Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

  1. We need to collect last month donation for our Servers,

    Click this link and Help Us:http://forum.gfxdomain.net/donate/

    If we help in yours works or study , please spend some money for us to pay ours servers

V-Ray 5 Beta for Max is out

Discussion in 'CGI News' started by roocoon, May 3, 2020.

  1. Simon

    Simon Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    904
    I just remind (in case the roocoon's memory gets worse and worse) that 3 weeks have been passed, but there's still no proofs of what he said...
     
    Archim likes this.
  2. roocoon

    roocoon Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,869
    Likes Received:
    638
    Is it 3 weeks already? Damn, time flies.
    A bit more will not hurt. An estimated 14 hours. I'm trying to recover a disk.
     
  3. roocoon

    roocoon Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,869
    Likes Received:
    638
    This is in response to your #29 post but should cover earlier related posts.


    1) Referring to 3.10.x
    [Yes, and the question was: if I couldn't find the right copy, then from where could I steal them?]

    I am to assume that the 3.10.x you picked up was the ONLY one you looked at? The various copies that were floated around by the original crack thief and the following "crackers", you just ignored?
    Sorry, no dice.

    2) While at it and to avoid repeating the same for the other products (VrayScanned, BRDFscanned, Phoenix and even the later *_previewers), these days they ALL can be patched the exact same way using the same patcher.
    Some, like Phoenix, don't require the whole gamut of patches the others do, but why bother if a patcher can do all of them in seconds? Excluding the time for setting up and compiling the dynamic patcher (if needed) of course.

    Reading behind the lines of the above statement, you could have picked up ANY crack of those modules and see how it's done. No reason to stick to some 3.10.x with different "summands".

    3) Referring to the "first fix" of that character that you say "Then why are you sure it was done blindly?", read what you answered to:
    [You forget I mentioned the first "fix" was done blindly with just vray.dll and no Max installed].

    Now maybe you can tell us how those "summands" you like to mention, can be deduced, if proper operation depends on their coordination with different values in different modules that you "presumably" don't have access to?
    Even Merlin would fail that I'm pretty sure :)

    4) Who says I don't like or appreciate analogies? Trees, branches, pruning and such. If you're familiar with Knuth, you'd like them too. I spent some of my best years alpha-beta pruning branches for chess programming until the technology and other interests left me behind. I know my trees :)

    As for your 'if all points are defined, then there's no "any number of ways", but some limited number of ways we could choose', you're just wrong (unless you talk about a 5-liner program).

    5) As for boundaries, there aren't any. My cracks are not a "property" per se unless I restrict their distribution. People will always try to copy, improve them or whatever. But I can still name those people for what they are.

    6) Any other things I might have missed, please refer to my earlier comments. Everything has been answered ad nauseam. My opinion about those products' crack releases, doesn't change in the least.


    And the one you've been waiting for :)

    7) I recovered my USB disk and luckily the file I had in mind.
    And guess what? It looks like I was wrong! Embarrassing.

    The crack dates were the exact same ones as your own crack's of that version (v1.4) with a slight difference in file size. Chopped up or protection of one or the other, I didn't bother to check.
    Not conclusive, so I asked a friend to search around the familiar places for other releases.
    You came up in the search with a v1.0 that was released some months before the one I had.

    With the information at hand, it looks like that Chinese guy ripped your crack. Join the club :)

    Therefore, I stand corrected. Profuse apologies.

    As far as Corona is involved, you're absolved of any copycat characterizations :)
     
  4. kp8232823

    kp8232823 Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2019
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    7
    yes, the newest version of FPack works with vray 5 and max 2021.
    The newest version is on this forum.
     
  5. Simon

    Simon Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    904
    Well, just notice that all this is showing that you're tending to say something without checking the facts and that your memory is not serving you well..

    I remind that the one that picked 3.10.01 was ... you.
    I said that the vray_BRDFScanned.dll was not included in any 3.X for max crack. You pointed to the one for Maya, I found the alive link where the BRDFScanned is patched wrong... Now I've found also 3.00.01, but it doesn't contain the one..
    So was there the right copy available? It's not about what you can find on your hdd, but what was shared and could be downloaded.

    I've also released 3.6 for SU/Rhino and 3.7 for max where the summands are different as well, so nope, no crack I could find and "pick up".
    But I've also said that this is not a big deal, we'll back to it below.

    What? Ok, to be clear:
    You're talking about the vray.dll, that is the part of Standalone/RT/V-Ray GPU, not the vray20XX.dll from the max root (thought it's almost the same), right?
    I've asked two times: Why the hell do you need Max, if the Stanalone (vray.exe) is enough in this case.. You've ignored that two times.
    Don't you really see the contradiction in your words?
    The other info only was from your memories (that can be far from truth, as we've already found), so I've asked why are you so sure if those threads were deleted.. where are the proofs? On the other hand, we can download and check his patches, so what would you choose, the facts or some assumptions?

    I've answered to this in my first comment, but ok, one more time:
    Without those summands (ok, what is a better word... "magic numbers"?) and without cutting the corners, you get the Render/Simulation license error, that shows you the right direction, then what is the best to do? Activate the Trial license to fish the right numbers, simple, right? Even Merlin would success if he could use a debugger+analyzer... I wouldn't say that if he couldn't do it :). And I wonder why you're saying that only "some toys" can be fixed that way, then it's just another toy.
    Regarding the 1rv4n's patches, well, there are no the numbers, what he's done is the cutting the corners and what I called "branches with leaves" and the "opposite side", like jumping over in VUtils::VRayCameraSampler::initRayContext() api. So what is the easier starting point to find this place, the function name or your patches? This is to the second part of the "boundaries" question that you ignored, btw:

    Yep, this one:
    "How any patches could be not copied from yours, if you call "copied" even those, which are the farest from yours and don't even look like them... Where is the room for any other way?
    Seriously, than more you repeat that, than more I believe that you didn't even check any patches. But if you did, then what we got: no matter what way/method/approach anybody could find and chose, it is stolen from yours anyway, right?"

    Wait a minute, are we dealing with the code lines (size) or with the points where we could break the protection logic? Is there infinite number of them? I mean the reasonable ones. And how is it matching with what you said before: "All program logic (protection or not) is trees and branches and all protected ones have one or more good to go points." ?

    So if there is a one single good patch point supposed to return "true", why not to patch it instead of some few others? And the minimum of what must be returned at this point is what required by the "upper" levels, you can't just return what you want, you only have some variants how to do that... Otherwise you must be the Merlin that could do anything, in spite of logic )
    And like I said before, the FumeFX is a good example (as I know that you cracked it too) to illustrate the same approach for the client-server logic, it is also not a "5-liner program", but I'd like to see how many ways you could find there and how many of them would be not crossed with my two released ones, apart from the server:)