Difference between revisions of "Talk:SARC (File Format)"

From MK8
Jump to: navigation, search
m (sig)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
::: Ah good, nice to have some sort of proof. Don't worry, better to submit a theory that leads to the correct answer than to do nothing :)
 
::: Ah good, nice to have some sort of proof. Don't worry, better to submit a theory that leads to the correct answer than to do nothing :)
 
::: [[User:Chadderz|Chadderz]] ([[User talk:Chadderz|talk]]) 06:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 
::: [[User:Chadderz|Chadderz]] ([[User talk:Chadderz|talk]]) 06:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
: Yea, I also thought that. This format is used in mk7 aswell, and there are no filenames in the file name table. In the ram there are paths to files (with subdirs), so this got to be a hash.
+
 
 +
: Yea, I also thought that. This format is used in mk7 aswell, and there are no filenames in the file name table. In the ram there are paths to files (with subdirs), so this got to be a hash. --[[User:Gericom|Gericom]] ([[User talk:Gericom|talk]]) 08:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:51, 24 August 2014

Node Hash

I'm pretty sure that the value at offset 0x00 in the node structure is a hash of the filename or an ID, because I have found a stripped archive; one in which the SFNT table is empty. The only plausible way to index the files would therefore be to use this value, the values being sorted supports this hypothesis. Chadderz (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That makes much more sense than my "percentage" theory. Then the files would be sorted by this hash. --Celcodioc (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Just checked it by comparing 2 different archives that contain an identical file. Definitely a hash, sorry for entering the wrong info. --Celcodioc (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah good, nice to have some sort of proof. Don't worry, better to submit a theory that leads to the correct answer than to do nothing :)
Chadderz (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yea, I also thought that. This format is used in mk7 aswell, and there are no filenames in the file name table. In the ram there are paths to files (with subdirs), so this got to be a hash. --Gericom (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)