Interesting smile I always thought that /ns option should produce identical dumps...

1,277 (edited by sarami 2018-04-03 17:32:54)

SecuROM 99 error version can't dump correctly without /ns. Is this not good enough?


jhmiller wrote:

Puzzle Bobble 4 (T-42301M) - (I have 2 copies of this game):
The dump seems correct from the "disc 1".

I tried Puzzle Bobble 4.
Unfortunately, track 12 is the different hash every time. (all track except for the track 12 is same hash.)
1. TS-H352C FW:NE02

crc="a34b4e63" md5="07ac424b0e3b45fdcd0c1c65ded5cc50" sha1="b0cab18080ee2c3232c1bcf8d2ae1dadb55d0226"
crc="993cd51b" md5="93bc67101efc677aa961bc5c77afb4f1" sha1="46abd792c654b1261cadf54736157c73dbc168a6"

2. TS-H353A FW:BA08

crc="2e347ba4" md5="e57f6d9ab99690b7b1256cd56b00402e" sha1="0ccc6583a6596a4028dafa692d229c5c5410dc4a"
crc="07a0f42c" md5="dff224d27e57c0a4829adc3264752bd0" sha1="b5f0b5e1b957250c5010351b0103520a71644559"

I don't have Death Crimson OX, but I think it becomes the error same as you.

I don't know whether the problem of the drive or that of the disc. But SH-D162C, SH-D162D, TS-H352C and TS-H353A are similar drive, so using other drive in this list http://forum.redump.org/post/14552/#p14552, it may work (but I don't guarantee it. If it not work well, Puzzle Bobble 4 and Death Crimson OX may have mastering error sectors).

What is SecuROM 99?

1,279

enum.h

    securomV1, // a.k.a SecuROM OLD ((8 shifted RMSF/AMSF + 1 error) * 24 times = 216 sector error)
    securomV2, // a.k.a SecuROM NEW ((8 shifted RMSF/AMSF + 1 error) * 10 times = 90 sector error)
    securomV3, // a.k.a SecuROM NEW ((8 shifted RMSF/AMSF + 1 error) * 11 times = 99 sector error) 
    securomV4, // a.k.a SecuROM NEW (LBA -1 + 10 random error = 11 sector error)

1,280 (edited by jhmiller 2018-04-08 19:50:59)

in the last 2 Dreamcast dumps that I have tried, the DIC shows this error:
Checking SubQ adr (Track)  1/ 1
Checking SubRtoW (Track)  1/ 1
Reading DirectoryRecord    1/   2End time: 2018-04-07(Sat) 15:16:01

Or this:
Reading DirectoryRecord    1/  19End time: 2018-04-07(Sat) 14:32:35

Post's attachments

T-3002M Error.rar 19.43 kb, 3 downloads since 2018-04-07 

You don't have the permssions to download the attachments of this post.
I love my XKey, my WODE and my 3Key. Waiting for WiiUODE.
Cerrar MegaUpload sólo es el comienzo de la censura, será el fin de la libertad.
Nada es verdad, todo está permitido.

1,281

sarami, i was testing the dvd command and faced some problems with /c parameter. While dumping CMI for this dump DIC aborts reading as soon as it reaches the unreadable area. Is there any way those sectors can be ignored and possibly flagged somehow?

Logs attached:

Post's attachments

ID_10400.rar 3.37 mb, 3 downloads since 2018-04-08 

You don't have the permssions to download the attachments of this post.
PX-760A (+30), PX-W4824TA (+98), GSA-H42L (+667), GDR-8164B (+102), SH-D162D (+6), SOHD-167T (+12)

1,282

sarami wrote:
F1ReB4LL wrote:

I think it's better to generate the .cue variant as well.

I'll code it in the future.

Technically, you can't add a DC dump into db without the .cue smile So, it's an important feature.

1,283

jhmiller wrote:

in the last 2 Dreamcast dumps that I have tried, the DIC shows this error:

Fixed. This had occurred only GD-ROM and minus offset disc.

iR0b0t wrote:

sarami, i was testing the dvd command and faced some problems with /c parameter. While dumping CMI for this dump DIC aborts reading as soon as it reaches the unreadable area. Is there any way those sectors can be ignored and possibly flagged somehow?

Skipped returning error.

F1ReB4LL wrote:

it's an important feature.

I make an effort to be able to code it this month.

1,284

sarami

I'd like to ask why DIC is licensed with Microsoft Public License. Is it dependent on a piece of code that uses the MS-PL, or would it be feasible to change the license to the GPL?

https://github.com/saramibreak/DiscImag … er/LICENSE

1,285

ajshell1 wrote:

Is it dependent on a piece of code that uses the MS-PL

No.

ajshell1 wrote:

would it be feasible to change the license to the GPL?

I don't like strong copyleft. Is MS-PL awkward for you (or in general)? I don't know much about licence.

1,286 (edited by ajshell1 2018-04-12 18:10:28)

sarami wrote:
ajshell1 wrote:

Is it dependent on a piece of code that uses the MS-PL

No.

ajshell1 wrote:

would it be feasible to change the license to the GPL?

I don't like strong copyleft. Is MS-PL awkward for you (or in general)? I don't know much about licence.

Thanks for considering me. I had a pipe dream of getting DIC ported to Linux at some point, either by you or someone else. Licensing it under the GPL would probably make that slightly more feasible.

However, if you don't like a strong copyleft, can I ask you to use the MIT License? While it is compatible with the GPL, it doesn't have a strong copyleft.

I'm also concerned that the MS-PL is a rather obscure license. In my experience, people prefer to work with projects with more common licenses. And as far as common licenses go, 44.69% of Github projects used it in 2015 (https://blog.github.com/2015-03-09-open … ithub-com/).

I appreciate the fact that you were willing to consider this. This is ultimately your project, so you can do what you want with it.

ajshell1 wrote:

Thanks for considering me. I had a pipe dream of getting DIC ported to Linux at some point, either by you or someone else. Licensing it under the GPL would probably make that slightly more feasible.

However, if you don't like a strong copyleft, can I ask you to use the MIT License? While it is compatible with the GPL, it doesn't have a strong copyleft.

I'm also concerned that the MS-PL is a rather obscure license. In my experience, pepple prefer to work with projects with more common licenses. And as far as common licenses go, 44.69% of Github projects used it in 2015 (https://blog.github.com/2015-03-09-open … ithub-com/).

I appreciate the fact that you were willing to consider this. This is ultimately your project, so you can do what you want with it.

The MS-PL is very permissive, why would it cause any issues with porting to Linux? Especially compared to the GPL which isn't very permissive at all.

1,288

sarami wrote:
jhmiller wrote:

in the last 2 Dreamcast dumps that I have tried, the DIC shows this error:

Fixed. This had occurred only GD-ROM and minus offset disc.

Thanks, sarami.
Now it works perfectly.

I love my XKey, my WODE and my 3Key. Waiting for WiiUODE.
Cerrar MegaUpload sólo es el comienzo de la censura, será el fin de la libertad.
Nada es verdad, todo está permitido.

1,289 (edited by ajshell1 2018-04-12 18:00:53)

FatArnold wrote:

The MS-PL is very permissive, why would it cause any issues with porting to Linux? Especially compared to the GPL which isn't very permissive at all.

According to http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:MsPL
"This is a free software license; it has a copyleft that is not strong, but incompatible with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the Ms-PL for this reason."

That incompatiblity with the GPL is my main concern. MANY programs on Linux use the GPL, including the Linux kernel itself. From what I understand, license incompatibilities can cause problems when trying to port software to Linux. For example, ZFS was released under the CDDL. While this is a free software license, it is not compatible with the GPL, and implementations of ZFS have suffered as a result of this. (See here for more info: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux)

I just want to try and avoid any such situations IF I can ever get DIC ported to Linux. That's a big "if", but I'd honestly be willing to pay someone to handle the port.

EDIT:
And if sarami doesn't like the MIT license, there are plenty of other GPL compatible llicenses without a strong copyleft, such as the Apache 2.0 License and the Modified BSD License. More can be found here https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-li … leLicenses

I have one possible suggestion: Every time my drive overheats, it starts throwing the "COMM" errors, which are hardware issues. If at all possible, can those be treated like C2 errors? I'd like for those sectors to be rescanned at the end just like that, since right now, if my drive decides to crap out like that in the middle of a dump, I have to stop it and start all over, since it won't be caught as an error until the very end.

1,291

Just tried to dump TOC & pregap with one of the last year's test versions (15.11.17) and got an immediate black screen & system hang with an error record "LMS lost connection to Intel(R) MEI driver" in the events log. Earlier and later versions work fine. Just to warn you that DIC can be dangerous smile

1,292

ajshell1 wrote:

there are plenty of other GPL compatible llicenses

I'll change to MIT or Apache or Modified BSD by the next release version.

darksabre76 wrote:

it starts throwing the "COMM" errors

What sense error?
https://www.isobuster.com/help/error_codes_sense_codes

F1ReB4LL wrote:

LMS lost connection to Intel(R) MEI driver

I have never seen this error...

1,293

sarami wrote:
F1ReB4LL wrote:

LMS lost connection to Intel(R) MEI driver

I have never seen this error...

I can upload this version and provide the exact command string, if someone wants to test smile

1,294

sarami wrote:
ajshell1 wrote:

there are plenty of other GPL compatible llicenses

I'll change to MIT or Apache or Modified BSD by the next release version.


Thank you SO MUCH! This means a lot to me.

1,295 (edited by sarami 2018-04-19 04:08:59)

*2018-04-19
- added: support HD-DVD and DVD raw dump and GC/Wii disc (WIP)
          => HD-DVD: use 'dvd' command. DVD raw dump and GC/Wii disc: use 'dvd' command and /raw option.
             (GC/Wii disc is only supported by GDR-8082, 8161, 8162, 8163, 8164)
             If you want to unscramble GC/Wii raw image, put unscramler.exe in dic directory.
             https://github.com/saramibreak/unscrambler/releases
- added: cue file of GD-ROM image
- changed: LICENSE (MS-PL -> Apache License Version 2.0)
- fixed: SecuROM range
- fixed: Reading directory record (GD-ROM and minus offset disc, DVD, CD-i sub directory)
- fixed: /ss option (support ProtectCD VOB minus offset disc)
- fixed: /c option (skip returning error)
- improved: Reading sub-channel (if random error occurs to rmsf or amsf, exec /f forcibly)

1,296

Hi Sarami!

Just curious what the link number at the end of each line in the _subInfo.txt mean? I dumped the same disc with DIC 20180304 and 20180419. The bin files match but I notice that the _subInfo.txt are different.

DIC20180304

LBA[000000, 0000000]: Track[01]: Index is changed from [00] to [01] [L:845]
LBA[000000, 0000000]: Track[01]: 1st LBA of this data track [L:893]
LBA[165616, 0x286f0]: Track[01]: Last LBA of this data track [L:812]
LBA[165617, 0x286f1]: Track[02]: TrackNum is changed [L:816]
LBA[165617, 0x286f1]: Track[02]: Index is changed from [01] to [00] [L:860]
LBA[165767, 0x28787]: Track[02]: Index is changed from [00] to [01] [L:845]
LBA[181043, 0x2c333]: Track[03]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:795]
LBA[181043, 0x2c333]: Track[03]: TrackNum is changed [L:820]
LBA[194472, 0x2f7a8]: Track[04]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:795]
LBA[194472, 0x2f7a8]: Track[04]: TrackNum is changed [L:820]
LBA[206003, 0x324b3]: Track[05]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:795]
LBA[206003, 0x324b3]: Track[05]: TrackNum is changed [L:820]
LBA[219512, 0x35978]: Track[06]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:795]
LBA[219512, 0x35978]: Track[06]: TrackNum is changed [L:820]
LBA[233761, 0x39121]: Track[07]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:795]
LBA[233761, 0x39121]: Track[07]: TrackNum is changed [L:820]
LBA[246577, 0x3c331]: Track[08]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:795]
LBA[246577, 0x3c331]: Track[08]: TrackNum is changed [L:820]
LBA[260299, 0x3f8cb]: Track[09]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:795]
LBA[260299, 0x3f8cb]: Track[09]: TrackNum is changed [L:820]
LBA[275122, 0x432b2]: Track[10]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:795]
LBA[275122, 0x432b2]: Track[10]: TrackNum is changed [L:820]
LBA[288982, 0x468d6]: Track[11]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:795]
LBA[288982, 0x468d6]: Track[11]: TrackNum is changed [L:820]
LBA[303086, 0x49fee]: Track[12]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:795]
LBA[303086, 0x49fee]: Track[12]: TrackNum is changed [L:820]
LBA[314460, 0x4cc5c]: Track[13]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:795]
LBA[314460, 0x4cc5c]: Track[13]: TrackNum is changed [L:820]
LBA[327697, 0x50011]: Track[13]: Last LBA of this disc [L:906]

DIC20180419

LBA[000000, 0000000]: Track[01]: Index is changed from [00] to [01] [L:865]
LBA[000000, 0000000]: Track[01]: 1st LBA of this data track [L:918]
LBA[165616, 0x286f0]: Track[01]: Last LBA of this data track [L:832]
LBA[165617, 0x286f1]: Track[02]: TrackNum is changed [L:836]
LBA[165617, 0x286f1]: Track[02]: Index is changed from [01] to [00] [L:885]
LBA[165767, 0x28787]: Track[02]: Index is changed from [00] to [01] [L:865]
LBA[181043, 0x2c333]: Track[03]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:815]
LBA[181043, 0x2c333]: Track[03]: TrackNum is changed [L:840]
LBA[194472, 0x2f7a8]: Track[04]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:815]
LBA[194472, 0x2f7a8]: Track[04]: TrackNum is changed [L:840]
LBA[206003, 0x324b3]: Track[05]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:815]
LBA[206003, 0x324b3]: Track[05]: TrackNum is changed [L:840]
LBA[219512, 0x35978]: Track[06]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:815]
LBA[219512, 0x35978]: Track[06]: TrackNum is changed [L:840]
LBA[233761, 0x39121]: Track[07]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:815]
LBA[233761, 0x39121]: Track[07]: TrackNum is changed [L:840]
LBA[246577, 0x3c331]: Track[08]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:815]
LBA[246577, 0x3c331]: Track[08]: TrackNum is changed [L:840]
LBA[260299, 0x3f8cb]: Track[09]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:815]
LBA[260299, 0x3f8cb]: Track[09]: TrackNum is changed [L:840]
LBA[275122, 0x432b2]: Track[10]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:815]
LBA[275122, 0x432b2]: Track[10]: TrackNum is changed [L:840]
LBA[288982, 0x468d6]: Track[11]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:815]
LBA[288982, 0x468d6]: Track[11]: TrackNum is changed [L:840]
LBA[303086, 0x49fee]: Track[12]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:815]
LBA[303086, 0x49fee]: Track[12]: TrackNum is changed [L:840]
LBA[314460, 0x4cc5c]: Track[13]: This track doesn't exist the pregap [L:815]
LBA[314460, 0x4cc5c]: Track[13]: TrackNum is changed [L:840]
LBA[327697, 0x50011]: Track[13]: Last LBA of this disc [L:931]

I also attached logs that have differences in the attachment FYI.
I'm new to redump so please bear with me if this is a stupid question tongue
Thanks!

Post's attachments

Logs.zip 128.52 kb, 3 downloads since 2018-04-19 

You don't have the permssions to download the attachments of this post.

1,297

sarami, could you please add hash output for bluray command as requested here, thank you in advance.

sarami wrote:

- fixed: /c option (skip returning error)

That works, but it only works for CMI reading, as soon as CMI reading is done and the drive reads the main data channel it aborts on those unreadable sectors.

PX-760A (+30), PX-W4824TA (+98), GSA-H42L (+667), GDR-8164B (+102), SH-D162D (+6), SOHD-167T (+12)

1,298

nightson wrote:

Just curious what the link number at the end of each line in the _subInfo.txt mean?

It's the line number of source code. No problem you ignore it.

iR0b0t wrote:

could you please add hash output for bluray command

Added it in test version.

iR0b0t wrote:

it aborts on those unreadable sectors.

Protection: continuous visible ring. <- What protect is this? What does ProtectionID and A-Ray Scanner says?

1,299

sarami wrote:

Protection: continuous visible ring. <- What protect is this? What does ProtectionID and A-Ray Scanner says?

I think its an unformatted area. I don't think any protection scanner will recognize it as a protection, but i can check later.

PX-760A (+30), PX-W4824TA (+98), GSA-H42L (+667), GDR-8164B (+102), SH-D162D (+6), SOHD-167T (+12)

1,300

sarami wrote:

It's the line number of source code. No problem you ignore it.

Thanks! This particular disc outputs huge subError.txt file. Is it normal?

I also noticed that the subError.txt will differ every time even for the same disc. The sub files always match though.

Another thing I don't understand: The _drive.txt file DIC 20180304 outputs always has a value in the WriteSpeed sections, while with DIC 20180419 the WriteSpeed is always 0KB/sec. Why was the write speed set when I'm just reading the disc?

========== SetSpeed ==========
        RequestType: CdromSetSpeed
          ReadSpeed: 1411KB/sec
         WriteSpeed: 199KB/sec
    RotationControl: CdromCAVRotation

Thanks!