Editing Talk:PARAM.SFO
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
***Who is the responsible of loading parts sellectivelly from each of them ?, is just by the presence of the same param_key's in the internall SFO ?. In this case the third byte of ATRIBUTE should be an exception of this rule because the ATTRIBUTE flags in the patch (overwrite flags) uses the third byte, but ATTRIBUTE flags in the disc in third byte are readed too because contains features that are not overwrited (as game purchase enabled, install packages, etc...) | ***Who is the responsible of loading parts sellectivelly from each of them ?, is just by the presence of the same param_key's in the internall SFO ?. In this case the third byte of ATRIBUTE should be an exception of this rule because the ATTRIBUTE flags in the patch (overwrite flags) uses the third byte, but ATTRIBUTE flags in the disc in third byte are readed too because contains features that are not overwrited (as game purchase enabled, install packages, etc...) | ||
***XMB database stores a copy of all PARAM.SFO's. Is posible the 2 files (SFO from disc, and SFO from his patch) are merged before indexed in database ? (or some of his values, more specifically the resulting of applying the overwrite flags from the patch) | ***XMB database stores a copy of all PARAM.SFO's. Is posible the 2 files (SFO from disc, and SFO from his patch) are merged before indexed in database ? (or some of his values, more specifically the resulting of applying the overwrite flags from the patch) | ||
==CONTENT_ID, NP_COMMUNICATION_ID, NPCOMMID (Network and purchase features)== | ==CONTENT_ID, NP_COMMUNICATION_ID, NPCOMMID (Network and purchase features)== |