Jump to content


Photo

Easiest Way To Burn Not Listed?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 ka05

ka05

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 15 June 2004 - 11:56 PM

ok, im pretty new to this, and i hope im not covering an already covered topic, but i was looking for info on ripping and backing up copied of games to dvd, and came across a PINNED thread... thread
now i havent tried this, but the person that assisted me in installing my chip, showed me a process that takes much less time.

1. flash FXP to box and rip all files to one directory.
2. burn using recordNOW under data mode, changing the only options to "128 character file length" and "closed session"
3. loading the game into the xbox and playing it.

NOW IM NOT SAYING ANYTHING BAD ABOUT THE LONG WAY...
just wondering why someone would choose that over a much simpler process.

please let me know, as im still trying to learn as much as i can.

#2 Mr Ed

Mr Ed

    Hacking Horse

  • Head Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,588 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Xbox Version:v1.1
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 16 June 2004 - 12:14 AM

How is this any different than the process described as burning in UDF format? blink.gif

#3 Xeero

Xeero

    Welcome Back!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,413 posts
  • Location:Massachusetts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0

Posted 16 June 2004 - 01:04 AM

QUOTE (Mr Ed @ Jun 15 2004, 09:14 PM)
How is this any different than the process described as burning in UDF format? blink.gif

It's not.


And also, how is this easier than just using Qwix to create an ISO straight from the game disc and burning that ISO? UDF used to be a step shorter, but not any longer.

#4 opjose

opjose

    X-S Transcendental

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,809 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 03:30 AM

Albeit slower, UDF still offers some salient features vis-a-vis PC-side data recovery.

#5 milky1000

milky1000

    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 189 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 12:04 PM

i was one of those who use to laugh at people who created a iso instead of burning the files straight to udf with nero etc.and allways thought what a load of crap that iso`s are quicker at loading than udf.BUT its true .. tested it with the latest harry potter azkaban .. when loading and the symbol is rotating it actualy takes twice as long to load using udf than when using a iso created backup.

i will allways be creating iso`s from now on, damn stupid udf lol

#6 opjose

opjose

    X-S Transcendental

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,809 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 02:20 PM

UDF is slower, but not THAT much slower.

The difference should only be about 20%. Something else is wrong in your case.

Also UDF is fully PC readable, which means a PC DVD reader can take advantage of subchannel CRC information in case that there is a block error.

When you've scratched a disk or it gets old, this is a BIG deal.

With UDF you stand a very good chance of recovering the game/data intact.

I've done this with several disks unreadable on the Xbox (which did before...).

That feature alone gives UDF a big advantage, even if it is slower.

If you do like I do and copy a backup to the Xbox's HDD when it's "up" on the list of games in current play, then UDF load speeds are not an issue.

If you are trying to play off DVD's it's another matter altogether though.

#7 UnderToad

UnderToad

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 02:50 PM

Harry Potter POA? I haven't been able to get it to sucessfully backup, game gets a DDE at about 95% complete.

#8 opjose

opjose

    X-S Transcendental

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,809 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 02:54 PM

QUOTE (UnderToad @ Jun 16 2004, 03:50 PM)
Harry Potter POA? I haven't been able to get it to sucessfully backup, game gets a DDE at about 95% complete.

Huh?

That's not what he was discussing.

For HP use DVD2Xbox .58 with the ACL's or Avalaunch.

#9 Xeero

Xeero

    Welcome Back!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,413 posts
  • Location:Massachusetts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0

Posted 16 June 2004 - 04:02 PM

QUOTE (opjose @ Jun 16 2004, 11:20 AM)
The difference should only be about 20%. Something else is wrong in your case.

Actually it depends ENTIRELY on the game, namely the file layout thereof. Some games could run exactly the same with UDF vs. GDF ISO. Other games could take several minutes to load when created using UDF whereas it might only take 5 sec to load when created with a GDF ISO.

#10 dewmonger

dewmonger

    X-S Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 841 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 06:43 PM

I recently started backing up my discs and decided to use UDF format after being given a good, long detailed explanation by opjose (thx again!). So far, the first few discs have not given me any major slowdown in loading as of yet so I will continue to use this method. I am actually surprised so many more people decided to go with the GDF format instead of UDF. I suppose most of those people play directly from the disc instead of using the disc just as a backup, like I do.

Opjose, do you burn as UDF or UDF/ISO? And what is the difference between these two formats as far as the xbox is concerned? I actually burned in UDF/ISO and realized that I probably should do it as UDF. But the UDF/ISO format works fine.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users