Striker no 9, what protection?

BarryB · 10 November 2021, 19:59

Have a copy of the budget release of Striker no 9 (impressions/energize) and it looks like there are 2 long tracks on both sides of track 0, HxC shows them as 102764 bitcells, so is this the protection?

dlfrsilver · 10 November 2021, 22:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarryB

Have a copy of the budget release of Striker no 9 (impressions/energize) and it looks like there are 2 long tracks on both sides of track 0, HxC shows them as 102764 bitcells, so is this the protection?

Good question do you have a dump handy ? I will confirm that to you

BarryB · 11 November 2021, 14:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

Good question do you have a dump handy ? I will confirm that to you

I'll send you the dump later today

It's also one of those games where the Joystick has to be plugged into the mouse port!

dlfrsilver · 12 November 2021, 05:28

After having a look, it appears that only track 0 is duplicated. All tracks from 01 to 79 are seen as written on an Amiga.

We need an amiga coder to check if the track 0 is used as a copy protection. I have no indication that it is at the moment.

ross · 12 November 2021, 09:38

If you put it into the Zone tonight i look at it

dlfrsilver · 12 November 2021, 10:33

ok, Ross, once back home this evening, i will up the file.

BarryB · 12 November 2021, 17:55

Doesn't look like it was written on an Amiga?

ross · 12 November 2021, 20:49

Visually cylinder 0 seems with short cells (considering the normal 11 sectors, so long track).
But no idea if some protection based on 'distance' from index is used, only code inspection could say it.
Interesting that lower track 0 'end early' and the upper one 'starts late'.

BarryB · 12 November 2021, 21:29

I've uploaded a CT RAW of my dump to The Zone, Denis will probably upload a proper IPF as well!

ross · 12 November 2021, 23:00

There seems to be no protection.
Likely it was the replication-machine that by default used short cells on the first cylinder.

BarryB · 13 November 2021, 00:32

I was going by the cracks in TOSEC that seem to imply it's protected, but now that could be only the retail release is protected, not the budget release I have. So going by your analysis it does appear the budget release isn't protected!

dlfrsilver · 13 November 2021, 09:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarryB

Doesn't look like it was written on an Amiga?

It shows that some tracks are modified

BarryB · 13 November 2021, 11:53

I've seen official IPF's that look similar in HxC though, some tracks not fully index aligned, but those can't have been modified or they won't be in IPF!

10 November 2021, 19:59	#1
BarryB Amigaholic Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: UK Posts: 4,676	Striker no 9, what protection? Have a copy of the budget release of Striker no 9 (impressions/energize) and it looks like there are 2 long tracks on both sides of track 0, HxC shows them as 102764 bitcells, so is this the protection?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Striker/Super Striker by Parker/Palitoy	lolafg	Retrogaming General Discussion	7	16 October 2012 20:56
Striker (Rage)	haynor666	HOL contributions	10	03 September 2008 20:17
Striker Original ADF	dlfrsilver	request.Old Rare Games	2	07 October 2007 23:04
striker no 9	newge	request.Old Rare Games	9	18 May 2002 03:48

12 November 2021, 05:28	#4
dlfrsilver CaptainM68K-SPS France Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Melun nearby Paris/France Age: 46 Posts: 10,412	After having a look, it appears that only track 0 is duplicated. All tracks from 01 to 79 are seen as written on an Amiga. We need an amiga coder to check if the track 0 is used as a copy protection. I have no indication that it is at the moment.

12 November 2021, 09:38	#5
ross Defendit numerus Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Crossing the Rubicon Age: 53 Posts: 4,468	If you put it into the Zone tonight i look at it

12 November 2021, 10:33	#6
dlfrsilver CaptainM68K-SPS France Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Melun nearby Paris/France Age: 46 Posts: 10,412	ok, Ross, once back home this evening, i will up the file.

12 November 2021, 17:55	#7
BarryB Amigaholic Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: UK Posts: 4,676	Doesn't look like it was written on an Amiga?

12 November 2021, 20:49	#8
ross Defendit numerus Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Crossing the Rubicon Age: 53 Posts: 4,468	Visually cylinder 0 seems with short cells (considering the normal 11 sectors, so long track). But no idea if some protection based on 'distance' from index is used, only code inspection could say it. Interesting that lower track 0 'end early' and the upper one 'starts late'.

12 November 2021, 21:29	#9
BarryB Amigaholic Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: UK Posts: 4,676	I've uploaded a CT RAW of my dump to The Zone, Denis will probably upload a proper IPF as well!

12 November 2021, 23:00	#10
ross Defendit numerus Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Crossing the Rubicon Age: 53 Posts: 4,468	There seems to be no protection. Likely it was the replication-machine that by default used short cells on the first cylinder.

13 November 2021, 00:32	#11
BarryB Amigaholic Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: UK Posts: 4,676	I was going by the cracks in TOSEC that seem to imply it's protected, but now that could be only the retail release is protected, not the budget release I have. So going by your analysis it does appear the budget release isn't protected!

13 November 2021, 11:53	#13
BarryB Amigaholic Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: UK Posts: 4,676	I've seen official IPF's that look similar in HxC though, some tracks not fully index aligned, but those can't have been modified or they won't be in IPF!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)