Hacking Why add anti-piracy measures to Devolution ?

[wiismodrome]

The .DVV file is created (full of zeroes) before Devolution even checks for a disc in the drive, not because "the AP check was failing." Try it and see for yourself, load an .iso that you don't have a disc for and press the power button to exit when it flashes twice. You'll get an empty .DVV file even though nothing was ever checked.
The game couldn't start because the apploader had crashed IOS. Even if the verification procedure wasn't there, the game still wouldn't start. It would actually crash before the apploader finished, the fact that it's reading the actual disc (bypassing IOS) means it gets closer to launching the game than if it were reading from SD/USB, which would be the case if the disc check wasn't there. Your "simple logic" relies on circular reasoning, "the game couldn't launch because the AP check failed because the game couldn't launch".

Did the game pass the AP check? Yes or no?

 

[tueidj]

Neither, the AP check was not completed.

 

[wiismodrome]

Neither, the AP check was not completed.

The answer to that question is binary, not indeterminate, in this case no.

Second question: will Devolution launch a game if it has not passed the AP check?

 

[tueidj]

Third question: How is the second question relevant if the game has already crashed?

 

[wiismodrome]

Third question: How is the second question relevant if the game has already crashed?

It is relevant because what needs to be established here is the temporal order of events which need to occur for a game to be launched. If the AP check must occur and succeed before a game is launched and the AP check fails, then the cause of the failure to launch cannot be the game crashing, because the existence of a failed AP check .dvv would cause the game to fail to launch. Further, because a game must launch before it can crash, a game which has failed to launch cannot crash. Thus, the game crashing cannot be the cause of the failure here.

 

[tueidj]

Have you even looked at the logs? It's obvious there is a lot of startup work that is necessary prior to launching a game (hint: look for the "apploader" which I've mentioned about a dozen times now), most of which is done before the verification. If that startup process fails then the verification step is irrelevant.

 

[artlan]

Best guess here - The game is initialized for the AP check to even occur, so in this case the instant-crash by old apploader never lets the AP check even complete an actual check, leaving the empty/waiting/failed .dvv file which would be replaced after a proper AP pass.

Edit: he beat me to it

 

[wiismodrome]

Have you even looked at the logs? It's obvious there is a lot of startup work that is necessary prior to launching a game (hint: look for the "apploader" which I've mentioned about a dozen times now), most of which is done before the verification. If that startup process fails then the verification step is irrelevant.

Can't easily find a link for a Rogue Leader log from a version < r100 (I posted one of the crash in r100). Is there another log posted?

 

[wiismodrome]

From what I gather, what seems to be happening is that the AP check includes procedures which read and perhaps attempt to load certain parts of the game. It still remains, however, that Rogue Leader did not pass the AP check with revisions before r100. The information above serves to explain why the verification process failed.

 

[tueidj]

Xbox 360 and PS3 games don't pass the AP check either! Thousands of legitimate games are unable to be launched due to the broken AP check!
(Do you see what I did there?)

 

[wiismodrome]

Xbox 360 and PS3 games don't pass the AP check either! Thousands of legitimate games are unable to be launched due to the broken AP check!
(Do you see what I did there?)

Red herring... nice one too.

 

[tueidj]

Well explain to me how that's different from saying Star Wars failed to verify when the verification procedure wasn't even completing.

 

[wiismodrome]

Well explain to me how that's different from saying Star Wars failed to verify when the verification procedure wasn't even completing.

LOL... sorry... this is silly.

For one, Devolution does not and cannot verify or run any PS3 and Xbox360 games (unless you've really outdone yourself this time!). It does, however, run a number of Gamecube games. And before running these games, all games must pass a verification check. The fact that PS3 and Xbox360 games cannot pass such a check is irrelevant in this case and outside of scope of the discussion. Then again, cream and sugar do happen to go very well with strawberries....

Further, an incomplete verification is equivalent to no verification at all, at least in terms of allowing the program to load a given game which has no valid authentication.

 

[tueidj]

The fact that PS3 and Xbox360 games cannot pass such a check is irrelevant in this case and outside of scope of the discussion.

Why is this irrelevant, when a GC game that causes a fault in such a way that makes it impossible to continue the booting process is classed as a verification failure? In both cases the games could not be played regardless of any AP measures in place.

 

[wiismodrome]

Why is this irrelevant, when a GC game that causes a fault in such a way that makes it impossible to continue the booting process is classed as a verification failure? In both cases the games could not be played regardless of any AP measures in place.

A better question is why are Xbox360 and PS3 games germane to this discussion, when the topic is a Wii application which only loads Gamecube games?

Moreover, a failure to boot and a verification failure are not mutually exclusive. The important distinction here is that a game which passes the AP check can load and crash, while a game which cannot pass the AP check cannot load and therefore cannot crash. Now, if what was happening in the RL case was that some aspect of the game's code was crashing the AP subroutine, then in a sense, the game was crashing, but that is stretching the meaning of the term outside of common usage. By appearances, the game was not crashing in the sense that the game itself was actually launched and then proceeded to crash.

 

[tueidj]

Do you not understand that the apploader is part of the game?

 

[Rydian]

A better question is why are Xbox360 and PS3 games germane to this discussion, when the topic is a Wii application which only loads Gamecube games?

His point was to get you to realize that the failure happens before verification, so the program would crash like that on any game disc that didn't load properly.

It is relevant because what needs to be established here is the temporal order of events which need to occur for a game to be launched.

To this end, I made you a timeline out of what I gather is a basic overview of the steps being discussed and their order.

Notice the red dot, where the program crashes (according to the author, the guy you're talking to like he doesn't know how the fuck his own program works). Notice that since this step is where it fails, the steps later in the timeline have no bearing. The AP check being one of those steps.

 

[wiismodrome]

Do you not understand that the apploader is part of the game?

Even if the apploader is a part of the game, it is not the case the the AP check actually launches the game, properly understood, at least according to a common understanding of the term. From what has been described, the AP may attempt load or run some part of the game's code, but not actually launch the game itself. It is not until after the AP check succeeds that the game can be successfully launched. In the RL case, the AP check did not succeed.

 

[wiismodrome]

Notice the red dot, where the program crashes (according to the author, the guy you're talking to like he doesn't know how the fuck his own program works). Notice that since this step is where it fails, the steps later in the timeline have no bearing. The AP check being one of those steps.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that the developer knows how his program works. However, I also think that some people do not like to admit when they might be wrong about something. The above graphic seems to be missing some important steps.... except the last one of course...

 

[tueidj]

However, I also think that some people do not like to admit when they might be wrong about something.

Believe me, we know.
I have explained in detail (several times) why your theory is wrong.
Jacobeian successfully guessed in the original thread what the issue was before I even explained it.
Now Rydian has drawn an accurate diagram to help explain it, and you still insist that your theory of AP being the root of the problem is correct.