Site  •  Wiki  •  FAQ  •  Login

SCD4

<<

FaRTy1billion

User avatar

Posts: 15

Joined: June 14th, 2009, 4:32 pm

Location: Utaj

Post July 1st, 2009, 4:36 pm

SCD4

'lo. As many probably know, I am still working on SCD4. I've outlined a system for patch packs (because they compress better than individual patches :P). Individual patches will still be supported 100% and I have absolutely no intentions on changing that.

Firstly, what sort of packs should I create? All I see necessary is a Mod package, StarCraft patches, Brood War patches, and an All package. For the Mod package, what are all the significant versions? Check my list... Add/remove whatever.
I have: sc1.00, bw1.07, bw1.10, bw1.11b, bw1.12b, bw1.13e, bw1.14, bw1.15.0, bw1.15.1, bw1.15.2, bw1.16.1


I'd like a bit of input on how packs are handled... They greatly complicate handling patching (though it is very possible and probably easier than I am making it in my mind) so I'm not entirely sure how to handle them.

1. I can make packs just add the specified patches and be done (like an installer.) It makes it really easy to download large amounts of patches as the packs have extremely high compression (All 56 patches available are <8MB in the pack). The decompressed files are much larger (All 56 patches decompressed are about 80 MB total).
2. Packs could be referenced like the patches are. With this option, users get to take advantage of the 1/10th disk usage. Though checking for duplicates would be a little complicated and get in the way ...
3. Packs could load/unload a "reference" patch to the list that just points to which pack it should patch from.

What I really need to know is how significant is the difference in 8MB and 80MB disk space for decompressed patches?
After typing this, I think I'm leaning toward #3 as it will give the benefit of the low disk requirement, and it will be much easier to implement with little error. (Select a patch to load. If it exists don't do it. If it doesn't create the reference. Select a patch to unload, delete the reference.)
Last edited by FaRTy1billion on July 1st, 2009, 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<<

Corbo

User avatar

Posts: 109

Joined: June 7th, 2009, 1:05 pm

Location: San Salvador, El Salvador

Post July 1st, 2009, 5:22 pm

Re: SCD4

I think you could make a full patch pack and a basic pack.

I wouldn't mind dling 8MBs and then uncompressing to 80MBs but there's people that do.
Unofficial Mod Night:
Image
Image
<<

FaRTy1billion

User avatar

Posts: 15

Joined: June 14th, 2009, 4:32 pm

Location: Utaj

Post July 1st, 2009, 8:11 pm

Re: SCD4

A nice thing about the 8MB staying that small is portability ... That's a new big thing.

One flaw is that it takes longer to decompress because it has to scan every file in the archive (there is 278 files in All.dp4 xD)...
<<

AofST

User avatar

Posts: 183

Joined: June 7th, 2009, 9:53 pm

Location: In the End of the World News

Post July 1st, 2009, 11:46 pm

Re: SCD4

... the fuck? There are still people who think that 80 MB is big? I may download at 4 kb/sec, but that pig won't fly mister. 80 MB is like the tip of a pin in the sea that is my portable harddrive.
Support my new site:
http://ideabirth.co.cc/
<<

FaRTy1billion

User avatar

Posts: 15

Joined: June 14th, 2009, 4:32 pm

Location: Utaj

Post July 2nd, 2009, 1:15 am

Re: SCD4

Would you want to download 80MBs from my slow server where it takes 15 minutes to download 1-2 MB? ;o
<<

Hercanic

User avatar

Site Admin

Posts: 478

Joined: June 6th, 2009, 12:25 am

Location: Korea

Post July 2nd, 2009, 4:21 am

Re: SCD4

You need a better server, then, Farty. =o)

*coughwinknudge*
<<

FaRTy1billion

User avatar

Posts: 15

Joined: June 14th, 2009, 4:32 pm

Location: Utaj

Post July 2nd, 2009, 5:44 pm

Re: SCD4

I need a better internet connection.* Though I suppose the computer itself has something to do with it.
<<

bajadulce

Posts: 102

Joined: June 7th, 2009, 2:53 pm

Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post July 3rd, 2009, 10:45 am

Re: SCD4

I don't see how something like a downgrader would require 80mb, but what do I know. I think when I used "true" files, i.e. the actual patch_rt.mpq, starcraft.exe, storm.dll, battle.snp, and standard.snp, the package was about 16mb. Heinermann gave me a lot of grief for such a big program and so I carefully went through each patch_rt.mpq and carefully accounted for everything that changed. I missed a few things that effected lan play, most notably the 1.10 setup, but after a few versions finally got it right and the program ended up being about 7mb.

The program works great is faster than shit and was happy how it turned out. It is trouble-free for 99% of all users and I use it without any problems. My own personal hotkeys that I've used for 10 years are also part of my personal copy. The other 1% of users and end user error/bad SC directory/files was too much to deal with and so I've pulled the program from "public" fuck em and screw all the stupid posts that go with something like this. I'll provide special version specific downgraders with any pre-1.16.1 mod I deal with. E-installers not being able to use old storm.dll such as 1.10 for Lan games was the final straw. Too much has changed with the e-installation as Blizzard obviously doesn't feel the need to support pre-1.15.2 Scraft anymore. I too am over anything prior to 1.15.2 and all the hassles of dealing with the no-cd issues etc as well as a non-bnet recognizable "cracked" starcraft.exe. Eventually MOST starcraft installations will be of this type. If I were to do it all over again, I would use Shadowflare's no-cd crack on something other that "starcraft.exe". I was under the impression that it only dealt with starcraft.exe, but was mistaken. That in itself would save a lot of grief in that users wouldn't have the "corrupted" bnet error message.

As for the current International Downgrader, SCV Selector made by a Korean is the #1 downgrader among the majority of ppl that will use a downgrader. That being the international Melee crew. This downgrader replaces the notoriously buggy 7xpatcher by our dear old friend BSW_Rama. I've downloaded the program and the thing is quite amazing and I'm very impressed. Maybe it's a little slow, but it has every version from 1.0 to 1.16.1 including a bunch of useful options. Most notably it is quite easy to use and there is no setup etc. Something I feel SCD3 was lacking. PPl want to be able to jump right into the program, click a file and be done with it. PPl don't want to have to download separate files and/or configure anything. Nor have to type anything etc in some window. wtf?

SCV Selector Web site.. gluck finding the actual download link as this is all in Korean.
Download:
SCV_Selector_Full.exe

Image

My biggest beef is I don't think "Downgrading" is necessary. If specific Firegraft versions would target something other than "starcraft.exe", then there would be no need to go through all this hoopla. With each version of Firegraft a version specific form of starcraft.exe would be placed in your starcraft folder where it would just hang out waiting for someone to play a mod built in that version. All mods built in that version would target the same file such as FG115.0.exe, FG115.1.exe, etc. All patch changes would be included in the FG generated .mpq itself. such as gluchat.bin, minimap_prieview.bin, etc.

To be really frank, I think all FGmods should be converted to 1.16.1 and let's just do away with dealing with e-installers, no-cd 1.15.2 setups etc. Really what's the point.

But don't let my banter keep you from building another Downgrader. Modders, what very few are still around, are a tight clique and somewhat fanatic about where they associate with, who's program they support, and even where they hang out. We tend to stick our noses and avoid the general SCraft community at a whole. Maybe because they've ignored us?. If the rest of the SCcommunity is doing one thing, or even if there is a better way for that matter, we'll be sure to stick to the complicated and outdated.
<<

Voyager

User avatar

Posts: 106

Joined: June 7th, 2009, 8:08 am

Post July 3rd, 2009, 11:04 am

Re: SCD4

The problem with upgrading everything to 1.16.1 is we'd lose EXE edits. And a lot of plugin stuff too...
(1:46:41 PM) STF Hercanic: This is Starcraft. There *is* no understanding it, only exhausted acceptance.
<<

bajadulce

Posts: 102

Joined: June 7th, 2009, 2:53 pm

Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post July 3rd, 2009, 11:13 am

Re: SCD4

I'll let Mauron answer that one.
<<

Voyager

User avatar

Posts: 106

Joined: June 7th, 2009, 8:08 am

Post July 3rd, 2009, 11:44 am

Re: SCD4

Well, I suppose someone could go and update everything to the 1.16.1 offsets but it's a lot of work. :P
(1:46:41 PM) STF Hercanic: This is Starcraft. There *is* no understanding it, only exhausted acceptance.
<<

Mauron

Posts: 33

Joined: June 13th, 2009, 7:53 pm

Post July 4th, 2009, 1:02 pm

Re: SCD4

It's very possible to update the EXE Edits manually in the latest version of Firegraft. It is a lot of work, but well worth it.
<<

FaRTy1billion

User avatar

Posts: 15

Joined: June 14th, 2009, 4:32 pm

Location: Utaj

Post July 5th, 2009, 7:10 pm

Re: SCD4

bajadulce wrote:I think when I used "true" files, i.e. the actual patch_rt.mpq, starcraft.exe, storm.dll, battle.snp, and standard.snp, the package was about 16mb.
Without any sort of redundancy removal or recycling, I have trouble compressing all of that to sizes such as that. Those are the only files I use... Even the 7x patcher was like 40+ MB uncompressed, and it had far fewer patches than I have.
bajadulce wrote:...but after a few versions finally got it right and the program ended up being about 7mb.
That is how big I got mine without deleting anything and it has both SC and BW patches. SCD3's main issue was I tried to make it not have all the data in one block because I couldn't compress it well, and then I was too lazy to properly implement that. SCD4 fixes all of that.
Hercanic suggested a mod library feature for SCD4 (that I plan on implementing) that will automatically patch your StarCraft depending on the mod you play so you don't need to worry about downgrading yourself.

EDIT:
So I downloaded and looked at the SCVWhatever. It is much larger than SCD4 (12 MB > 8 MB) and does not provide nearly the number of patches (though, I suppose, BW also includes original SC) and has fewer features. I suppose with this being only 7 MB I could entirely scrap the separate patches ... Except for as newer versions come out, the Create Patch feature makes it much easier for users to be up-to-date.
SCD4 patches a lot faster and actually remembers settings. O.o

EDIT2:
So I decided to keep anything I already have coded (individual patches, automatic patch creation, patch references), but I will put more focus on packs because they are smaller and easier for the user to manage. The program will internally list packs, list all patches found within the packs, and then list loose patches. Loose patches have the highest priority, and then the order of packs determines the pack priority (usually, though, there will be one pack so this will be irrelevant).
<<

Hercanic

User avatar

Site Admin

Posts: 478

Joined: June 6th, 2009, 12:25 am

Location: Korea

Post July 6th, 2009, 12:55 am

Re: SCD4

Hm, I'd give feedback if I understood the problem better. You're grouping patches into packs, which by being all together have better compression? Okay, so it'll download the 8MB compressed pack, but when uncompressed we've got 80MB of disk space used? And this is a problem? So you're looking at different approaches to uncompressing only certain files, or...what?

I can understand wanting to minimize an 80MB download, but once on someone's system, 80MB isn't that much. Thumb/Flash drives are incredibly cheap nowadays at several gigs. If transporting, is the ability to re-compress not possible?

All I know is I like having all the patches at my fingertips easily with no fuss. Size is not an issue for me, nor is download time.

One thing I must confess is, although SCD3 is very easy to use once you try it, long ago I hesitated using it for a while because I wasn't sure how the patching worked and whether there were any risks involved.
<<

FaRTy1billion

User avatar

Posts: 15

Joined: June 14th, 2009, 4:32 pm

Location: Utaj

Post July 6th, 2009, 1:42 pm

Re: SCD4

I've pretty much scrapped the idea for decompressing the files. That would just add unnecessary time and effort for everyone (coding and using). I think I'll just make it come with all the patches (at 8mb), but still support individual patches (which are used for the user-created patches).
<<

Hydrolisk

User avatar

Posts: 165

Joined: June 17th, 2009, 2:42 pm

Location: Peak of the spire.

Post November 18th, 2009, 11:58 pm

Re: SCD4

How goes the progress of your endeavour?

Return to Discuss

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
phpBBST Software