Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Multi Converter - Cheats decrypter/converter/editor and much more
#31
Update:
Version 2.1 Released
  • Added Exit menu to the tray icon menu
  • Used the same display method for the cheats enable\disable info as the save states(no ugly tooltip anymore)
  • Some small adjustments on displaying the preview after pressing F1 to save a state and create the preview
  • BugFix: And back to the actual program..if pcsx2 is started but you didn't start a game yet(or the console don't have the needed info yet),you won't be able to load any codes.
Reply

Sponsored links

#32
hello ive been trying to get some cheats to work in ff12 it find the cheats but dosnt load them for some reason i cant get any to work for final fantasy 12
Reply
#33
Since the program have many ways to create pnach file,you need to tell me exactly what are you doing because there may be tons of reasons why the cheats are not working.
Reply
#34
while i convert it i put the name of it down it finds the cheats just not loading

I went to code breaker got some codes and came up with this
gametitle=Final Fantasy XII (USA)
//patch=1,EE,203B404C,extended,00031140
//patch=1,EE,203B4054,extended,00031140

//patch=1,EE,4054A128,extended,00070071
//patch=1,EE,00000003,extended,00000000

//patch=1,EE,4054A154,extended,00100071
//patch=1,EE,00000BB5,extended,00000000

also used ur multiconverter to get that from gameshark codes

placed into my cheats /enabled and ran the game it found the cheats just no load and i didnt get the effect from it
Reply
#35
All of those codes are disabled.
//patch mean disabled.

Start the converter,load the codes into the Pnach side,click on the To RAW button and then on To Pnach button.
This will remove all of the //
Then save and try again

PS.you don't need to pm me every time
Reply
#36
kk thanks it loaded but my files became corrupt my files for some reason.
Reply
#37
By "files" what do you mean...pnach files or memory card saves.
The program can't in any way corrupt memory card saves but cheats you are using can

Edit:If I remember correctly there are some cheats for that game that when enabled and try to load memory card save,it will say that the save is corrupter(it's not corrupted but it won't allow you to load the save if the codes are enabled.
Reply
#38
vsub, I'm trying to batch convert old pnach codes to the new memory address range;
patch=1,EE,005CD208,word,00000078
becomes
patch=1,EE,205CD208,word,00000078

Are you planning on adding functionality for that in one of your apps or can you advise me another safe & efficient way to do it?
Of course I can do a search and replace for patch=1,EE,0 to patch=1,EE,2 but that seems kinda risky and unclean.
Reply
#39
(11-26-2012, 02:32 PM)dharthoorn Wrote: vsub, I'm trying to batch convert old pnach codes to the new memory address range;
patch=1,EE,005CD208,word,00000078
becomes
patch=1,EE,205CD208,word,00000078

Are you planning on adding functionality for that in one of your apps or can you advise me another safe & efficient way to do it?
Of course I can do a search and replace for patch=1,EE,0 to patch=1,EE,2 but that seems kinda risky and unclean.

There is a strong misunderstanding of concepts there.

Changing from 0 to 2 means nothing if "word" is used, and probably it is wrong in that code.

That is one those cases is hard to tell the real length but it could be it is indeed a byte length and in that case the correct code is the first one and you just need to replace the token "word" for extended and the cheat engine will know it's a byte. if you change to 2 and use "extended" the engine will place all those zeroes there possibly erasing more than should.

To understand a bit more, if using explicit length (byte; short; and word) all codes must have 0 or 2 for the first digit, they are almost the same thing for 2 there points to a mirror of the 0 range.

But then you would need to change a code starting by digit 1 (which tell it is a short) to 0 or 2... and then, later on the same doubt would arise.

For that reason the "extended" should be preferred when creating new codes for it preserves the first digit (and MUST do) and the length will never be doubtful.

But to use extended when conforming old pnach files one need to understand that in the "original raw code" 0 means "byte", 1 = short and 2 = word and these digits msut never be changed to 0 or 2.

Just for clearness sake. Understand than when you use "byte" only the two last digits (a byte) are poked into the memory. when using "short" 2 bytes will be poked (the last four digits even if they are zeros) and "word" will poke all those 4 bytes (8 digits) including 00es and then, if wrongly defined it means all the adjacent bytes will be erased by mistake... with possible dreadful consequences.
Imagination is where we are truly real
Reply
#40
(11-26-2012, 05:17 PM)nosisab Ken Keleh Wrote: There is a strong misunderstanding of concepts there.

Changing from 0 to 2 means nothing if "word" is used, and probably it is wrong in that code.

That is one those cases is hard to tell the real length but it could be it is indeed a byte length and in that case the correct code is the first one and you just need to replace the token "word" for extended and the cheat engine will know it's a byte. if you change to 2 and use "extended" the engine will place all those zeroes there possibly erasing more than should.

To understand a bit more, if using explicit length (byte; short; and word) all codes must have 0 or 2 for the first digit, they are almost the same thing for 2 there points to a mirror of the 0 range.

But then you would need to change a code starting by digit 1 (which tell it is a short) to 0 or 2... and then, later on the same doubt would arise.

For that reason the "extended" should be preferred when creating new codes for it preserves the first digit (and MUST do) and the length will never be doubtful.

But to use extended when conforming old pnach files one need to understand that in the "original raw code" 0 means "byte", 1 = short and 2 = word and these digits msut never be changed to 0 or 2.

Just for clearness sake. Understand than when you use "byte" only the two last digits (a byte) are poked into the memory. when using "short" 2 bytes will be poked (the last four digits even if they are zeros) and "word" will poke all those 4 bytes (8 digits) including 00es and then, if wrongly defined it means all the adjacent bytes will be erased by mistake... with possible dreadful consequences.

I don't get it at all... please bear with me. I do have 10+ years experience debugging and I think we are having a massive miscommunication here.
For hacking I use live debuggers and convert my codes to pnach format later so I am relatively new to the pnach syntax. Please correct me where I am wrong so I may learn and understand.

The way I understand it, 005CD208 and 205CD208 point at totally different physical addresses regardless of how many bytes you are going to poke. Anything under the 20000000 address range is PCSX2 decompiler area (read it in some post somewhere by vsub iirc) and therefore not much use other than messing with PCSX2 dc OPcodes (not that I've even tried).

I have never used extended address format because 8byte values are so very rare to see. I don't even know the proper syntax to use for extended in .pnach rules but I do know the first digit of the address you specify comes into play.

Also I have checked some of my own codes that are upwards in the 20000000 range and when I replace the 2 with a 0 the data in that range is absolutely nothing alike. So I do not see this mirrored data you refer to at all. I do remember reading that for some reason the PCSX engine vram area shifted upwards to the new base address of 20000000. That is why some old codes (except extended?) can be converted by adding that amount to the original code.

Lastly, (and sadly) I am no stranger to unintended stack overflows or accidental Opcode overwrites. Normally it's quite easy to see how many bytes are used for specific register so I rarely make such a mistake by mere oversight. Then again...it happens.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)