Naming/structuring multiple outputs from UI

Have an idea how to make KryoFlux even better? Let us know...
Post Reply
save4use
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:16 pm

Naming/structuring multiple outputs from UI

Post by save4use » Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:17 pm

I have a suggestion for the next time the UI gets updated.

When outputting just a stream file through the UI, it creates a folder with the file name I input, titles all the stream files track00.0.raw, track00.1.raw, etc. and puts all of the .raw stream files together inside the folder it created. If I then, in a separate step, create an interpreted image from the stream, without changing any settings, the resulting directory and file structure looks like this:

Folder (selected under file/settings/output)
  • file_name (a folder created automatically)
    |track00.0.raw
    |track00.1.raw
    | ...
  • file_name.img
  • file_name.txt
I like that. I like having my directories tidy.

However, when I select multiple outputs through the UI, specifically a guided stream file and, say MFM, it does not create the folder, it names the raw files with the full name of the other output type, including extension (e.g. "disk_name.img00.0.raw") and puts all of the .raw stream files and the .img file together in whatever folder I selected under file/settings/output:

Folder (selected under file/settings/output)
  • file_name.img00.0.raw
  • file_name.img00.1.raw
  • ...
  • file_name.img
  • file_name.txt
I would much prefer that it behave the same way that it does when creating the two file types in separate steps.

User avatar
IFW
Posts: 2634
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Naming/structuring multiple outputs from UI

Post by IFW » Sun Oct 05, 2014 4:19 pm

Thanks, I've made the GUI developers aware of your suggestion.

hydr0x
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: Naming/structuring multiple outputs from UI

Post by hydr0x » Sun Oct 05, 2014 4:41 pm

Doesn't happen for me (but I'm still using 2.2), when I use preservation + custom MFM profile, it puts them out like in your first example, which is indeed better.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest