PDA

View Full Version : SecuROM *new* V4.x (V2) and Buffer Underrun Protection = Problem?



karlmueller
27.10.2003, 18:21
Could it make problems if the buffer underrun protection steps in when burning a RMPS-Backup of a SecuRom *new* V4.x protected game? Sometimes when i burn with 52x speed and the CD-Rs are not so good the recorder (LITE-ON LTR-52246S) stops the recording process for a monet and then continue with 24x speed. Do you think it could be a problem if this happens during the recording process of a RMPS-Backup of a SecuRom *new* V4.x protected game?

Thank You!!!

Copytrooper
27.10.2003, 18:49
No :mrgreen: everything will be fine!

karlmueller
27.10.2003, 19:21
Are you sure? Isn't it possible that the error wich happens when the buffer underrun proteciton steps in could canche the delays for wich SecuRom is cecking?

Thank You

Copytrooper
27.10.2003, 19:37
No, 'cause the RMPS emulation emulates the physical structure, so it won't be a problem.

karlmueller
27.10.2003, 19:49
I think it doesn't completly emulates the physical structur, because a copy of a RMPS copy dosn't works. And if the original works not perfectly in a drive the RMPS copy also donsn't works perfectly in this drive. If the physical structure is completly emulated this couldn't happen in my oppinion. I think a part is emulated and the other part (the part of physical structor wich are the same on the origianl and CD-R) were readed physically. Or I am completly wrong with this?

Thank You

Copytrooper
27.10.2003, 20:08
I think it doesn't completly emulates the physical structur, because a copy of a RMPS copy dosn't works.
For sure a copy of a RMPS copy works! You just have to disable RMPS emulation while creating the copy, 'cause with enabled RMPS emulation youÒ‘ll get 1:1 backup of original cd (!) without (!) RMPS/DPM data.


And if the original works not perfectly in a drive the RMPS copy also donsn't works perfectly in this drive.
How do you expect the emulation to be better than check of original!? If copyprotection check fails it's failure of protection!

karlmueller
28.10.2003, 09:47
OK

Thank You!!!