Hacking cIOSX rev21d2x: Yet Another Hot Fix!!!!

[TheRealVisitor]

And now we have v5beta2 working for ntfs/fat too.

Stay tuned!

Great! Finally we have got some real progress in Wii backup loading.

 

[davebaol]

@norbyte
Hmm, it reminds me the issue with U-Sing 2: http://gbatemp.net/t277659-ciosx-rev21d2x-...t&p=3473566
Can you test it from SD card?

 

[WiiPower]

No it wouldn't. It is an existing project and the IOS Reloading games are working for months from usb in uneek+di already.

And responsible for the working IOS Reload block are (in descending order): Waninkoko, Davebaol, XFlak and me. Waninkoko and Davebaol did all the work to get IOS Reload blocking to work for discs, and XFlak provided me with a tool to quickly test small cIOS mods. The "magic" code is actually just 5 lines of super easy kindergarten code, which i had in mind even when Waninkoko was still working on this issue. And the upcoming IOS Reload block code for FAT/NTFS will be completely the work of Davebaol and Oggzee.

Just thought it might be interesting to know for some people.Dude, quite honestly it's in honour to be even included in that list... cuz I have absolutely no clue how to get IOS reloading games to work, lol.

Can't wait to see the next beta, keep up the great work guys!


Maybe you just put existing tools together in ModMii, i don't know. But i know that without ModMii's ability to create wads for cIOS with just the modules, i wouldn't have been able to do my part. All the time i might have been able to do it, but i was way too lazy to write a cIOS installer on my own, because i thought i wouldn't be able to achieve anything anyways.

QUOTE(norbyte @ Jun 2 2011, 08:02 AM)

Thanks again for the great work! It's great to see your development for We Dare and IOS reload blocking.
Unfortunately there are audio sync problems with "We Sing Deutsche Hits" (German PAL). The game requires base 57, otherwise the mics are not found. Hermes 5.1 with Base 57 works. I think you can also get it work.

So with the d2x cIOS with base IOS57, you get audio sync problems. And with any other base IOS, it doesn't even find the mics? This needs to be 100% clear before a solution can be found.

 

[davebaol]

I bet it's a ehci issue.

 

[davebaol]

1st post updated with v5-final.
This is exactly the same as v5-beta1.
However the md5 values of the wads are changed due to the new cios identification method (strings "final" and "beta1" are clearly different).

The upcoming v6-beta1 is almost ready.

 

[XFlak]

1st post updated with v5-final.
This is exactly the same as v5-beta1.
However the md5 values of the wads are changed due to the new cios identification method (strings "final" and "beta1" are clearly different).

The upcoming v6-beta1 is almost ready.

Great job!

One minor thing I wanted to mention though, currently you have the cIOS named as follows:
cIOS249[XX]-v21d2x5-final

do we really need the "-final"? v4 final was just named "cIOS249[XX]-v21d2x4", so to keep things consistent shouldn't v5 final be called "cIOS249[XX]-v21d2x5". Or did u change the name because you want the word "final" to be a part its signature? The way I see it, unless it has "beta" or "alpha" in the title\signature then it should be implied that it's the final version.

When I update the d2x cIOSs in the next ModMii update, if I change the name to "cIOS249[XX]-v21d2x5" then the hashes will change too (since "final" won't be a part of it). What do u think?

 

[WiiPower]

Maybe the final just looks better?

And could you remove cIOS249 from the name?

Something like cIOS-d2x-v5-final-base-56-slot-249.wad ?

 

[NutNut]

Yep kick off this v21 in the name !!

I'm still wondering why you changed the name of cIOSes to cIOSslot (ex: cIOS249) whereas at the beginning and for a while, with Waninkoko, they were named cIOSbase (ex: cIOS38 rev14) even if the slot was 249.
Logically, if we consider the IOS57 if we modify it it become A custom IOS57 so cIOS57 and well if we place it in slot 249 then it become IOS249 not cIOS249. Actually, cIOS57 = IOS249 not cIOS249 = cIOS57

I propose cIOS[xx]-d2x-v5final-[slot].wad !!!

In cIOS installer we choose base then slot not slot then base so in ModMii we should type base then slot not slot then base also

 

[XFlak]

Maybe the final just looks better?I don't care what looks better, I just want consistency. If we're going to have "-final" be a part of the name for final d2x cIOSs going forward then that's okay, and if we're not that's okay too, but I'd like us to pick one convention and stick to it. I'm going to need an answer before updating the d2x cIOSs included in ModMii.QUOTE(WiiPower @ Jun 2 2011, 04:30 PM) And could you remove cIOS249 from the name?

Something like cIOS-d2x-v5-final-base-56-slot-249.wad ?

I could but I'd like to maintain the cIOS naming convention used for other cIOSs. Even the other stickied guide has their cIOSs named like that. Also, because of how I've made the d2x name & other info able to change according to each beta update, it's easier for me to have the variable version information all at the end of the name (ie. cIOS249[XX]-v21d2x%version%) instead of in the middle. If it's a huge deal then I'll eventually take the time to make the change, but if it makes no difference to you then I'll take the lazy road and leave it as is. Besides... what's in a name?

edit:
maybe a new name isn't a bad idea. Mind you back when d2x was first released I asked davebaol about removing "v21" from the name and he said he would prefer if we did not. So dave would need to be okay with removing the "v21" reference before we decide anything. But if we can keep the version number at the end of the name then it'll really easy for me to change in ModMii (mostly just an edit\replace), but if a new name is decided on and the version # isn't at the end, oh well, I'll just have to make it work, i'm sure it won't be overly too much work, but I'd just prefer not to reinvent the wheel if I don't have to... so how about something like: cIOS56[249]-d2x-v5

 

[XICO2KX]

1st post updated with v5-final.
This is exactly the same as v5-beta1.
However the md5 values of the wads are changed due to the new cios identification method (strings "final" and "beta1" are clearly different).

The upcoming v6-beta1 is almost ready.

Awesome! Great work!

What's cooking for the next v6-beta1?

 

[NutNut]

so how about something like: cIOS56[249]-d2x-v5

I think it's good !!

It doesn't need too much work to make this change and it is more logical.

 

[XFlak]

Since v5beta2 was never released, I'd assume we'll see what was planned for v5beta2 in v6beta1.

And now we have v5beta2 working for ntfs/fat too.

Stay tuned!

edit:

QUOTE(XFlak @ Jun 2 2011, 05:10 PM) so how about something like: cIOS56[249]-d2x-v5

I think it's good !!

It doesn't need too much work to make this change and it is more logical.

So what do you think davebaol\WiiPower? Not a huge rush to decide right now cuz I'm not close to releasing a ModMii update any time soon

Spoiler

I just got possession of my 1st house last night so I'm crazy busy w\ renovations and such at the moment!
YAY!

 

[davebaol]

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" by Italian author Umberto Eco.
It's Latin and translates literally as "Yesterday's rose endures in its name, we hold empty names".

Anyways, after 5 versions d2x is now a big improvement over rev21 so I agree about removing rev21 from the name.

About the "final", personally I like it. But if it's more convenient for you then we can leave it out.
And maybe it's just because I'm used to it, but I like the current naming convention, cIOS[]

Oh, congrats for the spoiler XFlak.

 

[norbyte]

@norbyte
Hmm, it reminds me the issue with U-Sing 2: http://gbatemp.net/t277659-ciosx-rev21d2x-...t&p=3473566
Can you test it from SD card?

You're right. Tested with my 4GB SDHC card and it works as expected. So is this enough to fix it like Hermes did?

 

[XFlak]

Okay, so it seems we have the following 4 candidates for a new d2x naming convention:
[*]cIOS249[56]-d2x-v5[*]cIOS249[56]-d2x-v5-final[*]cIOS56[249]-d2x-v5[*]cIOS56[249]-d2x-v5-final
I prefer the first one in the list. And it's not going to be difficult to switch to any of these, but I just prefer the way it looks without "-final", to me it seems like including it would just make the name longer without giving any extra information. But I am open to any of the above naming conventions.

And thx for the congrats!

 

[oggzee]

Okay, so it seems we have the following 4 candidates for a new d2x naming convention:
[*]cIOS249[56]-d2x-v5[*]cIOS249[56]-d2x-v5-final[*]cIOS56[249]-d2x-v5[*]cIOS56[249]-d2x-v5-final
I prefer the first one in the list. And it's not going to be difficult to switch to any of these, but I just prefer the way it looks without "-final", to me it seems like including it would just make the name longer without giving any extra information. But I am open to any of the above naming conventions.

And thx for the congrats!

i think my vote goes to:
cIOS249[56]-d2x-v5

but i can't give any smart reason, probably just because i've got used to how it was.

 

[NutNut]

I prefer cIOS56[249]-d2x-v5 to cIOS249[56]-d2x-v5

Ahah it's the big fight : Logical VS Bad Habit

 

[IceIceBird]

Okay, so it seems we have the following 4 candidates for a new d2x naming convention:
[*]cIOS249[56]-d2x-v5[*]cIOS249[56]-d2x-v5-final[*]cIOS56[249]-d2x-v5[*]cIOS56[249]-d2x-v5-final
I prefer the first one in the list. And it's not going to be difficult to switch to any of these, but I just prefer the way it looks without "-final", to me it seems like including it would just make the name longer without giving any extra information. But I am open to any of the above naming conventions.

And thx for the congrats!

My vote goes to cIOS249[56]-d2x-v5 = cIOSinstallslot[base]-d2x-version

 

[pplucky]

Okay, so it seems we have the following 4 candidates for a new d2x naming convention:
[*]cIOS249[56]-d2x-v5[*]cIOS249[56]-d2x-v5-final[*]cIOS56[249]-d2x-v5[*]cIOS56[249]-d2x-v5-final
I prefer the first one in the list. And it's not going to be difficult to switch to any of these, but I just prefer the way it looks without "-final", to me it seems like including it would just make the name longer without giving any extra information. But I am open to any of the above naming conventions.

And thx for the congrats!

My vote goes to cIOS249[56]-d2x-v5 = cIOSinstallslot[base]-d2x-version

x2

 

[xfcrowman]

Option 1 works for me. I don't think that the "final" is needed but I'm also not totally opposed to it. I'm glad that the rev 21 will probably be dropped - so many amazing improvements have occurred since the original rev21 lag fix!

Thanks again to everyone involved for making the best cIOS to date!