New Kryoflux, unable to get it to work

All questions about how to use KryoFlux go here.
SomeGuy
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:18 pm

Re: New Kryoflux, unable to get it to work

Post by SomeGuy » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:35 pm

Good to hear that works. I would at least check the jumpers on that second drive before giving up on it.

The sectors size is simply not applicable to Preservation Stream dumps. Preservation dumps save raw flux streams and do not decode sectors at all. Note that you can go back later and attempt decoding from a saved stream file. That is useful for damaged or unknown format disks, as you don't have to keep physically re-reading the disk. As you found, the proper place for that is in the MFM image type.

X68000 game disks? You just dove directly in to the deep end here. You will have to research each title individually, but many game disks for that platform are copy protected. What that means is that copy protected disks can NOT be properly decoded as sector image files. You will have to save them as a preservation stream dump.

If you are not sure if a copy protected title is dumped without errors, you can analyze it further with third party tools such as the HxC disk tools software (Note: HxC software is neither supported nor endorsed by the Kryoflux folks, that is just what I personally use), or you can post the dumps for others here to examine.

When dumping a factory pressed software title, the message "Error: Extra data was found hidden in unused parts of the block header" indicates that either a user wrote back to the disk or the disk was not professionally mastered. That is important if, and only if, your goal is to preserve a pristine untouched factory disk image, otherwise it can be ignored.

I'd be infinitely more concerned about that "N" mismatch error. I think I have seen that with mixed sector sizes, and the Kryoflux does not support decoding tracks with mixed sector sizes. Closer analysis of that image is needed.

ZarkonD
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:32 pm

Re: New Kryoflux, unable to get it to work

Post by ZarkonD » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:59 pm

SomeGuy wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:35 pm
Good to hear that works. I would at least check the jumpers on that second drive before giving up on it.

The sectors size is simply not applicable to Preservation Stream dumps. Preservation dumps save raw flux streams and do not decode sectors at all. Note that you can go back later and attempt decoding from a saved stream file. That is useful for damaged or unknown format disks, as you don't have to keep physically re-reading the disk. As you found, the proper place for that is in the MFM image type.

X68000 game disks? You just dove directly in to the deep end here. You will have to research each title individually, but many game disks for that platform are copy protected. What that means is that copy protected disks can NOT be properly decoded as sector image files. You will have to save them as a preservation stream dump.

If you are not sure if a copy protected title is dumped without errors, you can analyze it further with third party tools such as the HxC disk tools software (Note: HxC software is neither supported nor endorsed by the Kryoflux folks, that is just what I personally use), or you can post the dumps for others here to examine.

When dumping a factory pressed software title, the message "Error: Extra data was found hidden in unused parts of the block header" indicates that either a user wrote back to the disk or the disk was not professionally mastered. That is important if, and only if, your goal is to preserve a pristine untouched factory disk image, otherwise it can be ignored.

I'd be infinitely more concerned about that "N" mismatch error. I think I have seen that with mixed sector sizes, and the Kryoflux does not support decoding tracks with mixed sector sizes. Closer analysis of that image is needed.
Thanks. I think I see what you mean for the preservation stream. Is it that I misunderstood what he meant and the settings were *only* for mfm mode, and for stream everything has to be default for it to run? I've just tried that with Emerald Dragon and got the below:

https://i.imgur.com/qFEsXF8.png

And I have 168 raw files of varying from 280 to 425KB, looks like two per sector (track00.0.raw, track00.1.raw, track01.0.raw, track01.1.raw, etc)

So I then tried it with one of the First Queen disks and got roughly the same results, except a slightly higher file size on average (283 to 468KB).

For preservation is this method the best way to go forward? If they look like right, I'll email one of the X68K preservation project people to help work out the copy protection stuff, and what's going on with First Queen.

edmaul69
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:13 pm

Re: New Kryoflux, unable to get it to work

Post by edmaul69 » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:20 pm

If you have 2 drives hooked up you need to have the jumper pins on the kryoflux set to 2 drives. Im guessing you are using the gui and not command line? So what is your second drive you have? Is it a teac fd55gfr as well or something different? Since you are using an 80 track drive you probably need to adjust the rpm to a slower speed to match the disks. For example ibm 1.2mb disks you set the rpm speed to 360 but 360k disks you set the rpm speed to 300.

SomeGuy
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:18 pm

Re: New Kryoflux, unable to get it to work

Post by SomeGuy » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:23 pm

ZarkonD wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:59 pm
For preservation is this method the best way to go forward?
For copy protected stuff, that is pretty much the only way forward.

Since there is no validation, the big trick is determining if what you dumped is valid. If you are sending the flux dumps to some preservation group, they are probably familar with the kinds of copy protection these disks use and would hopefully let you know if there were any issues.

ZarkonD
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:32 pm

Re: New Kryoflux, unable to get it to work

Post by ZarkonD » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:50 pm

SomeGuy wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:23 pm
For copy protected stuff, that is pretty much the only way forward.

Since there is no validation, the big trick is determining if what you dumped is valid. If you are sending the flux dumps to some preservation group, they are probably familar with the kinds of copy protection these disks use and would hopefully let you know if there were any issues.
Thank you very much.

Post Reply