Halo 3 Retail Game Research

Eaton · Post by **Eaton** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:37 am

Unless he releases the source code for us to look at, it is false.

Aumaan Anubis · Post by **Aumaan Anubis** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:49 am

Eaton wrote:Unless he releases the source code for us to look at, it is false.

If you can't prove it, then you have no right to make the claim.

xzodia · Post by **xzodia** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:49 am

Eaton wrote:Unless he releases the source code for us to look at, it is false.

where is the logic in that? not that it matters really

Dalek · Post by **Dalek** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:53 am

Aumaan Anubis wrote:
Btw, why's the Map name Snowbound...
but it shows Valhalla...

Maybe is a Background?

Aumaan Anubis · Post by **Aumaan Anubis** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:25 am

Dalek wrote:
Aumaan Anubis wrote:
Btw, why's the Map name Snowbound...
but it shows Valhalla...
Maybe is a Background?

I guess that's possble. It'd make more sense to have the opened map as a background when that certain map opens, but yeah. I guess you're probably right.

Supermodder911 · Post by **Supermodder911** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:06 pm

I have the Full Source Code and no it dosn't Resign Anything, Not even the Header Hash.

It was developed by Someone.

With That Said And the App proven to completely do nothing, I think We should continue the discussion of Halo 3 Research.

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:10 pm

Official end of discussion about the stupid program someone made to be cool. It does not do anything.

Supermodder911 · Post by **Supermodder911** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:21 pm

*Wonders why the BLF Image struct is not filled in

Code: Select all

    struct BLFImageFile
    {
        string _blf; // Len4
        byte[] unk1; // Len48
        int fileSize; // Size of the File
        byte[] unk2; // Len8
        int imgSize;  // Size of ImgBuffer in bytes
        byte[] ImgBuffer;  // Either PNG or JFIF
        byte[] hash; // Len 272?
    }

I'll check out the .mapInfo ones later.

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:41 pm

the blf header is its own, it is very common throughout the rest of the halo 3 content files.

you should have it labeled separately

Supermodder911 · Post by **Supermodder911** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:45 pm

Anthony wrote: you should have it labeled separately

Yea.

Prey · Post by **Prey** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:16 am

Alright thanks, added. Also made the "_eof" footer its own entity.

Supermodder911 · Post by **Supermodder911** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:59 pm

The BLF footer length is not always 272 I have gotten 273 on multiple occasions.

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:07 pm

There is a 4 char identifier then a uint size. This is found throughout any halo 3 content file.

char[4] headerType
uint headerSize

Then it will be followed by the header specific data.

here is the basic layout of the Blf

Code: Select all

char[4] _blf//0
uint headerSize//4
short unknown//8
short unknown//10
short unknown//12
char[34] blfDescription (ASCII)//14 (describes the file. found in some files)

Supermodder911 · Post by **Supermodder911** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:28 pm

Cool.

Code: Select all

struct EOFFooter
    {
        string Word_eof; // Len4
        int footerSize; // The size of the footer in bytes, Including the "_eof"
        byte[] Unk1;     // Len footerSize - 8
    }

SPARTAN-OMEGA · Post by **SPARTAN-OMEGA** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:56 pm

[quote="hollow121314"][quote="xI_V3n93ance_Ix"]They cant do anythign right now ... they cant test the stuff they

Supermodder911 · Post by **Supermodder911** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:59 pm

[quote="SPARTAN-OMEGA"][quote="hollow121314"][quote="xI_V3n93ance_Ix"]They cant do anythign right now ... they cant test the stuff they

SPARTAN-OMEGA · Post by **SPARTAN-OMEGA** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:06 pm

Super, my bad, and I was saying Ive heard anthony has a modified default.xex that ignores the checksum, could he clearify if thats true?

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:12 pm

Honestly, whether he does or does not has no impact on this thread at all.

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:16 pm

SPARTAN-OMEGA wrote:Super, my bad, and I was saying Ive heard anthony has a modified default.xex that ignores the checksum, could he clearify if thats true?

correct

SPARTAN-OMEGA · Post by **SPARTAN-OMEGA** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:42 pm

Anthony wrote:
SPARTAN-OMEGA wrote:Super, my bad, and I was saying Ive heard anthony has a modified default.xex that ignores the checksum, could he clearify if thats true?
correct

OK, Thank you, and your not releasing it until CFW comes out so no one mods on XBL?