Zakize - Make your replays compatible with ZakStunts

[Cas]

Hi, guys!  This is a DOS EXE file. Just put it with your Stunts files and run it from DOSBox to modify your R4K replay files to be accepted by ZakStunts. This is for you to be able to post your R4K Symbolic Link replays in the Symbolic Link race that's being held at the same time in Stunts. They won't be good laps for free-style, but they could go well for GAR!

Just type:
zakize myrpl.rpl

and it will make its hocus-pocus

[afullo]

Does this utility act by making the modifications I did manually for my first replay?

[Cas]

I guess so. It changes the track file name in the replay file and sets the format byte to zero

[Daniel3D]

and it will make its hocus-pocus

It changes the track file name in the replay file and sets the format byte to zero

So its exclusive for this track?

[Cas]

Well... to tell you the truth, I couldn't resist the push to make it work on any track. If you want to use it on another track, you have to also specify the ZakStunts track ID. For example: zakize myrpl.rpl ZCT240

This will be useful if you made your track and posted it to ZakStunts, it got modified, but you're posting a replay you made based on your original track (provided they only changed in format, but are still the same in terms of what's on the track).

[alanrotoi]

Is it possible a tool for cheating too? I mean I build a similar track with one element changed (i.e a slalom for a normal paved road) then I make a replay and submit it? 

[Daniel3D]

Is it possible a tool for cheating too? I mean I build a similar track with one element changed (i.e a slalom for a norrmal paved road) then I make a replay and submit it? 

I believe that was always possible.
It just if your version of the track has a different name. What happens when a track is reused or used in several competitions.

[Cas]

You can't cheat with this. If the track content is different, it won't work.

I see it this way. There are two different concepts: the track file and the track itself. A track file contains the track, but also contains some more information. In my opinion, anything that's stored in the file that keeps the driving experience equivalent is not part of the track. Now "driving experience", depending on each person, may or may not include scenery, background landscape, etc. I prefer to think these things are included. But byte 1802 certainly is not part of the track and if there's meta data, that also isn't part of the track; it's information about the track, just like your shoes are yours, but are not part of you. Ideally, even rotating a track 90 degrees would still be the same track, but that is complex to verify.

So, I apply this in Race For Kicks when I check for replay validity: the first 1801 bytes of the file are tested against because they mostly describe the track. Everything else is ignored because if the track file name is changed or byte 1802 is modified, the track is still the same. ZakStunts checks more things. So what this tool does is set those things to the values required for ZakStunts to accept them. But the track itself is not changed, so if it's different, it will still be rejected. And even if somebody would make a tool that changed the actual track, the replay would be rendered invalid because surely the driving would end up causing a discrepancy with a slalom that wasn't there before or something, so it's impossible to cheat.

[dreadnaut]

Ideally, even rotating a track 90 degrees would still be the same track, but that is complex to verify.

That wouldn't work with illusion tracks where multi-tile elements overlap: you can't'overlap the main tile, but that's always in the top-left, and it would move around as you rotate the track.

So, I apply this in Race For Kicks when I check for replay validity: the first 1801 bytes of the file are tested against because they mostly describe the track. Everything else is ignored because if the track file name is changed or byte 1802 is modified, the track is still the same. ZakStunts checks more things.

Yup, ZakStunts checks two things: that the track data as a whole is identical with the one that can be downloaded, and that the name of track matches the race. The first is the simplest check you can have: no looking inside the track, slicing, excluding; either it's the same file or not. The second is a safety to guarantee that archives are consistent. If you save the track from any of the ZakStunts replays, you'll get the race name, not whatever name the submitter came up too. And there's plenty of bad things that can be done with file names: from silly insults, to CON: trouble.

[Cas]

That wouldn't work with illusion tracks where multi-tile elements overlap

That's a very good point!  Rotation cannot be sustained. It's true that in many cases, it can, but not as a general rule. Something similar happens with displacement. If a track is much smaller than 30x30, you can just move it a tile to one side and in all practical terms, it's the same track. We can take as an example my track called "Abusái", which was, in its original form, horribly situated at the bottom left corner. When it was uploaded to ZakStunts, it was moved nearer the centre so it'd look better, but the track itself is still the same. Yet, for some tracks, it may be relevant whether the fence is nearby or not, so the track identity is relative there too as a general rule.

About the verification procedure currently in place in ZakStunts in comparison to that of Race For Kicks, I wouldn't say one is better than the other, but it is important to know the differences. In this case, as the same track, my track, was being run on both ends, I thought it'd be best to provide a quick solution to the replay compatibility problem. I don't know quite what to think about comparing the track file name. It's an extra security verification, that's good; on the other hand, it increases the risk of incompatibility, for example, with your own track if you had it originally with a name and you posted it to ZakStunts, where it got a new file name, so you have to redo your lap. This is an inconvenience, but we may as well consider it worth it. Again, I just think it's important to know these things more than to change them.

As regards comparing the whole file or not, to me, it's just the same 1802 or 1801 bytes. I open the file and just read a different amount. No problem. Considering I anyway have to partially read the replay file, partially reading the track file as well is not harder than reading the whole file. In this case, I do think reading just the 1801 bytes is "better". You know I am very comfortable with handling binary files. But still, I don't think it's serious that ZakStunts proceeds otherwise. I openly admit I don't like it when my track metadata gets lost and then people end up with a version of my track that's not the original, but I'm willing to let that be.

I like saying what I think, you know, and trying to prove it as a good point. I think it's the same in your case. Not my intention to try to change others. In fact, you're good at defending your points!