refer to it as a harmod but a phrase such as "inserting a jig and USB" as my catch-all. Again, this is semantics not a discussion in how the exploit works.
Do you think it is wise to use termini technici wrongly on purpose when talking to such people? How can they understand if you tell them is wrong? In my opinion it is better to teach the less educated. Lying to people is a mean thing. Look at me, I am a nice guy. I explain it to you, because you are less technical.
We were talking about atmo, not fg, weren't we? fg does not mod anything. fg is wether a softmod, nor a hardmod. It's not a mod at all. It's just the exploid to run the softmod. The payload is what's modding the system.
That's why I said I typically avoid using the word "hardmod" and instead call it as it is. It should also be worth noting that hardmod has no accepted definition unlike softmod so use of the former is more flexible than the latter.
I was not talking about Atmosphere because Atmosphere is a CFW, not an exploit. I have also repeatedly said we are not talking about how the exploit works because the payload being sent is only one part of the exploit chain. It is semantics based on how you perceive inducing RCM (which I know is built into the system) to achieve sending unsigned code via payloads.
@
K3Nv2:
@
BigOnYa:
@
BakerMan:
@
BakerMan:
