| |
Knight Rider
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 116 |
If it were 1987 again....
I was watching Robin's video https://youtu.be/yVtKKb3wkYc regarding cracking from an original cassette. And it stirred a little interest in me again. To be honest I can't even remember how now but I cracked Wizball from original cassette using a Trilogic Expert (2nd version with botched ESM daughter board) and very likely V2.9 of the monitor software.
I did this again now on real hardware (as I wasn't having much luck with WinVICE 3.7), just for laughs and to try to stir up memories of way back then. Defeating Freeload now was much easier for me than back then.
I used the following packers:
MCC Compressor
then
Card Cruncher V4 (no idea who lent me this cartridge, but probably Tork&Torky)
(usual one was Matcham Time Cruncher V3.1 or a hacked version which ended up becoming Time Cruncher V3.1)
I ended up with 182 blocks incl. intro in Wizball
So it leads me to the next question, back in the day (for me) the best cracks had the smallest disk block size.
What packers did you use then on a real C64 in 1987, and what would you use now on real hardware (a. released upto 1987 and then anytime). What block size can you achieve ?
Exomizer V3.02 gives 144 blocks when no additional parameters are given.
TRIAD Wizball + is 166 with intro
Krejzi Packer $005E-$FFFF + Matcham Time Cruncher V3.1 gives 161 blocks
MCC Compressor + Matcham Time Cruncher V3.1 gives 165 blocks
Beast-Link/64k + Byte Boiler 256k V1.0 gives 148 blocks
Byte-Buster V4.1 + Byte Boiler 256k V1.0 gives 148 blocks |
|
... 84 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Fungus
Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 631 |
Quote: Save some more bytes:
bank ram
load "wb_0460-feff.prg" 0
;Dynamic Sprites
fill e140 e43f 00
fill e800 e83f 00
;Starfield Chars
fill f800 fad7 00
;End Memory
fill fd00 feff 00
;Game
save "wizball_clean.prg" 0 0460 fcff
Exactly, screens that become initialize and stuff too. I haven't looked at Wizball, but that's a good start. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 647 |
Quote: Save some more bytes:
bank ram
load "wb_0460-feff.prg" 0
;Dynamic Sprites
fill e140 e43f 00
fill e800 e83f 00
;Starfield Chars
fill f800 fad7 00
;End Memory
fill fd00 feff 00
;Game
save "wizball_clean.prg" 0 0460 fcff
It's worth noting however that if memory is saved from the original Ocean tape release using a breakpoint at 6389, before the game runs, then most of that memory is already clear or contains long compressible runs of c6/fe/ff. Which the exception of fd00- which doesn't need to be included in the compressed file, fd00 can be the end of file basically. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 647 |
Quote: It's worth noting however that if memory is saved from the original Ocean tape release using a breakpoint at 6389, before the game runs, then most of that memory is already clear or contains long compressible runs of c6/fe/ff. Which the exception of fd00- which doesn't need to be included in the compressed file, fd00 can be the end of file basically.
It's easier and more efficient just to clear out the temporary data before game execution, which includes partially corrupt screen and old colour bar effect data with:
f e000 ebff 00
f ed00 efff 00
This leaves the one time initialise code at $ec00 intact. |
| |
Knight Rider
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 116 |
After applying the following cleanups:
bank ram
load "wb_0400-feff_g6389.prg" 0
;Some $ee Memory
fill 4680 4716 00
;Shadow Highscore Table
fill bdb9 beb4 00
;Temporary Data Martin Piper
fill e000 ebff 00
fill eceb efff 00
;Starfield Chars
fill f800 fad7 00
;Game
save "wizball_clean.prg" 0 0460 fcff
I get the following results:
MCC Compressor + Matcham Time Cruncher V3.1 gives 160 blocks 40417 bytes
Byte-Buster V4.1 + Byte Boiler 256k V1.0 gives 143 blocks 36300 bytes
Dali V0.3.2 136 blocks or 34229 bytes
Exomizer V3.1.1 137 blocks or 34580 bytes |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 647 |
Nice. That's a lot smaller.
There is also some duplicate wiz tips data which can be blanked out. Depending on the publisher release. |
| |
Mason
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 459 |
Quote: I was watching Robin's video https://youtu.be/yVtKKb3wkYc regarding cracking from an original cassette. And it stirred a little interest in me again. To be honest I can't even remember how now but I cracked Wizball from original cassette using a Trilogic Expert (2nd version with botched ESM daughter board) and very likely V2.9 of the monitor software.
I did this again now on real hardware (as I wasn't having much luck with WinVICE 3.7), just for laughs and to try to stir up memories of way back then. Defeating Freeload now was much easier for me than back then.
I used the following packers:
MCC Compressor
then
Card Cruncher V4 (no idea who lent me this cartridge, but probably Tork&Torky)
(usual one was Matcham Time Cruncher V3.1 or a hacked version which ended up becoming Time Cruncher V3.1)
I ended up with 182 blocks incl. intro in Wizball
So it leads me to the next question, back in the day (for me) the best cracks had the smallest disk block size.
What packers did you use then on a real C64 in 1987, and what would you use now on real hardware (a. released upto 1987 and then anytime). What block size can you achieve ?
Exomizer V3.02 gives 144 blocks when no additional parameters are given.
TRIAD Wizball + is 166 with intro
Krejzi Packer $005E-$FFFF + Matcham Time Cruncher V3.1 gives 161 blocks
MCC Compressor + Matcham Time Cruncher V3.1 gives 165 blocks
Beast-Link/64k + Byte Boiler 256k V1.0 gives 148 blocks
Byte-Buster V4.1 + Byte Boiler 256k V1.0 gives 148 blocks
Most people did a reset cracks as they couldn't do a transfer routine for it
You mention Mr. Z and he for sure did his own transfer routine to transfer the files |
| |
Knight Rider
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 116 |
The Mr. Z one is the disk version and not the tape. |
| |
tlr
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 1730 |
Quote: The Mr. Z one is the disk version and not the tape.
What's different between the versions? I just assumed they are the same. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 647 |
Quote: What's different between the versions? I just assumed they are the same.
If you have a look at my video it notes some of the differences. Code and data changes resulting in different memory address offsets while opcodes are mostly the same.
What looks like different code builds. Some duplicate memory. |
| |
ws
Registered: Apr 2012
Posts: 235 |
Who carez, but i wanted to try. This is quite interesting.
I depacked the wizball FCG crack (?id=103990), did some shallow cleaning of some obvious freezer garbage in the e400+ area, and wrote a quick and dirty 0400-0800 restore and then tested the cruncher i liked back in the day, wich is not super, despite the name -
datel supercrunch: 187 blocks, 47.327 bytes - wow thats bad (but it is fast and easy to use).
then i just wanted to check what the exomizer does with my cleaned wiz:
exomizer: 140 blocks, 35.491 bytes
if i hadn't blindly ignored knight rider's nice cleanup tips, and my restore was - as usual - less superoldschoolsloppy,... maybemaybemaybe, but well...
nice crunchcompo. ;-)
@knight rider - that cracking from cassette video is superb. thank you! |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 - Next |
