XTool - Successor of ZTool

[alfredd31]

to doofoo24: what liblz4 did you use for cod aw?

[alfredd31]

I already tried this one, it doesn't expand anything (Only tried imagefile1.pak). Did you use xtool.ini?
I used this:
packcmd = xtool.exe erecomp:t4:v:c32:lz4 - - <stdin> <stdout>

By the way, note that you can find some of my repacks - Quantum Break (23.3 Gb) and outlast 2 (10.2Gb) on ygg if you are interested. You can erase this, I'm sure it's against the rules of the forum.

[Razor12911]

Originally Posted by alfredd31

I already tried this one, it doesn't expand anything (Only tried imagefile1.pak). Did you use xtool.ini?
I used this:
packcmd = xtool.exe e:precomp:t4:v:c32:lz4 - - <stdin> <stdout>

By the way, note that you can find some of my repacks - Quantum Break (23.3 Gb) and outlast 2 (10.2Gb) on ygg if you are interested. You can erase this, I'm sure it's against the rules of the forum.

@everyone

Please make sure the command line is correct first.

"e:precomp:t4:v:c32:lz4" is heavily incorrect

[KaktoR]

Originally Posted by alfredd31

I already tried this one, it doesn't expand anything (Only tried imagefile1.pak). Did you use xtool.ini?
I used this:
packcmd = xtool.exe e:precomp:t4:v:c32:lz4 - - <stdin> <stdout>

As razor sayd, options are incorrect.

This one is correct

packcmd = xtool.exe e:precomp:t4,v,c32m:lz4 - - <stdin> <stdout>

{options} must be seperated by a comma (,), not a colon (:).

And you forgot a "m" for chunk size.

[elit]

Originally Posted by Razor12911

Update available

- fixed 2gb+ input issue... (int32 instead of int64 :()

Lol I know alright, same trap happened to me with my rawinjector ^_^.

Originally Posted by Razor12911

Edit xtool.ini, add all the dat files in there

[CODE][Dunia2]
File1=C:\Program Files (x86)\Far Cry 3 Complete Collection\Far Cry 3\data_win32\common.dat
File2=C:\Program Files (x86)\Far Cry 3 Complete Collection\Far Cry 3\data_win32\ige.dat
...

Now this is nice step forward, to support files like this that are perhaps not easy to detect. I would love to see this going even further in the future, where user could script offsets and data reading with few commands. Example:

HEAD "0f3b4c5b"
SKIP 125
CMPSZ 8
DECMPSZ 8
READ CMPSZ DECMPSZ

Above example would mean: find first/next header with "0f3b4c5b" bytes, then skip 125 bytes, then read 64bit integer that is compressed size, then same for decompressed size, then read and precomp next CMPSZ bytes with above info, repeat until EOF.

Idea is that most engines have similar structures, there are some headers, some data to skip, there is CMP and DECMP sizes info in between and then actual compressed data chunks. So instead of keeping maintenance for every new game/engine which rely on Razor to be here for us and kind enough to work on updates, this would make xtool more forward compatible for the future games without needing to constantly updating it. At least until codecs API's change. I know it will not be enough for every future game but it should cover plenty of them.

Originally Posted by KaktoR

This one is correct

packcmd = xtool.exe e:precomp:t4,v,c32m:lz4 - - <stdin> <stdout>

{options} must be seperated by a comma (,), not a colon (:).

I apologize for stupid question but was there specific reason for using extra "precomp" word, aka e:precomp... instead of just e:... d:... as was in ztool? To me it seems redundant as e: and d: already imply default behavior(encode vs decode) and precomp seem'd to me at first confused with precomp tool by schnaader. Also using different separators, aka ',' and ':' for specific areas of cmd make it prone to type error, as happened to me before and I seem to be not the only person. Pure ':'s in ztool were fine and easier for inclussion with other utilities IMO. BTW I am not complaining, this tool is fantastic and ultimate, just being curious about new design.

[Andu21]

Originally Posted by elit

I apologize for stupid question but was there specific reason for using extra "precomp" word, aka e:precomp... instead of just e:... d:... as was in ztool? To me it seems redundant as e: and d: already imply default behavior(encode vs decode) and precomp seem'd to me at first confused with precomp tool by schnaader.

Only explanation i find is that xtool won't be limited to pre-compression only. I might be talking gibberish here and it's just a redundant word as you say. ;)

[ShivShubh]

Originally Posted by Andu21

Only explanation i find is that xtool won't be limited to pre-compression only. I might be talking gibberish here and it's just a redundant word as you say.

Razor certainly has plans to implement already exisiting compressors into xtool like razor,lolz etc... with stdio support to make it a universal tool but I might be also talking gibberish here, only Razor knows

[Razor12911]

Originally Posted by elit

I apologize for stupid question but was there specific reason for using extra "precomp" word, aka erecomp... instead of just e:... d:... as was in ztool? To me it seems redundant as e: and d: already imply default behavior(encode vs decode) and precomp seem'd to me at first confused with precomp tool by schnaader. Also using different separators, aka ',' and ':' for specific areas of cmd make it prone to type error, as happened to me before and I seem to be not the only person. Pure ':'s in ztool were fine and easier for inclussion with other utilities IMO. BTW I am not complaining, this tool is fantastic and ultimate, just being curious about new design.

There methods planned apart from precomp to be added in xtool, stuff like preprocessing of data, encryption, data reconstruction (rebuild), compression and etc.

Originally Posted by felice2011

Razor but for the decompression of the archive the folder can only contain the file xtool.exe, without any *.dll right?

xtool requires dll at all times, even zlib requires dll. no code of compresssion algorithms are stored within xtool except for special cases but even those special cases do not execute if a specific dll that goes hand in hand with aren't available.

Originally Posted by dixen

And?

And I think there is something wrong with the parser for FAT v9 (FC3, FC4) for big dat files, I kinda rushed adding this feature without conducting any proper tests.

Originally Posted by KaktoR

Yes tested with 0.9 and 0.10

Compressing 122 files, 69,051,449,344 bytes. Processed  10.0% ==>> xtool
Compressing 69,353,227,695 bytes with ==>> srep

Correction: xtool is just working for about ~250mb, then stop

Bugs everything, when are they gonna stop .... -_-