PS3 DARKNET CEX 4.70 V1.00 [COBRA EDITION 7.05] Release

darkjiros

darkjiros

Developer
LOGO
DARKNET_CEX_4.70_COBRA_7.05.png


DARKNET CEX 4.70 V1.00 [COBRA EDITION 7.05].PUP
MD5 : 03696D79C20BA655A7956D8DDFEC0E94

stage2.bin : 78.7KB (80,664 byte)
MD5 : F70FAFABEA408B2DE27E010B3BBFCAEF


https://www.mediafire.com/folder/m0g66crgw8ej6/DARKNET_4.70_7.05


7.05 SRC
7.05 Source


FEATURES:
1. DARKNET CEX 4.70 V1.00 Base with the same patch
2. COBRA 7.05 Added
- Re-added spoof code into Stage2 And add other code
[This won't enable PSN but prevents FW updates in the future when spoof is enabled by COBRA]
- Dean's permission fix to improve game compatibility with COBRA payload
- PS2 Rebug Holder R2 Support (Habib's workaround)
- PS3 MAPI Support (Nzv's)
- PSNPatch stealth mode (KW's)
※ Stage0 base payload added
※ reactPSN 3.20+ Support (Freezing issue fixed)


COBRA 7.05 Added
- Additional PSX ISO Types supported
- PS2 ISO controller sync issues on non-BC improved
- Updated NzV ps3mapi to v1.2.0
- Issue with new ODE Patches while COBRA is disabled has been fixed (games with updates refuse to run)
- Cobra ODE Support (No swap Disc)
- mmCM 04.66.10 Perfect support (800xxxxx Error does not appear any more.)
- reactPSN 3.20+ Support (Freezing issue fixed)
- PS1NETEMU is now used as default for all ps3 models.

PSX compatiblity compatiblity with non bc consoles

http://www.psx-place.com/forum/gene...ions-future-cobra-release-1647.html#post11506


Specials Thanks
- [MENTION=29]Joonie[/MENTION] (Cobra source Advice)


Thanks Others
- [MENTION=20]habib[/MENTION], [MENTION=600]_NzV_[/MENTION], @KW, [MENTION=89]aldostools[/MENTION], @Deank, @Mysis, Team REBUG, All forum members of Darkiris.NET (Firmware Test)



PS)
I don't think 7.10 doesn't sound right when change is not that big enough for jumping versions, so I decided 7.05 instead of 7.10 although it provides the same feature as habib's
maybe it would make sense if REBUG uses it



★ Screen shot

- COBRA 7.05
DARKNET_4.70_V1.00_COBRA7.05-01.JPG
DARKNET_4.70_V1.00_COBRA7.05-02.JPG


★ Test Video (ODE FIX TEST)
[video=youtube;EugPTXgEwN4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EugPTXgEwN4[/video]
 
Last edited:
stock-photo-good-job-red-stamp-148900952.jpg



PS: good choice for version of COBRA 7.05 (minor change...) but i prefer that you called Darknet CEX 4.70 V1.01 instead of 1.00 for the update (Stage0 base payload added & reactPSN 3.20+ Support Freezing issue fixed)
 
First, thank you [MENTION=156]darkjiros[/MENTION] .Darknet is my favorite firmware excluding Rebug. But (is not personaly to you, but to every cfw dev) naming is now really complicated. Simple user really don't understand what is DARKNET CEX 4.70 V1.00 [COBRA EDITION 7.05] 7.03 .02 .05 .10... Much better is just Darknet Cobra, Darknet Cobra Lite, Darknet Cobra (I don't know, Max, Full, Plus, etc.)

This is also to other developers, including Rebug team. Why everyone need to add Cobra 7.00 .01 .10 .03 Cobra is now open sourced, why just don't use name like Rebug 4.70 Cobra. In future if some talented dev want to build own cobra based cfw, and make own changes to old revision of cobra what numeration he should use? I don't know that my post is clear. I want to say that cobra should be integrated to CFW's name not to additional versions numbers. Rebug or habib make cfw build, should be just Habib/Rebug cobra, is confusing using so many versions for a lot of users.

Time to integrate new cobra features as CFW features in changelogs (just with note "if cobra enabled"). Of course internal build numeration is needed, but just for devs, and should be diffrent for every dev. Is like Irisman, Gamesonic, Simplicity, PS3ITA Manager, all is based on Iris Manager. Imagine what happen when they don't use diffrent names, just numerations..

This is one of times when i'm not sure that everyone understand my English. I hope yes. :) #dev
 
Last edited:
habib said:
Would you expect something different than my src? :p
[MENTION=156]darkjiros[/MENTION] i dont care what you name this since you rely on my src ;)
Click to expand...

Actually yes I expected to see the new psx video detection improvements posted by Joonie yesterday

IMO name a same version of Cobra with different names would cause more confussion. But I also understand darkjiros's concern about jumping from 7.03 to 7.10, when the version could be called 7.04 or 7.05.


kozarovv said:
This is also to other developers, including Rebug team. Why everyone need to add Cobra 7.00 .01 .10 .03 Cobra is now open sourced, why just don't use name like Rebug 4.70 Cobra. In future if some talented dev want to build own cobra based cfw, and make own changes to old revision of cobra what numeration he should use? I don't know that my post is clear. I want to say that cobra should be integrated to CFW's name not to additional versions numbers. Rebug or habib make cfw build, should be just Habib/Rebug cobra, is confusing using so many versions for a lot of users.
Click to expand...

Cobra (like webMAN, psnpatch, and other plugins) is an add-on for the CFW. It became open source in version 7.00. After that, different developers (including me) have been adding improvements, fixes, features, etc. So it is a good idea to keep track of the changes through a version system.

The version number is only a label to differentiate one version from another. You can use numbers, letters, hash code, date, colors, name of your favorite Baseball teams, etc. Or combination. The important is that you can differentiate one version from another, not only by a simple label, but what features/changes they have.

Unfortunately, Cobra source code has gone wild and the devs are adding their own changes (versions, additions, removing features, etc.) without any central tracking of the changes as a single project.

IMO Multiple forks are not good if they don't merge at certain point... they only cause more confusion with the users jumping from one fork to another to find which one works better. The project progress in different directions, among other problems.
 
Aldo, me and rebug do keep track
Now that darknet doesn't want, I don't care(no one should)
His are mfw made by builder(check stupid lv0 and kernel in previous versions)

And also, I like your idea and I will use it for psx
 
darkjiros said:
PS)
I don't think 7.10 doesn't sound right when change is not that big enough for jumping versions, so I decided 7.05 instead of 7.10 although it provides the same feature as habib's
maybe it would make sense if REBUG uses it]
Click to expand...

Agree that Cobra v7.10 was a bit of a jump in version numbers, but now going to version 7.05 is now even more confusing. Thus adding to the problem instead of being a fix to it.


habib said:
Aldo, me and rebug do keep track
Now that darknet doesn't want, I don't care(no one should)
His are mfw made by builder(check stupid lv0 and kernel in previous versions)

And also, I like your idea and I will use it for psx
Click to expand...

You really like to put other's down alot I really don't understand the need..
 
STLcardsWS said:
You really like to put other's down alot I really don't understand the need..
Click to expand...
One thing I really never liked about Habib, granted he's a good dev, I just don't someone should think they're better thanks someone else [emoji19]
 
kozarovv said:
This is also to other developers, including Rebug team. Why everyone need to add Cobra 7.00 .01 .10 .03 Cobra is now open sourced, why just don't use name like Rebug 4.70 Cobra. In future if some talented dev want to build own cobra based cfw, and make own changes to old revision of cobra what numeration he should use? I don't know that my post is clear. I want to say that cobra should be integrated to CFW's name not to additional versions numbers. Rebug or habib make cfw build, should be just Habib/Rebug cobra, is confusing using so many versions for a lot of users.
Click to expand...

The problem is there is to many CFW revisions. They should only happen if there is truly a serious mistake or a large amount added. Ect.
1.) You do not need v1.00 - v1.01 -v1.03 ect.... (Example 4.70 - DARKNET v1.00) .
New updates should be labeled as 4.70.2 .. (like rebug's way)

So IMO here is the proper way to write a release:

4.70.2 HABIB + COBRA v7.10 (CEX)
or
4.70 Darknet + COBRA v7.05 (CEX)

The version of Cobra may not be needed in the title but for sure should be in the release notes.
4.70.2 HABIB + COBRA (CEX)


Like

  • COBRA v7.10 Added:
    • New in v7.10: New Feature 1
    • New in v7.10: New Feature 2
    • New in v7.10: New Feature 3
  • Auto Boot background running plugins on system boot
  • Mount PS2 ISO
  • ...........
 
war of dev
and history of my build is better !!
you think little to users
even in habib or darknet (4.66+) psp emu freeze at black screen and you need use psp2ps3
and in ps2 i can't play valkyrie profile and patapon in psp -_-
 
STLcardsWS said:
Agree that Cobra v7.10 was a bit of a jump in version numbers, but now going to version 7.05 is now even more confusing. Thus adding to the problem instead of being a fix to it.




You really like to put other's down alot I really don't understand the need..
Click to expand...

Firstly, 7.10 seems like not a big jump because HE DOESNT CODE.
Secondly, same things TARGETED in another cfw is not a good idea
 
STLcardsWS said:
4.46 Habib -Cobra? Would that not classify as what you are saying here?
Click to expand...

absolutely not.
i developed stage0 base payload(reactpsn fix, less heat, "more stealth", prx loader) and i added full lv1_peek support and much more done by ME
ps2 method is infact new, not the same as 4.46
i always target new stuff and you can check that since 4.53++
while darknet target same feature in "his" 4.70 which are available in my 4.70
many of you people now know about my development so nothing there is to complain(first to port cobra, first to improve cobra, first to develop open source qa for 4.xx, first to make ode patches, first to develop db ofw, developer of habib toolbox, updated rebug toobox FROM 02.00.00 TO 02.02.02, first to remove the stupid competition between rebug and rogero which made cfw stuff hidden, great contribution towards mfw builder, and much much more)
 
STLcardsWS said:
The version of Cobra may not be needed in the title but for sure should be in the release notes.
4.70.2 HABIB + COBRA (CEX)


Like

  • COBRA v7.10 Added:
    • New in v7.10: New Feature 1
    • New in v7.10: New Feature 2
    • New in v7.10: New Feature 3
  • Auto Boot background running plugins on system boot
  • Mount PS2 ISO
  • ...........
Click to expand...

That's it. Simple 4.70.2 Cobra is easy to understand for everybody. But now exluding rebug in this case (but still cobra version included in name) we have 4.70 v1.00 cobra 7.05. Is too much for a lot of users, some users probably download before 7.03 version, not 7.02 because higher number is better. But 70% of them never use ps3mapi.
 
habib said:
absolutely not.
i developed stage0 base payload(reactpsn fix, less heat, "more stealth", prx loader) and i added full lv1_peek support and much more done by ME
ps2 method is infact new, not the same as 4.46
i always target new stuff and you can check that since 4.53++
while darknet target same feature in "his" 4.70 which are available in my 4.70
many of you people now know about my development so nothing there is to complain(first to port cobra, first to improve cobra, first to develop open source qa for 4.xx, first to make ode patches, first to develop db ofw, developer of habib toolbox, updated rebug toobox FROM 02.00.00 TO 02.02.02, first to remove the stupid competition between rebug and rogero which made cfw stuff hidden, great contribution towards mfw builder, and much much more)
Click to expand...

I am simply comparing your 4.46 cobra build to the original 4.46 one that used rogero. with my last statement. As you stated you did not like "same things TARGETED in another cfw" work. but again i know that was a bit of learning experience as well.

I am not knocking down your work at all. Your work is [strike]good[/strike] great, but my point is you started from somewhere and you improved your skills got better overtime.. We know your talents, the work speaks for it self. .

Now I am not a fan of cloned firmwares, I never have been. I rather see some XML edits for the XMB in a firmware then see the same things re-branded. That is why your work is exciting because you do try and offer something new and that is why you are a good fit with REBUG as well.

many of you people now know about my development so nothing there is to complain(first to port cobra, first to improve cobra, first to develop open source qa for 4.xx, first to make ode patches, first to develop db ofw, developer of habib toolbox, updated rebug toobox FROM 02.00.00 TO 02.02.02, first to remove the stupid competition between rebug and rogero which made cfw stuff hidden, great contribution towards mfw builder, and much much more)
Click to expand...

Most likely even a few things you missed there, as you have done alot of good things in the CFW community and there is no denying your talents and i do not want to take away from that, but insults to others when you also have made mistakes as well is something i do not like seeing. Just sharing my opinion is all, not hatin on you personally. Just that type of attitude towards other's..
 
My mistakes?
If you say 4.46 or 4.50 it is because I was the first to try 4.xx cfw stuff apart from rebug and rogero(and I was a bit of noob as well).
After that I helped a Chinese guy, steventj and also sgk to build cfw.also mfw builder team.
We have then seen the rebranded work(I really hate myself sometimes)

I have nothing against rebug, ps3ita because they know their work.

This convo is growing, lets stop it

The player is out for ggggiiirrrlllssss :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Back
Top