PS3 4.83 CFW / Homebrew Apps / Plugins / Tools updated for 4.83

slim cech-2504b 320gb
slim cech-2004b 250gb
silm cech-2501a 160gb
fat cechc04 60gb and fat cechp 160gb and i post the patches applied and link and the md5 but the admin haven't put them in main page
 
ps3cfw_newbie said:
Thnx for the quick response. I agree with what you are mentioning and I think I will try to go with Rebug 4.82 latest then. Not sure to take REX, CEX or DEX yet. Anyone got a full guide for going from OFW 4.82 to REBUG 4.82 latest?
Click to expand...
I would say go for debug (dex) rebug. I'm still able to play online using rebug 4.82 dex
 
littlebalup said:
He used my CoreOS patched files (same selfs files md5). So, patches are good. But I didn't tested that pup.
Click to expand...
I tested it, seems fine but I thought the purpose of a DB CFW was the minimal of changes from OFW, not custom coldboots, custom startup sound, custom waves, animated icons, etc....

I like yours straight DB CFW the way it should be, also goes great with my REBUG 4.82.2 (syscon 4.83)
 
littlebalup said:
He used my CoreOS patched files (same selfs files md5)... So, at least patches are good. But I didn't tested that pup.
Click to expand...

bitsbubba said:
I tested it, seems fine but I thought the purpose of a DB CFW was the minimal of changes from OFW, not custom coldboots, custom startup sound, custom waves, animated icons, etc....

I like yours straight DB CFW the way it should be, also goes great with my REBUG 4.82.2 (syscon 4.83)
Click to expand...

Just to review

1.) So he used someone else's work? to make then an unneeded release (being uneeded because littleballup already was fine).

2.) Added Custom files which defeats the whole point of a dualboot firmware and with a lack of understanding of the concept and the fact other's work was used I would caution using these cfw releases compared to other releases from known developer's.
 
I have CFW REBUG 4.82 COBRA 7.54 compatible. How should I update it to 4.83? I mean, via STANDARD CFW or COBRA CFW since REBUG did not release theirs yet. Should I update it at all actually or should I use SEN Enabler?

Thanks ;x
 
@Louay

Now may be a good time to once again state how you made these CFW's. in the comments before when @littlebalup suggested you used his CoreOS on your DB you said "No" that was not the case, but very obvious from myself and others that it was just littlebalup's DB and your rebranded added, (Which branding of any sort on a DB (a OFW for CFW) is nonsense and defeats the purpose.).

Which is going to question the other releases, Is one to assume that some of the other ones were re-branded versions of other firmware's?

The way it looks now. .. It appears someone who took other people's stuff rebranded and then made some YouTube video's to grow themselves. Which needs to be the opposite, as you do not even know what a DUALBOOT firmware is and your suggesting to many that its BAN PROOF. All your changes made it more suitable for a ban to occur.

Louay said:
if you are on cfw already and want to play online download littlebalup dual boot or my dual boot the admin haven't put the link in main menu as i say sadly see my video that is the proof and download link is in the description
Click to expand...

Routing the people to the video for download link..

Video did not prove anything, as it was just a video of you installing a CFW essentially you did not Show it was a DB firmware
Only this screen below shows its was a DB firmware by title (which again if you understood the concept, it would not be labled as this as an OFW pup would not be right? )

hhhhhhhhhh.png
 
Last edited:
Vladimir said:
I have CFW REBUG 4.82 COBRA 7.54 compatible. How should I update it to 4.83? I mean, via STANDARD CFW or COBRA CFW since REBUG did not release theirs yet. Should I update it at all actually or should I use SEN Enabler?

Thanks ;x
Click to expand...
It seems in some cases SEN Enabler is breaking PS2 playback when spoofing in which the developer is working on, a Rebug 4.83 might not ever be released (time will tell) You can just update to any CFW 4.83 of your choice wait on SEN Enabler, I've found some issues with some of the 4.83 CFWs but they're simple fixes nothing bad that I'll be reporting to the developers as soon as I get some time to test the CFWs again
 
STLcardsWS said:
@Louay

Now may be a good time to once again state how you made these CFW's. in the comments before when @littlebalup suggested you used his CoreOS on your DB you said "No" that was not the case, but very obvious from myself and others that it was just littlebalup's DB and your rebranded added, (Which branding of any sort on a DB (a OFW for CFW) is nonsense and defeats the purpose.).

Which is going to question the other releases, Is one to assume that some of the other ones were re-branded versions of other firmware's?

The way it looks now. .. It appears someone who took other people's stuff rebranded and then made some YouTube video's to grow themselves. Which needs to be the opposite, as you do not even know what a DUALBOOT firmware is and your suggesting to many that its BAN PROOF. All your changes made it more suitable for a ban to occur.



Routing the people to the video for download link..

Video did not prove anything, as it was just a video of you installing a CFW essentially you did not Show it was a DB firmware
Only this screen below shows its was a DB firmware by title (which again if you understood the concept, it would not be labled as this as an OFW pup would not be right? )

View attachment 13832
Click to expand...
i will redo a fresh db and you can check files and see their md5
 
Vladimir said:
I have CFW REBUG 4.82 COBRA 7.54 compatible. How should I update it to 4.83? I mean, via STANDARD CFW or COBRA CFW since REBUG did not release theirs yet. Should I update it at all actually or should I use SEN Enabler?

Thanks ;x
Click to expand...

you can freely update to ferrox 4.83 from rebug rex (on cex). that's what I did. I've not found any bugs thus far, so I do recommend it. I didn't want to risk a ban by spoofing or anything, which is why I updated. I also encountered a strange bug with d-rex in cex mode. the bug seemed to affect rex as well unless I reinstalled the game in question. I think it was attributed to a trophy problem.
 
Louay said:
i will redo a fresh db and you can check files and see their md5
Click to expand...

There is NO NEED.. Why create something that is already there. When it add nothing new and you can not and should not add anything new to a dualboot firmware that is why you only see a single dualboot firmware released because there is never a need for a 2nd.

Also you did not answer the question.
 
It seems everyone wants to make a CFW and brand it while the most popular non-Rebug CFW was Habib because it wasn't plastered with his brand. If somebody wants it personalized they can do it themselves (all the tools and guides are out there)
 
Vladimir said:
I have CFW REBUG 4.82 COBRA 7.54 compatible. How should I update it to 4.83? I mean, via STANDARD CFW or COBRA CFW since REBUG did not release theirs yet. Should I update it at all actually or should I use SEN Enabler?

Thanks ;x
Click to expand...
Well it depends & in the end it is really up to you to choose.
You have both options available & they both have advantages & flaws.
1. If you update to Ferrox you get the new certificates for playing BD videos & stuff but you lose the Rebug features.
2. If you remain on Rebug using a system version spoof, you keep Rebug features but you don't get the new certificates & in theory the ban risk should increase a little (although in practice, I don't see it to be the case at all).

As far as we can make out, there is not a single new feature in 4.82/4.83 except renewed certificates & the tiny webkit patch in 4.83.
 
Thank God I didnt apply the update to my Slim PS3. Just like the rest, I will wait for the guys who handles these things, if they say an update is good then that's the only time I'll do the damn update. :)
 
I think is fine to release a cfw that uses files from other cfws if you explain very well that you did it

Let me show you an example, lets say there is someone that wants to modify files that are not critical, usually related with XMB (the external layers of the onion) but is not experienced in rebuilding and applying patches to the firmware critical files (the core of the onion)
So that person could do like what luanteles did with his "PS3 PRO mod" released in PKG format (that have some inconvenients)
Or... that person could release it in PUP format (more handy)

In the second scenario that person can tell that his firmware was build using as base XXXXX firmware (a different cfw), giving credits to it, and can say "this firmware have the same features than XXXXX firmware", and also "none the creator of XXXXX firmware neither me are reponsibles of the posible problems that could happen when installing this firmware"

Is fair play in my oppinion
And actually, at some point it could happen than the creator of XXXXX firmware says "hmmm i been looking at your icons and im going to use them", (giving proper credits), so the coin flips back :P
 
sandungas said:
I think is fine to release a cfw that uses files from other cfws if you explain very well that you did it
Click to expand...

Well yes of course if you explained why you did but that never happens. Most of the CFW clones appears from people trying to self promote themselves as something they are not. Most things like eye candy can be added as standalone additions and not messing with the integrity of the devs original work. No point in people editing CFW and repacking PUP for simple coldboots and other minimal changes (especially when they can be added after a CFW install). Do you trust a devs work as much if an unknown noob makes changes and repacks.... Does any devs want their names on something like that?????

1.) He was asked if he copied the DB FW by littlebalup.
He answered "No" to littlebalup

2.) He is posting video's on it (and wanting people to visit the video.. (hmmmm)) and also excessive begging here for it to be promoted. This is something that does not need promoted. Again if you (the creator) can not understand what a DUALBOOT firmware is you should not create one and release it to others and make claims that its ban proof when the concept you did not understand and was completely over his head.

We can show all the examples we want but it does not apply to this.. CFW is case by case for so many reasons because of the potential damage one can do with it. So lets not forget the risk of a bad firmware. @littlebalup did use MFW builder for his DB firmware but what was different about him using it then others he completely understands what the tool is doing with each step and knows if something is incorrect and does not. (a true dev) where as someone is just using tools and does not have the experience behind it and does not know nothing but what the tool is doing and THAT IS THE ISSUE as when you do not understand something , case in point the DB firmware in question, something like can be done by anyone, but only ones who understand the concept should release it. That release was more about self-promoting (IMO at least) then helping the scene and had issues that defied the claims it makes .

If we are not saying anything and applying warning THEN NO ONE IS .................... So if there is someone promoting their CFW as being something great and useful when they are not there is the issue, and will always be sure to make that aware.

But if your speaking of XMB mods and extra's to a CFW then you release those extra's as standalones.
Or you labeled the CFW base your using with extra mods, But that never happens.. Ohh i applied a new coldboot and xmb wave now its "my CFW" is typically what we see. Plus. just adding a coldboot and waves really should not warrant a new CFW release as those can be installed very very very very easily from the CFW itself. So the need to take a developer release and add minimal things is never okay, i think even when labeling it correctly. because why should someone adding something small like a coldboot open up more (potential) issue for the dev who made the CFW.

"Hey Alexander i installed the Ferrox 4.83 CFW (the modded version by XXXXX) and now this feature is broken can you help?"
That could be a problem by XXXXXX build (as typically those are not CFW developer's doing things but people using tools they may or may not understand the use or even how the dev did stuff on their own CFW's).

So IMO not many scenario's where one should honestly NEED to use someone else's as a base. Because every scenario you present you could argue those are better as standalone additions and would make more sense as a scene to have those as add-on releases. Plus the creators would get more respect for what they are bringing as they are not over stating or taking credit for other things they did not do.
 
Last edited:
Also download links reverted to the Video (so more views to the video seems like a motive (?) )
Myself and developer's have told him the issues and that the DB firmware is not correctly made.
YouTube Video is still there and up (of course it is)
Also the Download link is still up and valid..

So knowing that there is issues this guy still has not removed them ..

Then when questions are asked about how he has done something,
He seems to bypass the question or does not provide the correct answer ..
'
My advice would be just to release the things you have done as standalone and enchamnets to the exciting firmware and if the guy does not how to package those mods like that, then kind of proves the point not everyone should just be making CFW and floating it out there.

edit:
Also he mentioned in several post that" the admin said" and "talked to the admin"..
Only thing i have ever said, was post it in the forums and then feedback will take it from there. ..
 
Last edited:
STLcardsWS said:
But if your speaking of XMB mods and extra's to a CFW then you release those extra's as standalones.
Click to expand...
If the amount of modded files is too big it could be handy to release it as a PUP
Best example is luantelles ps3 pro mod, i remember to suggest him to do it because there was some users having problems with the installation
STLcardsWS said:
Or you labeled the CFW base your using with extra mods
Click to expand...
Usually the original creator doesnt wants his name or/and the original name of the app to be used by other persons because this implyes both "products" have the same quality level

Example, someone modifyes ferrox 4.83 with different hdd partition sizes to install linux
If you release it under the name "ferrox 4.83 with linux" is not fair because the modder is leaching the benefits of ferrox fame (more users, more promotion, flooding the official support threads of ferrox with problems related ONLY to the mod and creating chaos and confussion)
But if tou release it as "this is BBQ 4.83 CFW and was made using FERROX 4.83 CFW as base"... then is fine imo

If someone asks about "BBQ 4.83 CFW" then there is no confussion
But this is a good example where is really needed to add a README.TXT with the released PUP to advise that "FERROX 4.83 CFW" is the original and "BBQ 4.83 CFW" is a derivated and should not be confused and "BBQ 4.83 CFW" potentially could have more problems/bugs than "FERROX 4.83 CFW"
 
Last edited:
Why are we discussing "what if" and not what is now and what is in front of us.? Honestly i can careless about every scenario. You kind of missing the point here with the releases in front of us.

That is the issue in discussion not all these what if's..

Usually the original creator doesnt wants his name to be used by other persons because this implyes both "products" have the same quality level
Click to expand...

Did i not say the same thing?

A dev does not want to see a new name when just a few things are changes and usually just "eye candy" changes, also if these changes can be made after the CFW is installed easily.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Back
Top