Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Click the "Create Account" button now to join.
Page 21 of 37 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 364
  1. #201
    Navigation software Moderator

    kunix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Belarus
    Posts
    1,038
    Rep Power
    601

    Default

    Everything seems to be fine... the version in the GCD headers and the version in the firmware... for both patched and original firmwares. So I don't know what's wrong.

  2.    Advertissements


  3. #202
    Navigation software expert

    Giomen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Suomi-Russia
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,578
    Rep Power
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kunix View Post
    Can you share both original GCD files that you were using for testing?
    UPD: I would be great if you shared the patched versions also.
    angelozip please upload version of SW what you had patched for to be sure...
    Love your wife? Buy yourself a GPS for answering to her favorite question: "Dear, where are you?".

  4. #203
    GPSPower Helper


    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    302
    Rep Power
    294

    Default

    Kunix , Giomen, the problem is related to the different versions of JNX Patcher. For fw 5.90 I used the patcher 2.11 and for fw v6.00, I used the version compatible, the patcher 2.12. It seems that the problem is connected as is signaled versions of firmware in the patchers 2.11 and 2.12. For a same version, example fw 5.90, the patcher 2.11 record as hex B2 and the 2.12 as hex 4E, although both continue being originally 5.90, ie, has not been done any "Adjust firmware version number" in JNX Loader Patcher, beyond on some positions firmware version 5.90 still occur despite the different codes indicators version above.
    Perhaps AlexWhiter, or other, may explain why the hex code 58 from fw version 6.00 patched is read as older than the fw 5.90 patched with 2.11 (Hex B2), understood as latest.

    Fw patched:
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    Nuvi 2689; 3490; Etrex 30; Oregon 200 (from Approach S5)

  5. #204
    Navigation software expert AlexWhiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    170
    Rep Power
    269

    Default

    angelozip, before making every new release I always make sure it processes every firmware version of each device model in absolutely the same way as the previous release did (only FW versions supported by that release, of course). This allows me to be certain about the compatibility with all old FW versions.

    I've just repeated this check for FW 5.90 for Oregon. The patched files made by 2.11 and 2.12 are absolutely the same.

    For reference, the valid CRC32 for 5.90 and 6.00 are as follows:
    fd4de420 ?CRC32*Oregonx50_WebUpdater__590_Patched_211.gcd
    fd4de420 ?CRC32*Oregonx50_WebUpdater__590_Patched_212.gcd
    ea8da1ab ?CRC32*Oregonx50_WebUpdater__600_Patched_212.gcd

    The CRC32 for the files in your last archive are:
    d342dd12 ?CRC32*Oregonx50_WebUpdater__590_Patched_211.gcd
    fd4de420 ?CRC32*Oregonx50_WebUpdater__590_Patched_212.gcd
    ea8da1ab ?CRC32*Oregonx50_WebUpdater__600_Patched_ok.gcd

    In your previously patched 5.90, the version was adjusted from 5.90 to 6.90.
    Last edited by AlexWhiter; 26th September 2012 at 05:42.

  6. #205
    GPSPower Helper


    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    302
    Rep Power
    294

    Default

    AlexWhite, I can only say it is incredible how I did not realize my mistake! I'm sorry. Really every day more I am convinced that I do not rely on memory, and also that the eyes appear to show, especially when the mind wants to see something else... Today I made several comparisons, RGN Tools, Editor 'Hexa, and still have not seen this error, incredible, despite all the evidence ..
    Taking advantage of this opportunity, the feature "Adjust firmware version number" of your Patcher, which almost never use, but today I made several experiments, I have presented some difficulties because I can not see the correct version that I define in the RGN Tools. What is the correct synthesis, xxx / x.xx / x,xx?
    Last edited by angelozip; 26th September 2012 at 06:37.
    Nuvi 2689; 3490; Etrex 30; Oregon 200 (from Approach S5)

  7. #206
    Navigation software expert AlexWhiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    170
    Rep Power
    269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelozip View Post
    I have presented some difficulties because I can not see the correct version that I define in the RGN Tools. What is the correct synthesis, xxx / x.xx / x,xx?
    Please check these screenshots.
    Here I opened FW 4.50 for GPSMAP 62
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    Changed the version to 4.55
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    And applied the patch to this changed 4.55
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    As you can see, the patcher correctly displayed the modified version in GCD file.

  8. #207
    GPSPower Helper


    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    302
    Rep Power
    294

    Default

    I did a more careful analysis of my mistake, apparently coarse and, fortunately, I'm a little relieved after he understood the cause of my mistake: first was that reading the gps accused actually patched version 5.90. Second, despite absolutely not remember having changed the version of fw for not having any need to do it, I noticed a mistake of mine in understanding the syntax in the field of setting in firmware in JNX Patcher, as another cause of confusion.

    By the fact that I do not use and do not need to change fw of handhelds, only now I realized that the "Adjust Firmware Version Number" in JNX Patcher works from adding or decreasing centesimal units to adjust the firmware, ie, to increase from 5.90 to 5.91, we put 1, or 5.90 to 6.3 in 13 units set to result 6.03, with a limit of +-100, ie, the maximum and minimum that would increase or decrease the fw. So in the case of fw v5.90, any number above 100 results in maximum 6.90, or 4.90 for the lower limit. In a moment of distraction I have put any 5.91 or 592 (values ​​with some logic) and the patcher fixed as 690, its limit (amount that would not have any logic for my use), or any number above 100 the JNX Patcher fixed the limit for the version, in the case, 690. As he identifies only integers, 5.91 or 599 are read as integers and hundreds and so fixed the maximum limit allowed on the version of the 590, ie, set to 690, exactly what appears on my patched fw and I did not notice by taken as reliable the information from the GPS, which shows the firmware as 5.90 (Setup/About), here is the cause of all the confusion, when I said that it had not changed the firmware I took as base the GPS information screen, which believed reliable, and not on RGN Tool information, beyond what not remember absolutely have changed the firmware, because it did not have any reason for it (here must have been a faulty memory or distraction).

    I would make a comment about the syntax for changing the version of firmware in JNX Patcher. The fact that I have understood that the alteration of the firmware obeyed syntax of RGN Tool can be my limitation or whoever does not use this feature in Patcher (my case), but it would help if you stay more explicit this difference, because users that rarely use this option in the Patcher tend to use the standard synthesis, as the RGN Tool, and no additions or subtractions degrees.

    Finally, another detail is the question of the version that appears on the screen of GPS information, which only shows the firmware version constant in the original gupdate.gcd, in my case v5.90, regardless of which version is set in JNX Patcher, despite to read correctly when upgrading. The fact is that regardless of the change in the JNX Patcher, the indication of v5.90 appears in several positions of the firmware patched and one of them is read the information that appears on the GPS. For example, even configuring to 6.50 in JNX Patcher, 5.90 will appear on the screen of the GPS, the main cause of my confusion. Here also would be interesting to let a warning what the version amended by fw Patcher will be shown in gps always like the original version contained in gupdate. Of course the ideal would be to discover the algorithm to read all the positions in the firmware version in direct relation and not alone, but what really matters is the unlock pattern JNX, a great achievement!
    Last edited by angelozip; 26th September 2012 at 22:18.
    Nuvi 2689; 3490; Etrex 30; Oregon 200 (from Approach S5)

  9. #208
    Navigation software expert AlexWhiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    170
    Rep Power
    269

    Default

    The "Adjust version" feature was primaly made to allow flashing the same FW version as the currently installed.
    And the main reason to leave the value displayed in About screen intact was to let the user know what FW version is really installed in the device. In fact, it's easy to change this value too.

    As for the possibly confusing description of the "Adjust version" feature, I'll add an example of usage

  10. #209
    Navigation software expert

    Giomen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Suomi-Russia
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,578
    Rep Power
    589

    Default

    angelozip please, next time upload all SW otherwise we have the apoplectic Thank God there are no problems...

    It is interesting why you change in Oregonx50_WebUpdater__590_Patched_211.gcd a version of SW to 6.90?

    In any case AlexWhite have never let us down!!!
    Love your wife? Buy yourself a GPS for answering to her favorite question: "Dear, where are you?".

  11. #210
    GPSPower Helper


    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    302
    Rep Power
    294

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Giomen View Post
    angelozip please, next time upload all SW otherwise we have the apoplectic Thank God there are no problems...
    It is interesting why you change in Oregonx50_WebUpdater__590_Patched_211.gcd a version of SW to 6.90?
    In any case AlexWhite have never let us down!!!
    Giomen​, but I sent the fw when you requested it, was not it? Before Kunix had requested only the original firmware. Later he edited the post and requested the FW Patched but I did not see (check the time of the his post edition). On the other hand I would have avoided my mistake if there was some information about modification in JNX Patcher or warning of modified version in FW Patched, or even any warning that the modified version could only be seen by RGN Tool. Even in a hex editor appeared as version 5.90 Patched (I do not know the code specific of the JNX Patcher for for viewing in hex editor). I believed faithfully in information displayed on the screen of the gps, which was the version 5.90 patched, and not another (also showed the hex editor).
    I did not put fw 6.90, was the JNX Patcher. Despite not remember until now that did some alteration, perhaps for lack of memory, I suppose that the answer must be exactly what I explained in my previous post, but I can repeat. How I did not know the synthesis to fill the field of Alteration Version in JNX Patcher, supposed to be the same or similar to presented by Garmin (5.90 or x.xx) or by RGN Tools (xxx). Logically I should have put something like 5.91 or 591 and JNX Patcher fixed at 6.90, ie, your acceptable range in the field alteration is 100, or better (+-)100 units and only integers, example, to change from 5.90 to 5.99 ads 9. Any value exceeding 100 units it sets to the limit,in this case, for 6.90. As he understands any number as integer, if I put 5.91, 999, 433, xxx, or 591, the JNX Patcher adds 100 units to the original firmware, so 5.91 (even 591) + 100 = 690. Too bad I only I came to understand this after all this confusion
    Last edited by angelozip; 29th September 2012 at 00:50.
    Nuvi 2689; 3490; Etrex 30; Oregon 200 (from Approach S5)

 

 
Page 21 of 37 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.