好像没人发。。。。。FLT关于SKIDROW吐槽的声明

dreamboyn81

SCENE NOTES:
  ============

  After advanced analysis of vague claims  in  Prototype.2.Proper-SKIDROW,  we
  want to reply with our conclusion of things.

  To begin, we should have a quick look at a similar situation, where  an  EMU
  was compared with a better rebuilded crack and lead to a proper. The  latest
  target it happened with was The Dark Eye - Chains of Satinav. Here you  have
  data to compare up against, to determine if the proper is valid or not.
  Examples are given like:

  Load to menu with intro videos = 47 vs. 28 seconds ( SR vs. RLD )
  Load to menu, intro vids skipped = 38 vs. 19 seconds ( SR vs. RLD )
  Load new game = 16 vs. 10 seconds ( SR vs. RLD )

  On the first view it looks overwhelming. Then when you take  a  closer  look
  you should asking, "How long does the original exe take in time?".  Here  we
  have Securom as protection, what is known to slow down a game's  performance
  in  general,  with  more  protection  features  activated,  the  more  of  a
  performance hit you might see in theory. In  our  opinion  a  group's  crack
  should run at least as good as the original retail  released  exe  does.  If
  developers find it acceptable that the user has to  deal  with  Securom  and
  the longer loading times (if any) are exceptable for them, then this is  not
  a release group's problem.  When  would  you  consider  to  draw  the  line?
  Say another group found a way to make it load even quicker than  RLDs  by  a
  couple seconds, should that be enough for a proper?  GameISO groups  in  the
  scene again are not here to improve a game's general playability with a full
  release or fix any bugs that an update will take care of.

  In the case of The Dark Eye, SKIDROW's crack still misses the mark  to  even
  compete with the original, normally such a giantic time  difference  is  not
  the norm. And still, they refused to accept the proper.

  This small excursion should give a first overview,  on  how  a  good  proper
  reason can look. It has proof given, and can be recreated easily by  anyone.
  But the most important thing is, that the proper crack runs as good  as  the
  original game or even better. Your crack is the opposite,  slower  than  the
  original. RELOADED  has  even  released  games  with  Solidshield  activated
  offline by way of a keygen which is a valid release, the game plays  exactly
  like the original. RELOADED also seems to grasp the  idea  with  CRACK  ONLY
  releases like this, not a full 2 DVD pack because your claim  is  the  other
  exe is slower. If the game  did  not  work,  then  a  full  release  can  be
  neccessary.

  During the last few years the acceptance to  use,  more  or  less,  emulated
  parts in a crack was basically ignored.  So  a  comparison  between  a  more
  emulated crack like we have in Protoype 2 and, like you  claim,  a  complete
  rebuild of the protected game exe, is not a general reason to proper.

  The strange thing about your proper is, that you seem to  have  problems  to
  really prove anything you've stated. Now should it be  up  to  the  original
  group that pred the game have to debunk your accusations when  no  proof  is
  provided? This is the job of the group wanting to release a proper, and then
  state found proof in the nfo of the proper release. You say, our  method  to
  calculate right values slows down the runtime and it  COULD  lead  to  false
  results or COULD crash. This is all speculation, nor even a fact with  proof
  YOU MUST provide, not us having to provide proof of false claims.

  When someone has read your claims, they would  expect  that  our  game  runs
  like crap and a shit storm is brewing into a complete  crash  of  the  game.
  The truth is, that we again played our release  on  7  different  computers,
  all with different configurations and operating systems after your  unneeded
  proper. We were looking for any odd behavior and logging the frame rates  in
  various areas of the game. The conclusion was, that compared to the original
  game without our cracked content applied, there was no noticable  difference
  in function or performance. Infact it didn't ever perform  slower  than  the
  original did on any of the systems. It ran as it should for  those  systems,
  both cracked and uncracked. One of the results from a machine we used:

  Original Files:
  Time (ms) of Test: 900000
  FPS MIN: 37
  FPS MAX: 57
  FPS AVG: 45.833

  Our Crack Files:
  Time (ms) of Test: 900000
  FPS MIN: 38
  FPS MAX: 57
  FPS AVG: 45.850

  Now  everyone  was  curios  to  see  how  SKIDROW's  crack  performed.  Very
  disappointing that on 2 computers, the game did  not  even  start.  It  sent
  the testers back to desktop with an appcrash. The rest  made  it,  to  start
  the game. So there was nothing to compare  but  general  gameplay  with  FPS
  and loading times. As a result there was only an increase  of  about  5  FPS
  for three  of  the  testers.  Again,  a  very  marginal  result  as  various
  background programs can slow games a lot more than this at times.  So  these
  results should be enough for a proper?

  A group with a recent history of doing whatever it takes to  get  a  release
  working is now doing  propers  for  5  FPS  on  some  machines?  Wow,  thats
  something that makes you ask yourself, what were the motives  to  make  such
  an accusation and without providing proof, which is  needed  always  anyhow.
  A group that has even used unprotected exes or  weaker  protected  exes  and
  tag it as the original stronger protection  cracked  now  proceed  forthwith
  such and proper? Over the last years  basically  any  solution  which  would
  make a game  start  was  acceptable  for  SKIDROW.  Loaders  wrapped  inside
  another dll, even different versions of an exe  were  good  enough  to  make
  a  release.  Not  to   mention   from   the   few   but   funny   situations
  you got caught  for  "using  alternative  supply  sources"  and  then  claim
  we don't have to explain ourselfs, only to people we believe  should  (pinch
  self).

  If you think you have something to reply from  our  previous  statements  we
  hope  its  informative  to  the  release.  Do  keep  in  mind  that  quoting
  comments from other sources (public web forums and whatnot),  that  this  is  
  not an acceptable form of proof, it should be  strictly  your  own.  We  are
  open for qualified proper  reasons  and  will  be  accepted  when  proof  is
  provided that can be recreated in such cases in  which  they  are  required.
  Also your crack needs some addressing as it still is not working on  two  of
  our systems.  


                                                              /TEAM FAiRLIGHT