Do you think you are elite enough? Oh yes... you are just a little noob... You really think you can find the hidden treasure... Only true elites can find it...
Or... is that right?
Find hidden treasure -game
Moderator: Moderators
Find hidden treasure -game
http://modinfo.unknown-files.net/advent ... er_game.7z
Do you think you are elite enough? Oh yes... you are just a little noob... You really think you can find the hidden treasure... Only true elites can find it...
Or... is that right?
Do you think you are elite enough? Oh yes... you are just a little noob... You really think you can find the hidden treasure... Only true elites can find it...
Or... is that right?
-
Lindir The Green
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 04 May 2005, 15:09
-
LathanStanley
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: 20 Jun 2005, 05:16
no you see, winrar, and zip and stuff make a "library" and refer to it by 16 bit (or more) hex code...rattle wrote:"Find the lost supernoob"
Nah I'd rather get rid of 16^4-2 folders.
Yeah extract that stuff and do a search for files >0 bytes.
You should have put some 1-byte repetition 20 gig file in it to prevent people from extracting.
usually the libraries are 32-64 bit each...
thus, if you can break an archive that is say, 5 megs into 64 bit chunks, and then refer to them by 16 bit chunks, (allbeit probably only 1/4 of the data will fit into those chunks) you effectivy take that 5 megs into:
5*.25 = 1.25meg (will be compressed) at 1/4 size (64/16) = .3125 megs
leaving a filesize of 3.75+.3125 = 4.0625 megs... + the library files for the archive refrences 64bit *x number refrences, about 1/5 the compressed data, sooo 4.0625+1.25/5 = 4.0625+.25
which yeilds the total archive size of 4.3125 megs. (a reduction of .6875 megs or about 15%)
to take a single byte, in each folder and attempt a librarical compression, is well, impossible.. not to mention that every folder's data will be represented by 1 byte of data as well...
it'd actually make the damn thing BIGGER!..now, say if you put a 67108864 bit hex in each folder and they were all IDENTICAL, you could theoretically reduce a file from Y*x+x*8+x*8+Y bits of data down to x+Y+x*8+x*8+(header) bits of data, where x is the # of folders, and the first 8 is the filename of each folder and the second 8 is the root directory of each folder and Y is equal to the bit hex file in each folder, and teh (header) is the data of the file that denotes the archive and its compression method, approx 1 kilobyte or 2048 bits....
say there is 4096 folders used, (that is ALOT)
the filesize uncompressed is 67108864*4096+4096*8+4096*8+67108864 = 274877972480 bits (2 bits to a byte soo...) = 137,438,986,240 bytes.... uncompressed (128.0000 Gb)
or compressed at 4096+67108864+4096*8+4096*8+2048 = 67180544 bits or 33,590,272 bytes. (32.0342 Mb)
the other option is a smaller file, and about 10 times as many folders...
say you use a "common" 65536 byte file, (131072 bits) and 65536 folders.
This yeilds: (after lots of calculations)
Uncompressed:
8591114240bits or 4295557120bytes or (4.000 Gb)
compressed it is :
1247232bits or 623616 bytes or (609 kb)
to push more folders would reduce the compression ratio to an even worse extreme, and to increase the filesize would help more.... but meh, there's a different equation to maximize them both, but I'm tired of thinking...
oh well...
you get my point though, 1 byte, would phail! but >30,000 bytes within >65536 folders..., would, eff someone up who has to compress/uncompress it
