CoreCodec / CoreAVC ranting (un)official thread

[Inventive Software]

Thought I'd take responsibility and try and separate this discussion and primarily trouble-shooting thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=104277) from the rants and the bitching that it's received of late due to it's practises.

So feel free to rant away, but from now on, keep it here. Any in the other thread, provided it's not trying to sort a particular issue, and Bond'll have your head on a stick. ;) Trouble-shooting issues most likely won't get solved here, so try the other thread.

@Bond: feel free to split rants that aren't exactly relevant in the other thread to this one. :)

[Sirber]

ramble ramble ramble!

Activation!!!! :devil: ;)

[Sharktooth]

yep... the major issue is now activation... can it be "fixed" (just by removing it)?

[Sirber]

yep... the major issue is now activation... can it be "fixed" (just by removing it)?
Unfortunatly, no.

Installer comes with a "key". The key, as well as other info about the PC, is sent to the server, then if valid, the server returns a serial that will only work on that PC. So, yes you can remove the activation if you already have the serial, but it won't work on other machines.

[kurt]

not much userfriendly I would say...

[SeeMoreDigital]

Out of interest..... Does anybody know if other "pay ware" manufactures (who's products just happen to contain an MPEG-4 AVC direct-show decoder filter), have been forced into implementing such an unuser friendly registration system?


Cheers

[Sirber]

like nero? :)

[GmorG McRoth]

like nero? :)

Nero uses online activation now?

[3ngel]

How at this point starting to considering others H264 decoders (even at pay)? :p
This could be an interesting matter: considering from an objective point of view, quality and performances (and activation methods) of other available directshow h264 filters (i know pheraps this has been done in the sticky but a discussion is another thing).

[SeeMoreDigital]

like nero? :)Indeed... there was a time when Nero's decoder filters could be extracted, re-registered and used with other software media players!

However, I seem to remember Nero prevented this practice long before their AVC codec was launched...


Cheers

[clsid]

Out of interest..... Does anybody know if other "pay ware" manufactures (who's products just happen to contain an MPEG-4 AVC direct-show decoder filter), have been forced into implementing such an unuser friendly registration system?CoreCodec has not been forced in any way by MPEG LA to use an activation system. Afaik other decoder don't use activation either. CoreCodec chose to implement activation to try to prevent piracy.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=838063#post838063

[GmorG McRoth]

I wonder how Mainconcept avc decoder will be protected.

[SeeMoreDigital]

CoreCodec has not been forced in any way by MPEG LA to use an activation system. Afaik other decoder don't use activation either. CoreCodec chose to implement activation to try to prevent piracy.I felt sure Dan stated quite some time ago that registration had been forced upon them (Core) by some regulatory body....

[Sharktooth]

that's BS...

[Seb.26]

A new thread only about CoreAvc activation ? great ... :D :p

Just my 2cts : Why CoreCodec don't add a special release of CoreAvc, this release won't have activation, but a hardware usb dongle ?! ... IMO, the cost will be less than 10$ ( if CoreAvc don't make money on it of course ... )

Does somebody is ready to pay this 10$ to forget activation process ?!

Good idea or stupid one ?!

:cool:

[GmorG McRoth]

A new thread only about CoreAvc activation ? great ... :D :p

Just my 2cts : Why CoreCodec don't add a special release of CoreAvc, this release won't have activation, but a hardware usb dongle ?! ... IMO, the cost will be less than 10$ ( if CoreAvc don't make money on it of course ... )

Does somebody is ready to pay this 10$ to forget activation process ?!

Good idea or stupid one ?!

:cool:

I think hardware dongle would pumped price much more than 10$ and add postal costs (you can't email hardware).

[Seb.26]

I think hardware dongle would pumped price much more than 10$ and add postal costs (you can't email hardware).
For the price of the dongle : wrong if they want quantites >10000 pcs, but you are right for the postal cost ...

This was just my 2cents ...
( Since some times, I promise myself to don't post anything in any CoreAvc thread ... )

[Sirber]

What about users with no free USB port? like me :D
Also, every software with dungles has been cracked anyway.

[GmorG McRoth]

Every hardware dongle I seen is a pass through device (you can attach any other device to port on back of dongle).

[SeeMoreDigital]

that's BS...Jeez,

If this is the case, no wonder so many people are unhappy!

I guess like many people, I don't mind paying for CoreAVC but do mind not being able to install it on more than one PC.

By-the-way. How do non network/internet connected lap-top users get on?


Cheers

[Sirber]

By-the-way. How do non network/internet connected lap-top users get on?Activation will fail, so no installation.

I read somewhere Core are working on a way to make it work offline.

[bob0r]

yep... the major issue is now activation... can it be "fixed" (just by removing it)?

Yes it can be fixed, but other then the old days, we now have companies pay us not to come with a fix, and when it still gets fixed, we double benefit :D

[deets]

im gonna chip in :D

I totally understand wanting to protect yourself and anything you have created, but by making the legal paying folk jump through hoops is not the way to go.

you must punish the pirates, not make it harder for those who want to be legal, however hard (impossible) it might be to actually get the pirates.

im seriously thinking of going to apple because I had so much grief with XP activation, always having to phone up to install and being grilled.

I would love to buy coreavc as its a great product, but while im going to have to jump through hoops to use a product i legally bought, i just wont bother :( so one customer lost due to over protective measures, how can that be good business.

[crypto]

Out of interest..... Does anybody know if other "pay ware" manufactures (who's products just happen to contain an MPEG-4 AVC direct-show decoder filter), have been forced into implementing such an unuser friendly registration system?


Nobody is forced to use activation on the codec, not even Core although your question implies this.

CyberLink H.264/AVC Decoder - no restrictions, no activation
InterVideo Video Decoder (WinDVD8 w/ h.264) - no restrictions, no activation

The discusion currently going on, is a perfect case study. A few fake arguments are given and people actually believe drm/activation is a good thing. They happily give up their rights. They even argument in way as if they were Core employees and attack users who are not totally brain washed like themselves.

Me and my fellow developers are currently finding ways to add DRM to all products, freeware and payware to make all the customers happy. Doing so, customers have "advantages" and the can be sure they get updates for free, they would otherwise have gotten in form of bugfixes. :)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Nobody is forced to use activation on the codec, not even Core although your question implies this.Thanks for confirming this ;)

[CruNcher]

Me and my fellow developers are currently finding ways to add DRM to all products, freeware and payware to make all the customers happy. Doing so, customers have "advantages" and the can be sure they get updates for free, they would otherwise have gotten in form of bugfixes.

Sorry but if i hear this i could get sick, no customer want's it it's forced upon them (the content provider are the primary buisness who want this and ISV like you support it) the only problem is that customers and also ISV and IHV don't have the guts/will to abondon such products and services that come with it like entertainment products and don't realize that every service that once was free now becomes payware and that companies start to fight with it's own systems against each other and all that because it just became technology wise possible, it's not only about protection (that argument is complete BS) it's about creating new markets and restrictions for customers and you are a customer yourselv, more and more people lose the possibility to take part in our culture our society is going through a new change that for sure in some years will be seen as a big big mistake we done again comparable to the mistakes we done in the past like atomic energy now we starting research into fusion energy but we allready knew long before that implosion is better then explosion. We allways gonna do the same mistakes over and over again it's somehow in our genetics see what happens on our world compare it with History and you see everything is happening again and im sure if we do to much mistakes again Earth is also gonna do another cold reboot.

And about CoreCodec Politics sure the Activation is not a nice thing, but these other companies you list here have the power to Cross Finance the Decoders. CoreCodec doesn't seem to have that yet as a Startup so they need someway to gather this and that could come from their SDK licensing but for now it's not possible im sure Dan is doing everything possible to try makeing CoreAVC first less expensive and later free (for average joe) and the Activation thing is one of those he's forced upon by the industry hes playing in now (Mpeg-La Deal) to give customers better conditions Mpeg-La want's a gurantee that every sold license is bound to 1 PC else they would wan't money again for every update that's being downloaded and CoreCodec has to keep track of that at least this is how i heared it fly by. And yes this is also again a new forceing upon on us and it will become standard in the end sooner or later Software won't run anymore on our machines but on the Internet (GRID) and we have to pay per use/time for it's usage this is how our forced IT future looks like.

[crypto]

@cruncher
Easy. I hope you noticed the smiley on my statement. It is just a joke about those who are happy with drm/activation.

For the record. I am against drm and you will never see such things in software I write. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[3ngel]

They even argument in way as if they were Core employees and attack users who are not totally brain washed like themselves.

You hit the point :p

Unfortunately Core don't hit the point. The only customers they'll remain will be those on the quote above.
Not much. But that's a their problem.

As soon as a new company will appear with a good decoder, Core will vanish in the deep nothing they came from.

[Inventive Software]

@3ngel: That's if anything can match or beat the software decoding speed of CoreAVC. ;)

I say b*****ks to people who moan about not having GPU support in 1.2. I've said it before in the previous thread, but probably not made it clear enough. With alcohol in my system, I'll have another go.

They stated that "GPU support to be added at a later date." They didn't state the date, therefore you cannot bitch and complain that they didn't have GPU support in 1.2, cause they didn't say it was gonna be in 1.2. It might be in 1.2.1, 1.3, 1.6, or 1.999 for all you short-sighted people care.

GPU support isn't necessary for people with patience and Pentium D CPUs. Anything lower and yes, you may be better off with another solution, but as far as I'm concerned, CoreAVC can handle software decoding of 1080i streams absolutely fine on dual-core systems and some single-core systems (I say some, cause if it's older than about 2 years, you've got problems). With the exception of some particular interlaced streams (BBC I'm eagle-eyeing you) CoreAVC is fine and dandy with whatever AVC you throw at it! :D

My $0.02, which is worth about £0.01 in todays climate, so add together my previous comment in this thread and you get £0.02! My dig at the pound-dollar rate. ;):D

[Sirber]

They stated that "GPU support to be added at a later date." They didn't state the date, therefore you cannot bitch and complain that they didn't have GPU support in 1.2, cause they didn't say it was gonna be in 1.2. It might be in 1.2.1, 1.3, 1.6, or 1.999 for all you short-sighted people care.Took 9 months from 1.1 to 1.2. So sure we had hope for GPU support in 1.2 :p

[Foreigner999]

And about CoreCodec Politics sure the Activation is not a nice thing, but these other companies you list here have the power to Cross Finance the Decoders. CoreCodec doesn't seem to have that yet as a Startup so they need someway to gather this and that could come from their SDK licensing but for now it's not possible im sure Dan is doing everything possible to try makeing CoreAVC first less expensive and later free (for average joe)

I don't know Dan, (betaboy?) but I don't think that move has anything to do with intelligent moves on the part of CC. I think it probably has more to do with the reality that thier customers are going to generally be moving to higher end machines in 1.5 years time. So they will most definetly be facing a growing problem of a decoder that when speed comes into the equation there wont be much marketing pull for users in that time.

For those who will jump on me and say there are still people with pentium 2's around who need 1080p avc playback, I think if they havent spent 300$ on a cheap box-only unit i dont think they will be too eager to spend 15$ on a codec. Just my opinion.

and the Activation thing is one of those he's forced upon by the industry hes playing in now (Mpeg-La Deal) to give customers better conditions Mpeg-La want's a gurantee that every sold license is bound to 1 PC else they would wan't money again for every update that's being downloaded and CoreCodec has to keep track of that at least this is how i heared it fly by. And yes this is also again a new forceing upon on us and it will become standard in the end sooner or later Software won't run anymore on our machines but on the Internet (GRID) and we have to pay per use/time for it's usage this is how our forced IT future looks like.

Companies may change thier buisness models but that doesn't mean people will change to their models. Anyone who has been restricted in one way or another from a product they have bought in the past and forced into a lease situation now can _probably_ agree that it wasn't a pleasant experience. Consumers dont like unpleasant and just like children, they will avoid future encounters with restrictions.

I wonder if CC has had a rise in sales or a nosedive?:rolleyes:

P.S. It's tied to 1 OS rather than one 1 PC. So I can't run a dual boot with win98 and WinXp without buying a second license for 1 PC. No reformats too without a new license.

[CruNcher]

@crypto
sorry for this misunderstanding but the normal smilie really made it look like you meant it as you said it again sorry it didn't looked like sarcasm to me this way :(

@Sirber
eh 9 months 1.1 was released in june that aren't 9 months maybe you meant from 1.0 to 1.2, but anyway even that is not strange they are a fairly new player on the market and prepareing alot of stuff so resources on 1 project may be not enough yet why you don't give em some time to establish themselves be fair the activation thing was preanounced by BetaBoy long time ago ok maybe not everyone saw it or overlooked it and surely they could have announced it in a wider way what they gonna do and i agree that didn't happen obvously now everyone is mad @ them but just wait and see what happens in the coming months and how this get resolved or not then you can still decide to hate them :).

@Foreigner999
CoreAVC is very interesting for Semi Proffesional Applications and all kinds of handheld devices without hardware acceleration to license because of it's speed, features and less energy consumption if the encoder is gonna be @ the same level even more licensees will be found and then sooner or later CoreAVC will be freed from it's chain (keep in mind im not speaking for CoreCodec Inc) i just guess here

For example im working with Sony Vegas with Mainconcepts Decoder rendering speed (decoding) for H264 HDV is @ like 5 fps with CoreAVC it's arround 11 fps that is a big win and Sonys customer definately would like to have that :P

[Seb.26]

For example im working with Sony Vegas with Mainconcepts Decoder rendering speed (decoding) for H264 HDV is @ like 5 fps with CoreAVC it's arround 11 fps that is a big win and Sonys customer definately would like to have that :P
It's definitly true that CoreCodec AVC is a fast software decoder ...
I thing everybody here know that ...
( And in any case, devs can be proud for this part of their work... )

but everybody here also know it's not the matter ... :mad:

[3ngel]

@3ngel: That's if anything can match or beat the software decoding speed of CoreAVC.

You know? I've read around (pheraps on this same forum), that there is already a faster solution (even if not decoder-alone) that is something about WinDvd (or it was PowerDVD?) decoding engine that i read was faster than Core one.
But i've not tested myself.

[Seb.26]

You know? I've read around (pheraps on this same forum), that there is already a faster solution (even if not decoder-alone) that is something about WinDvd (or it was PowerDVD?) decoding engine that i read was faster than Core one.
But i've not tested myself.
Do you remember if it was with or without hardware support ?! ;)

[CruNcher]

Yes Cyberlink is faster Hardware wise but they also cheat (or optimized especialy for High Bitrate HD-DVD and Blue-Ray) in quality (no deblock and bad chroma upsampleing) isn't as nice as it could be all this play a role in decoding efficiency you can't just say hey look it's the fastest so it's the best like many Internet Magazines do it @ the moment, it's the wrong way. You have to take the whole thing and find how well it's balanced and for wich purpose.

[3ngel]

Sincerely, from my experience the chrome upsampling problem is related more on the output video mode (overlay or renderless and colorspace) than to decoder setup.
For example i see the chroma problem with any decoder in YV12 mode, but the problem disappear in RGB32 mode with any decoder.

[CruNcher]

3ngel ther'e quality differences between the way the upsampling is done by the decoders the best quality/Speed ratio @ the moment you get with Mainconcepts Decoder but only with Hardware acceleration on, in Software you have less quality i think Mainconcept/Elecard did that because of the extra Speed lose in Software Mode.
Also FFdshows extra quality Upsampling has the same quality but CoreAVC and Cyberlink don't have this quality they look more pixelated on edges.

[3ngel]

As i've said i've not tested specifically the h264 decoder-related matter. I was talking of a general experience.
But sooner or later i'll try the Mainconcept decoder (if available)

[bob0r]

Coreavc, mainconcept or whatever paid software.
In situations like a H.264, they can only make money in a short period of time.
I am talking about a set standards for HD TV, 1920x1080 won't be replaced in many years, so only now can you make money out of it.
You think the new CPUs that come out in 2007, require even any multi core decoder to decode H.264 1080i/p/MBAFF?

Its just smart to make money out of it now, we all should be glad there is an opensource decoder at all, else we would really be f'd!

[Sharktooth]

i was thinking to buy coreavc but NOW im happy with OS decoders (libavcodec/ffdshow).
after the problems i had with M$ and winxp activation i wont buy another software with crappy activation and hope everyone will think twice before buying that...

[Px]

CyberLink H.264/AVC Decoder - no restrictions, no activation
Really? No activation? Are you sure? ;)

[easy2Bcheesy]

My media PC is out of WiFi range. So essentially I can only run the old version, which bombs out on MCE2005 all the time, and I can't install the new version because it requires an internet connection to activate.

Core's customer relations suck donkey balls too. I've sent several emails to several different addresses and never had a reply.

I bought the Pro version 1.1, which doesn't work and I'm sitting on an upgrade I cannot use.

I could relocate my media PC closer to the router and install the new codec I suppose, but what happens when I move to a new media PC? Do I have to buy CoreAVC again?

This whole activation nonsense basically means that now I'm more inclined to buy a faster CPU for a new media PC that won't need their optimised codec. I'll get all the benefits of a faster computer and can use a freeware decoder.

[deets]

its crazy isnt it. the logic is messed up. in order to protect their product, they hinder the legal paying user and end up losing sales.

I have no problem paying for software that works, but as soon as im treated like a thief and made to jump through hoops, i resent the whole darn process and dont come back.

shame as i would have gladly bought it just to show them some support for bringing out a good bit of software.

[Episode]

Wait, it needs to be activated every time you use it?! I thought it was just the installation process that needed internet connection.

[ChronoCross]

Wait, it needs to be activated every time you use it?! I thought it was just the installation process that needed internet connection.

no. only on initial install.

[Inventive Software]

How the hell is this thread still going? Never thought activation could stir up such ranting! :D

[ChronoCross]

How the hell is this thread still going? Never thought activation could stir up such ranting! :D

human nature. people love to bitch when things don't go their way.

[Sharktooth]

ppl love to bitch if they paid and they didnt get what they wanted.
i my case, i bitch coz i waited for a versio with lossless decoding and they added activation in that version.

[MacAddict]

I honestly dont know what world you people live in but DRM is here to stay. I fail to understand why you peeps are moaning and groaning for weeks now that in all likely hood will be in most software packages the next 1-2 years! Anyone install Acrobat 8 lately? Should we open a cry baby thread for that one as well? It's hear to stay for obvious reasons, might as well get use to it, painful as it might be.

[crypto]

MacAddict, you are the customer every company likes, happy with losing your rights. If that's ok for you? Go for it. If not, there are still alternatives like GhostScript for Acrobat and ffdshow for CoreAVC.

[Chainmax]

MacAddict: go on an swallow whatever shit these companies want to shove down your throat. We prefer to have our money speak for ourselves by not buying DRM-infested products. If enough people did that, DRM schemes would eventually at least be revised to be more friendly to people who actually buy things.
Really, how ridiculous is it that pirates can use software with less hassle than paying customers? How can you even begin to rationalize (let alone justify) that?

[ChronoCross]

I'm curious as to what all you anti-DRM people think companies should do? Should they just not protect their IP at all?

[Foreigner999]

I'm curious as to what all you anti-DRM people think companies should do? Should they just not protect their IP at all?

Who are they protecting thier IP from? The legit users or the ones currently using a cracked version? I just looked and coreavc 1.1.0.5 is available both as an illegal download and as part of a codec pack.

The cold hard reality without any philosophy or cash attached to it is that there are probably hundreds of people currently using coreavc that never paid for it. I am pretty sure they dont have any problems using it right now (I dont know). same story is true with coreavc 0.4 .

The legitimate users...at least the ones that have voiced their opinions are having to jump through a lot of hoops just to get their coreavc 1.2 version working. While this might be fixed in some degree I dont think there are many people in support of the drm like measures that are causing more problems for the legitimate users.

In all fairness, if you are a happy coreavc user running 1.2 then please let us know with your real forum name, so that we can track your happiness in the future with this fine product.

(sarcasm started) For those who havent bought the actual product but do have an opinion on coreavc :rolleyes: please tell us your opinion on how the product runs for you. (sarcasm ended)

[foxyshadis]

Core is far more of a customer relations disaster than a technical one. Some people will never appreciate the idea of renting software until the company goes out of business or shuts the servers down, and that's fine. But Core simply doesn't have the support resources, and far too many problems with email (and money!) disappearing into black holes, to adequately service the fickle population they aimed their product at. That problem has been ongoing since CoreAVC's inception, almost a year now.

Even though they've added staff, what end-users see is that they're almost always days or weeks behind. Nobody's going to appreciate more restrictions and hassle added to a product that's hardly supported now, or trust the company to stabilize and streamline it, at this point.

[ChronoCross]

Still doesn't answer my question. So you think it would be better to have no DRM at all for any product? Simply cause it makes the legit user have to work a little harder? Wouldn't that be a sign to the cracker/hacker that they have won? Now they won't even have to put in even a little effort to crack it. Seems kinda like everyone might as well give everything (DVD's, CD's Software) away for free.

[GmorG McRoth]

I'm curious as to what all you anti-DRM people think companies should do? Should they just not protect their IP at all?

That is too extreme, some protection is needed, not to stop crackers (because it is impossible), but to remind people this is illegal to use commercial software without paying. I think most people prefer using legal software when they can, they will pay for it, just to have clean conscience. It's just important to not make their life harder than it is.

Possibly my point of view may be silly, and too idealistic, in that case ignore me, and my mumbling.

[foxyshadis]

I wasn't posting to answer you, CC, but I don't personally have a problem with activation done well. I'd consider Adobe's and Intuit's reasonably well done, regardless of the companys' long-term motives. What concerns me is that many are done badly, especially since there's no standard generally-available activation platform; most companies reinventing the wheel do it badly. Well, Steam might be the exception, but it's games-only so far, and it wouldn't work for a disconnected media center pc either.

[Foreigner999]

Still doesn't answer my question. So you think it would be better to have no DRM at all for any product? Simply cause it makes the legit user have to work a little harder?

I disagree fundamentally with some practices of copyright and the way of restricting creativity and it's fruits to be used in only one certain way. I disagree with the concept of patents. Now that i have got that out in the clear I also tend to reason through alot of things and am not the type of person to be hardcore one way or the other.

I understand the reason to TRY to protect IP but the reality of the situation is that if there is enough interest in a product and it's uses there will be almost always be someone who will invest time and effort into making that product available to the masses. From Adobe to Microsoft to CoreCodec. Money invested in protection doesn't matter, since it has all been made public.

Who again I ask you, ChronoCross, is the activation system supposed to hamper from illegal uses? The legit user who could be a developer or a nonlinear video editor; or is it mean't to hamper the shady programmer who will decompile, edit, and post to the web her/his works?

Sure I agree CC should make money from it's product and a great product it is! But unfortunately, it only takes one success to make a community of illegal copies and users. They endure nothing of the long hours waiting on email support if a machine crashed in the middle of an activation or the discomfort of having to deal with CC and maybe revealing more than you'd like to.

Thats a crying shame for those who paid for the software and then found themselves in a position of "either install it and deal with the restrictive/buggy situation" or "Keep your feature incomplete and buggy software and look elsewhere" situation.

Wouldn't that be a sign to the cracker/hacker that they have won? Now they won't even have to put in even a little effort to crack it. Seems kinda like everyone might as well give everything (DVD's, CD's Software) away for free.

Um, what? The sign's when they cracked windows 98 through XP and Vista weren't enough? Millions probably were spent on those. Minutes if i remember seeing it on the news were spent cracking them. Most within 24 hours. What about adobe? Just checked and CS 2 is there.

Maybe they shouldn't reinvent the wheel but figure out a different method that doesn't involve the same broken case over and over again and accept human nature and the losses that it creates. Keep squeezing your fist harder and harder to increase security and your hand will go numb.:o

[Chainmax]

I'm curious as to what all you anti-DRM people think companies should do? Should they just not protect their IP at all?

I'm not sure, but like foxyshadis said, it can be implemented in a much more intuitive way. Also, like Foreigner999 says, DRM research is a waste of time and resources, as everything winds up cracked and the only ones that have to suffer through these broken DRM implementations are the paying customers.

[MacAddict]

MacAddict, you are the customer every company likes, happy with losing your rights. If that's ok for you? Go for it. If not, there are still alternatives like GhostScript for Acrobat and ffdshow for CoreAVC.

I'm not happy about losing my rights in the least. I just focus on the things I can change or control, a companies software is far beyond my control.

@Chainmax

I'm not here to justify any companies actions and I'm not swallowing 'stuff' as you eloquently put it. If I dont like the software then I simply dont give the company my money and use an alternative. Very simple and I certainly dont dwell on it for weeks like some of the peeps in these threads. We all learn lessons in life, sometimes the hard way. DRM is here to stay, how you cope with it is what matters. It's being shoved down out throats on a daily basis, personally I wont pay a penny for it and definitely wont lose any sleep ;-)

[Chainmax]

Fair enough.

[ChronoCross]

Simply the past "It's been cracked" doesn't mean they should stop trying to protect their IP with DRM. Granted it will get cracked eventually but the key here is they HAVE to try else they might as well give it to everyone for free.

I don't like restrictive activation like the next person. However I knew I was buying a single PC non-transferable license. It has also been made clear to me when I do upgrade to my next PC I will be able to get a new activation code. Which is why I'm not fretting.

The average user won't be impacted by activation. Most people seem to be complaining are power users.

[Manao]

Most people seem to be complaining are power usersD9 ( and most board actually ) is a "power" user board, so it's not that significant.
he key here is they HAVE to try else they might as well give it to everyone for freeThey sold CoreAvc 1.1, didn't they ?
However I knew I was buying a single PC non-transferable licenseAnd I won't, ever - or rather, I hope I'll never be forced to. It amounts exactly to buying twice a song, one for my IPod, one on CD, and I sure hope you are against that.

[ChronoCross]

D9 ( and most board actually ) is a "power" user board, so it's not that significant.
They sold CoreAvc 1.1, didn't they ?
And I won't, ever - or rather, I hope I'll never be forced to. It amounts exactly to buying twice a song, one for my IPod, one on CD, and I sure hope you are against that.

Probably could have sold more if they had actually protected it even in the slightest.

All you gotta do is read. It's easy to avoid such situations if you read the license. It's one of the reasons I haven't bought any itunes music store music. With coreavc I knew I wasn't supposed to install it on 5432 different machines and agreed to it.

You can be anti-DRM and still buy DRM'ed products if your well informed and make a conscious decision on whether the product falls within the guidelines of a reasonable license. Since most people complained after the fact about the single license (it's been in the AUP/TOS since the first purchasable version) I think that I give them less leeway to complain.

[Foreigner999]

Simply the past "It's been cracked" doesn't mean they should stop trying to protect their IP with DRM. Granted it will get cracked eventually but the key here is they HAVE to try else they might as well give it to everyone for free.

If it's the same type of technology that relies on the same type of principles then yes it is pretty much a given that it will be cracked IMHO. But dont take my opinion lets see how long it takes till it is on P2P.

I don't like restrictive activation like the next person. However I knew I was buying a single PC non-transferable license.

Um, so that means I can run windows 98 and XP and the new Vista beta on a triple boot system and have no problems with my "single PC non-transferable license"? That means I dont have to bother CC with requests to get a new license for these different Operating systems with only one PC with exactly the same hardware? Or is that considered a "power user" these days?

It has also been made clear to me when I do upgrade to my next PC I will be able to get a new activation code. Which is why I'm not fretting.

Thats GREAT NEWS! So where do I go on their website to look that up in an official way? Is that a bullet point type of promise like the gpu support and 4 smp support. Or will we be here in a few months discussing how thats just a personal email to one client and it doesn't manifest for everyone else? I'd like to know how long will CC support my 1.2 version of Coreavc? Will there be a cutoff date in the future where they will not support my request for a new license? See these issues i wouldn't have at all if we were talking about 1.1.0.5.

My name was stapled to my purchase so i sure as hell would not share it with the world and thats fine with me. But now I dont know if by the time version 3 of coreavc comes out will they come up with "core accounts version 6" or something and they will drop support for my maybe-soon-to-be-vaporware purchase.

Which brings me to my last quote...

The average user won't be impacted by activation. Most people seem to be complaining are power users.



Look at my last paragraph and see if that applies only to power user worries.

[Inventive Software]

Um, so that means I can run windows 98 and XP and the new Vista beta on a triple boot system and have no problems with my "single PC non-transferable license"?
Before CoreCodec removed the license from the installer, it stated the following:
CORECODEC, Inc. (the "Licensor") grants to you
this personal, limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable,
non-assignable license solely to use in a single copy of the
Licensed Works on a single computer for use by a single
concurrent user only, and solely provided that you adhere to
all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

I've also stated many times that they actually have no right to give you GPU support just cause you keep pestering them for it. They specified it to be added at a later date, but because they didn't specify that date, you want it in the next release, just cause they specified it "to be added at a later date".

Read my words VERY carefully.

GPU support is very tricky to implement right, no matter WHAT your granny taught you in high school. Take NVIDIA's PureVideo as a case study. When it was first shown to the consumer world, it was buggy, almost featureless, boasted features that were not there for YEARS, but now they have it right, save for a few bugs here and there.

Lets go over that part again, shall we?

boasted features that were not there for YEARS
Hmm, years. It's been around a year between CoreAVC 1.1.0.0 and CoreAVC 1.2.0.0. Since then, CoreCodec has released several point releases for CoreAVC 1.1 to bump it up to 1.1.0.5, and keep most of it's core userbase happy. Yes, there were major problems with CoreAVC and XP MCE, which hurt a large(ish) minority, but other than that, CoreAVC 1.1.0.5 lived on for many months as the fastest software H.264 decoder around, and to some extent the fastest solution, including GPU assistance. PureVideo is now almost as fast as CoreAVC with the right decoder used, but still has a way to go to justify CoreAVC having GPU support, because if PureVideo can't get it right after years of research, what's to say a small centralised team with limited resources can't?

[foxyshadis]

So we should be happy that Core espouses "vaporware" because that's a common industry practice? Or just too jaded to care? They were the ones who convinced people to buy it by saying it was right around the corner for months, until they realized it wasn't going to be.

Legally they're not under much obligation to make it happen anytime soon, but that doesn't mean a userbase has no right to feel scammed by what some see as a bait-and-switch.

Anyway, according to the license there should be no problem. It's the same computer - same hard drives, same motherboard, same processor - under all three OSes, unless the license also specified that "computer" was inclusive of the OS. And has anyone tried swapping a motherboard, or even a hard drive, to see what makes the activation bail yet?

[Sirber]

I read elsewhere someone swapped mobo and CoreAVC didn't work after.

[dragongodz]

Anyway, according to the license there should be no problem. It's the same computer - same hard drives, same motherboard, same processor - under all three OSes, unless the license also specified that "computer" was inclusive of the OS.
i believe the relevant part in that license would be
single copy of the Licensed Works on a single computer for use by a single concurrent user only
single copy. wouldnt that suggest you can not install it more than once even on the same pc (ie. multi-OS) ?

i have to say thats the most "you cant" license i have ever seen. :eek:

[Inventive Software]

Which is exactly why CoreCodec removed it from the new installer for 1.2. Betaboy stated that the MPEG-LA restrictions are enough, and a license isn't really necessary.

[dragongodz]

Betaboy stated that the MPEG-LA restrictions are enough, and a license isn't really necessary.
fair enough but lets get something clear. MPEGLA do a common license and not tailored to each licensee. so any suggestion that the MPEGLA is the reason behind Corecodecs DRM restrictions is plainly rubbish. the proof is in other companies(licensees) such as Elecard, Mainconcept, Intervideo and Cyberlink. none of these use anywhere near the same level of restrictions or protection or whatever you want to call it. how a company chooses to protect its product is up to it.

[Sharktooth]

Above all things there is common sense.
If you treat your customers as thiefs you deserve to burn down to ash.
It's all a matter of trust. If companies do not trust customers, why customers should trust companies?

[3ngel]

If you treat your customers as thiefs you deserve to burn down to ash.

They surely will do i think, soon, dust to dust.

And i hope they will not "Arise" ;)

[ChronoCross]

@Sharktooth

The same could be said about the companies. Why should they trust any of their customers when their customers have already said publicly that they will use a pirated copy.

Or that every time they don't do exactly what the customer wants they'll throw a shit fit. The customer is generally a whiney little baby who wants everything perfectly the way they want it. Companies don't seem to have any rights, it's always about "consumer rights". Where is the fairness in that? I think that if the consumer can shit on a company whenever they feel like the company should be able to shit back on them.

[Foreigner999]

Or that every time they don't do exactly what the customer wants they'll throw a shit fit. The customer is generally a whiney little baby who wants everything perfectly the way they want it. Companies don't seem to have any rights, it's always about "consumer rights". Where is the fairness in that? I think that if the consumer can shit on a company whenever they feel like the company should be able to shit back on them.

Yeah...only one problem. Companies dont survive without consumers; but consumers do survive without companies.

Yes I think it should be a take and give situation on both ends of the stick. But CC started the drm scheme before any illegal copies showed up on the net. They didn't just whip out that scheme overnight you know. As of version 1.1.0.5 they stated that they decided it wasn't ready or something to that effect. So it was a work in progress quite a while back.

I thought the old protection scheme of customized binaries was a pretty good one. I didn't want my copy out there and have my account canceled and I dont think anyone with half a brain might. But when it did get cracked well thats just what happens when a software becomes popular.

As for what someone else mentioned about the extremes of protection and the "can't factor" of different companies, some are far more lax allowing users more freedom in the usage of thier products. Take for example Adobe Photoshop CS 3, they will likely allow you to install it on an office and home pc. With CC i can't even install it on more than one OS sitting on the same PC. I'd hate to see where this goes once people get thier hands dirty on virtualization and multi-OS setups. This is not an extreme case! This is likely what power users will be using thier future computers for in say 1.5 to 2 years time. Why not switch between operating systems for different software and keep from having to break your wallet and bank account by staying on only one platform and one set of choices of software for doing chores from work or using your favorite Windows only media player.

[Sharktooth]

@Sharktooth

The same could be said about the companies. Why should they trust any of their customers when their customers have already said publicly that they will use a pirated copy.

Or that every time they don't do exactly what the customer wants they'll throw a shit fit. The customer is generally a whiney little baby who wants everything perfectly the way they want it. Companies don't seem to have any rights, it's always about "consumer rights". Where is the fairness in that? I think that if the consumer can shit on a company whenever they feel like the company should be able to shit back on them.
There is a rule that should always be respected when you're into business:
- The customer is always right.
... and that's coz you sell something the customers want so customers give you the money you need to survive.
So, shitting on the customers means you will get no money... and you know how it works... no money, no glory.
It has been always like that and it will always be.

[ChronoCross]

Sometimes the customer is always right gets stretched too frequently to include EVERYTHING. In reality the customer is not always right, often the customer needs to be told what is right. Any business that doesn't stand up to the whims of their customers will not make money either as they will always be giving away free items.

[Audionut]

when their customers have already said publicly that they will use a pirated copy.

If they are using a pirated copy, then they are not a paying customer.

The only other thing I have to add to this matter is that in my experience the only thing strong protection mechanisms appear to do is make it a pain in the ass for paying customers.

People will always find ways to defeat copy protection. And the other will wait until someone cracks it instead of paying for it.

In the end, the paying customer gets fuc**d around. And perhaps the cracker get a nice challenge.

edit: perhaps this thread could be moved to a different section.

[Audionut]

Sometimes the customer is always right gets stretched too frequently to include EVERYTHING.

Customers are sheep. They are very rarely correct.

[Zag]

I just have one question for you, do you honestly think that their business has improved since adding this new feature? Do you really think that more customers are lined up to purchase this product since they introduced this new "feature"? I get the feeling that based on the comments on these threads a lot of the customers that coreavc was hoping to get have run in the opposite direction. I am one them...

The little gain this release had going for it has been wiped out by all this negative controversy, heck I can't even find much of a discussion of how well it is working. No technical discussion, no talk of improvements. Nothing but bad press and that can't be good for business regardless. Simple economics my friend, any business that runs off more customers that it gains will not be in business long.

[Foreigner999]

I too doubt that their bottom line hasn't been affected.

The only thing I can imagine bringing CC back to the spot light is adding features to their core account system and adding a way for user to buy licenses at a fraction of the cost of the original price if they own a primary license at least.

Say anywhere between 2 to 4 dollars per extra PC/PDA/HTPC. How about a 2$ premium for a license on the same PC but different OS? And 4$ premium for extra PCs coming from the same IP for those of us with home networks? Full price for PC's not in the same location as the primary PC. See I dont think this has to be a one way only deal. This would definetly cure the crisis created by the drm like protection scheme.

I have 2 laptops 2 desktops and one smartphone. This is easier for me to handle than Full price for every single PC and OS. What do you guys/gals think?

[Sharktooth]

interesting. but still activation should be removed or at least give the user the possibility to:
1) activate by phone
2) deactivate the product for a later reactivation (maybe on another PC) of the same or of a different version of the product (for linux maybe?)
3) self-fix activation problems by logging in into the core-account system and giving some special password or something you get when you get the product
4) receive products update thru an auto-update embedded into the core-account system that will scan and update the installed core products without needing a re-activation

... or as i said... give up with activation!

[Romario]

You are right, Sharktooth. You are the man!!!

Or else, hackers might try to crack CoreAVC 1.2!

[ChronoCross]

You are right, Sharktooth. You are the man!!!

Or else, hackers might try to crack CoreAVC 1.2!

I love sheep

[Romario]

Sheep???

[Koti]

http://www.sheep101.info/flocking.html
;)

[wiak]

CoreCodec has not been forced in any way by MPEG LA to use an activation system. Afaik other decoder don't use activation either. CoreCodec chose to implement activation to try to prevent piracy.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=838063#post838063
activation wont prevent piracy, it will encurat it!

and CoreAVC should allow to be installed on upto 4 PC's, just like SMP

[foxyshadis]

Activation doesn't encourage piracy. A small number of pirates will buy it, a small number of legit lawful owners will crack it just to get rid of the headaches, and a lot more people (legit or not) will just stick with what they have or go to another package, especially if it's free and open source. No crack is in the wild currently, but my guess is that has more to do with no compelling reason to upgrade. A few bugfixes won't compel current pirates to upgrade or attract the attention of cracker teams.

[crypto]

...and a lot more people (legit or not) will just stick with what they have or go to another package, especially if it's free and open source.

Exactly. This is especially true for the CoreAVC case. ffdshow has gotten better and better and performs now in the core range, with nearly its speed but more precise decoding.

[sillKotscha]

ffdshow has gotten better and better and performs now in the core range, with nearly its speed but more precise decoding.

not really true... it all depends on the cpu used. On my AthlonXP 2400+ CoreAVC is still the (very!) fastest decoder available...

but I have to admit that ffdshow really is getting closer 'n closer. The current ffdshow devs here at our forum do a fantastic job concerning bug tracking and speed optimizations - all in their spare time and for no charge.

The Core team should really think about a new USP or they will completely loose the race...

[KoD]

"dev team here" did nothing about h264 decoding speedup in ffdshow. Read teh changelog. You're probably confusing the ffmpeg devs that make all the decoder improvements with the people that merge those changes into ffdshow. Let's give credit where it's due, shall we ? And ffdshow still uses only one core for decoding, not to mention interlaced decoding is a pain, but then it's sometimes a pain in CoreAVC too.

[clsid]

If CoreCodec would remove the (intentional?) bug in CoreAVC that causes the blockiness on some vids, then the overall performance will drop with about 10%. Estimate based on an experiment that drevil_xxl did with libavcodec code.

[sillKotscha]

@KoD

I know very well that not ffdshow itself is in charge of those speed ups but it's libraries... and you know very well what I intended to say - don't pervert my words.

fdshow still uses only one core for decoding

"the more badly" for the Core team that ffdshow is already getting that close concerning decoding speed :sly:

not to mention interlaced decoding is a pain

as far as I remember ffdshow gets updated nearly what?... every day?? and what about Core... updated nearly what? twice a year?? :sly:

in other words guess who's first in optimal interlaced decoding

[bond]

If CoreCodec would remove the (intentional?) bug in CoreAVC that causes the blockiness on some vids, then the overall performance will drop with about 10%. Estimate based on an experiment that drevil_xxl did with libavcodec code.http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=914385#post914385

[KoD]

Sorry, but that's exactly how I understood it. Let's say I often found people that got praise for somebody else's work and it moves me in an unpleasant way.

As for decoder speed improvements, we really need to do some benchmarks and comment on them rather than guessing. Something like Haali's timecodec (http://haali.cs.msu.ru/mkv/timeCodec.exe) could prove useful.

Here's a little sample one could use (torrent file for a 50MB mp4 file): http://a.scarywater.net/triad/[Triad]_5cm_preview.mp4.torrent
It's a h264 720p in mp4 encode of a preview for an animated movie that's planned to appear next year. The preview is publicly available on the official website 5cm (http://5cm.yahoo.co.jp/) but this one was encoded in h264. It's native 720p, which means it was made at 720p, not upconverted or anything similar. Have a go and see how ffdshow and CoreAVC fare.

[foxyshadis]

I use riverbed (ftp://ftp.ldv.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de/dist/test_sequences/1080p/riverbed.yuv) encoded lossless with CABAC and CAVLC to test against. I get:

CABAC (23Mbps):
ffdshow - 16.1 dfps
coreavc 0.4 - 19.1 dfps
coreavc pre-1.0 - 37.3 dfps

CAVLC (26Mbps):
ffdshow - 19.1 dfps
coreavc 0.4 - 22.5 dfps
coreavc 1.0-pre - 44.5 dfps

All are 3 runs averaged, plus one run before. I wouldn't have even listed 0.4 except I ran the test before noticing it was using only one core, tracked it down to using the wrong version - some $#%* software must have put it on there. I'll find out later. (Could have been anything in the 5 months since I last used it, so it's hard to say.) [Edit: It was SUPER. Damn that thing.]

So ffdshow is much better than it was, but for megabitrate 1080p just not up to snuff. An mplayer test would probably give you an fps or two more.

If I can ever get gcc 4.3 to work I'll get to multithreading easy bits of the decoder; until then, only someone intimately familiar with AVC can even touch threading.

Also, h264 support in ffdshow hasn't really changed since the big speedup push a few months back.

[clsid]

On a single core cpu differences are smaller.

[PSNR]Air.Creditless.OP.[avc][vorbis].mkv:

ffdshow rev664 - 86.2 dfps
coreavc 1.1.0.5 - 111.8 dfps

ffdshow is 23% slower for this file. For other files that I tried its between 20 and 30%.

[plonk420]

Some people will never appreciate the idea of renting software until the company goes out of business or shuts the servers down, and that's fine.

good point :P i was just about to wonder outloud why legit users would care, since if we're here to post and complain about it, then we obviously will have an internet connection... we all know how overzealous protection schemes hurt the users more than pirates, but i've never had an issue with programs i've actually bought. the only annoying thing about AnyDVD is how often the updates annoy me, even in the middle of a session with my favorite MMOG (back when i played)...

i may have to keep a warez'd copy around alongside my legit version. i haven't even gotten around to loading 1.2 as 1.1 is working perfectly fine for me currently...

was looking for some program i bought a while ago (back in the Voodoo2/3 days) only to find the author's site was loooong gone and not a trace of it around... hopefully this doesn't happen here...

[bob0r]

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=914385#post914385

Yup, this leaves us with one question:
Where is CoreAVC 1.2.0.1?
Quicker updates was the goal, no?
Bug fixed, release update, good for the people, good for core (they know the bug fixes work or not)

(just hopes this dumb activation process isn't causing a problem with updating)

I am still waiting for BetaBoy's reply:
Does CoreAVC 1.2 still display widescreen video: 4:3, when software deblocking/deinterlacing is enabled.... in DVB Viewer?

[BetaBoy]

We are working on many of the concerns being adressed atm... including an Activation Wizard that is installed on the users PC to self-serve activation/de-activation without any interaction of the Core Account system.

Once this is completed we will move it to our services home and release the new update with the latest fixes.

[_xxl]

"dev team here" did nothing about h264 decoding speedup in ffdshow. Read teh changelog. You're probably confusing the ffmpeg devs that make all the decoder improvements with the people that merge those changes into ffdshow. Let's give credit where it's due, shall we ? And ffdshow still uses only one core for decoding, not to mention interlaced decoding is a pain, but then it's sometimes a pain in CoreAVC too.
Please, don't forget that FFDSHOW is released as an open source software under GPL license agreement..We do it for free.If you don't like ffdshow don't use it!

[Manao]

I don't think KoD's statement was intended as a critic of the dev team. Crypto had just said : "ffdshow has gotten better and better and performs now in the core range, with nearly its speed but more precise decoding", which is just not true (yet), so KoD corrected it.

[KoD]

I appreciate the work haruhiko, foxyshadis, clsid and drevil do to keep ffdshow updated and to fix some of its annoyances. Truth be told, I think haruhiko needs more recognition for his work than he currently receives in the ffdshow thread here on the forum as he is the main force behind significant code changes.

But let's be honest, the merit for decoder improvements go to the ffmpeg devs as ffdshow simply merges those changes into its source tree. And the current speed of h264 decoding in libavcodec is not near that of coreavc. We may speak what we want, but tests prove how things really are and not how we want them to be.

Please also note that some of the people working on ffmpeg as well as other free video and audio related projects are also those that during "job hours" work for the companies that receive so much flack here. You see, open source does not put bread on the table, at least as long as it doesn't "fight" against a widely perceived evil (I'm watching at you, Firefox & IE !) and does not have to breach patents (since almost all the tech in the video and audio realm is covered by patents).

[f@chance]

For me it is finallythe end of the line. After purchasing CAVC 1.2 on the day of its rlease I Never got the download link, Never was able to open my account because of Bad User Name or Password.

Dec 6th PayPal issued a refund for a product that I never downloaded nor installed. After reading these pages and pages about the Activaton PITA how glad that I will n ot use CAVC 1.2.

As it was stated in this thread many times this business decision will hurt the end user and they do not want the hassle of this activation scheme.

[Seb.26]

[...] with the latest fixes.
Is it possible for you to tell a little bit more about this "latest fixes" please ?
( maybe fingerprints+eye-iris activation ?! :D ... sorry ... :p )

[TheFluff]

I use riverbed (ftp://ftp.ldv.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de/dist/test_sequences/1080p/riverbed.yuv) encoded lossless with CABAC and CAVLC to test against. I get:

CABAC (23Mbps):
ffdshow - 16.1 dfps
coreavc 0.4 - 19.1 dfps
coreavc pre-1.0 - 37.3 dfps

CAVLC (26Mbps):
ffdshow - 19.1 dfps
coreavc 0.4 - 22.5 dfps
coreavc 1.0-pre - 44.5 dfps
What did you measure with? Haali's timecodec isn't accurate at all for multithreaded decoders, AFAIK.

Also, h264 support in ffdshow hasn't really changed since the big speedup push a few months back.
If you by "a few months" mean "about 5 weeks", then OK. But there was also another, bigger optimization run about 7 weeks ago, I guess you might mean that, too...

[foxyshadis]

I should check times more often, because relying on my memory is fraught with danger. :p I meant the spring and october flurries of patches.

Tested with timecodec, null renderer. I realize the fps value is off, but dfps should be correct, since it measures total time to decode the full stream (and thus is rather sensitive to having other things going on in your system). Unless there's more wrong with it.

[HookedOnTV]

My concern with the activation issue is what happens 6 months from now when my hard drive takes a dump and there is noone on the other end of email requests for a replacement activation.

[BetaBoy]

My concern with the activation issue is what happens 6 months from now when my hard drive takes a dump and there is noone on the other end of email requests for a replacement activation.

if you dont change your Windows serial number then there is no need to worry... but this is the reason why we have created the Core Activation Wizard that will be bundled with all our our products.

[BetaBoy]

Is it possible for you to tell a little bit more about this "latest fixes" please ?
( maybe fingerprints+eye-iris activation ?! :D ... sorry ... :p )

Yes, in the next version we will make you stare at the flashing HD light to read the 'morse code' serial number ;-) . . . We have fixed the issue related to TheFluff's posting and are working on the interlacing problem as well. I could also tell you all about GPU but I feel it best to fix the last few reported issues before we start talking about that.

[DeepBeepMeep]

Talking about the GPU support might not be a good idea ... it will best next time simply to show it :).

However, now that you are talking about fixing bugs, are you going to fix the incorrect color ranges for some H264 streams (black level is at 32 instead of being at 16, same problem for the whites I think). It is not clear based of your posts that you are aware of this bug. I could provide a sample file if this help.

[BetaBoy]

Talking about the GPU support might not be a good idea ... it will best next time simply to show it :).

However, now that you are talking about fixing bugs, are you going to fix the incorrect color ranges for some H264 streams (black level is at 32 instead of being at 16, same problem for the whites I think). It is not clear based of your posts that you are aware of this bug. I could provide a sample file if this help.

Pls do!

[Foreigner999]

How long has coreavc 1.2 been out so far? ;)

Seems it's already been cracked. :devil:

Betaboy any news on CoreAAC 2.0 that was planned to be included?

[Seb.26]

Yes, in the next version we will make you stare at the flashing HD light to read the 'morse code' serial number ;-) . . .
Happy to see you still have humour ... ;)
( And I think you need it everyday with us ! )

We have fixed the issue related to TheFluff's posting and are working on the interlacing problem as well. I could also tell you all about GPU but I feel it best to fix the last few reported issues before we start talking about that.
OK ... you are right : first stabilize actual release before add new features ;)
( but release GPU fast too !!! :D :D :D )

<< May the force B with U .. >>

However, now that you are talking about fixing bugs, are you going to fix the incorrect color ranges for some H264 streams (black level is at 32 instead of being at 16, same problem for the whites I think). It is not clear based of your posts that you are aware of this bug. I could provide a sample file if this help.
Have you a link about this point ?!
( I haven't seen any problem about that ?! )

[Inventive Software]

I must quote this from the other thread about the activation. Thanks clsid for a good laugh. ;)

A legal copy of CoreAVC Pro 1.2: $14.95
3 bottles of coca cola regular: $4
2 bags of potato chips: $2
Spending 5 hours to crack the activation: $0

Uploading a torrent to piratebay: PRICELESS

[DeepBeepMeep]

Pls do!


Ok I have sent a 1Mb sample. I have tried a couple of Email addresses I found. Please let me know if you got the Email. For those who are interested in this issue, here is the content of the Email:

"Hi,

Following my post on Doom9, please find a very short TS sample of 1080p film which has incorrect black and white levels (here black looks grey). It seems this problem is typical on everything capped on SkyHD in UK and PremiereHD in Germany.

In fact everything happens as if the option 'Fix VMR9 Level' was not checked. After a deeper study it appears this problem is visible if the CoreAVC IS NOT the last filter in the chain even if the video renderer is VMR9. In fact I tend to use ffdshow as the last filter of the chain for postprocessing.

If now the renderer is the Overlay mixer, even if CoreAvc is at the end of the chain the black level will be wrong since it will look grey.

My assumption is that you rely on the DirectShow (hardware?) system filters to fix the color range and that this works only if CoreAVC is the filter before the VMR9 renderer.

It would nice to fix this issue since I need to use a filter in ffdshow to fix the color range which consumes precious CPU. In addition I am pretty sure this color conversions may cause the picture to lose quality."

[oddball]

There is a crack out for 1.2 just so you know. Not gonna say the group name or anything. I paid for my copy and only need to run it on a single system so not too bothered really. But just so you guys know this Activation stuff is a waste of time and only penalises legitimate users.

[clsid]

Too bad that it requires Windows XP :( It uses some kind of suspicious packer as well.

[sillKotscha]

It uses some kind of suspicious packer as well.

found a torrent with just the *.ax file and regdrop included in the folder...

... searched around just out of curiosity :)

[ChronoCross]

hopefully there will be some DMCA pulldowns on anyone offering it.

[foxyshadis]

This thread is so going to get rule 6'd if this conversation continues.

[Sharktooth]

Removing DRM is a right (if the product was legally obtained)... otherwise FairUse4WM would be considered a rule 6 violation as well...
However i was able to find even a keygen, a patched .ax and a crack... in less than 5 minutes.
Obviously i dont support warez (just had some fun searching usenet and p2p channels) but this should make companies think twice or even more before investing time and money into DRM and protection schemes. They only create problems (meaning more time and money investment) and more unhappy customers that will go the "illegal" way to get the same product for free and without hassles...
Be nice and honest with your customers and they will be happy to buy your product...

[dragongodz]

guys please lets try and not get this thread closed.

also
Is it possible for you to tell a little bit more about this "latest fixes" please ?
questions like this should go in the normal CAVC thread, not this one.

I could also tell you all about GPU but I feel it best to fix the last few reported issues before we start talking about that.
unless you are getting ready to release a version that has GPU support all you are doing is marketing vaporware with that statement. you should already know people were not impressed about you hinting you were working on GPU a LONG time ago for nothing to appear. if you keep mentioning it in this way you deserve any and all criticism you get for it not being implamented whenever a new version is released.

[Seb.26]

guys please lets try and not get this thread closed.
questions like this should go in the normal CAVC thread, not this one.

<< SIR ! YES ! SIR ! >>

[f@chance]

This was a no brainer, didn't even have time to make a latte before finding it.

As a former ISV it pains me though to see hard work down the drain, but you reap what you sow. We wouldn't have this discussion unless the paying public got pi**ed of by the activation scheme. It is a crying shame that the resources spent on the core release system were not spent on the product enhancement.

[Rumbah]

But let's be honest, the merit for decoder improvements go to the ffmpeg devs as ffdshow simply merges those changes into its source tree. And the current speed of h264 decoding in libavcodec is not near that of coreavc. We may speak what we want, but tests prove how things really are and not how we want them to be.

I just tried the new libavcodec in VLC 0.8.6 against CoreAVC 1.2 with the Spiderman 3 720p trailer on a P4 3,2 Ghz HT processor. And I have to say I'm quite impressed with the new VLC. With CoreAVC the processor usage while playing it is between 10% and 18% while in VLC it is between 0% and 8%.

[Sirber]

I just tried the new libavcodec in VLC 0.8.6 against CoreAVC 1.2 with the Spiderman 3 720p trailer on a P4 3,2 Ghz HT processor. And I have to say I'm quite impressed with the new VLC. With CoreAVC the processor usage while playing it is between 10% and 18% while in VLC it is between 0% and 8%.That's great! :D

[SeeMoreDigital]

I just tried the new libavcodec in VLC 0.8.6 against CoreAVC 1.2 with the Spiderman 3 720p trailer on a P4 3,2 Ghz HT processor. And I have to say I'm quite impressed with the new VLC. With CoreAVC the processor usage while playing it is between 10% and 18% while in VLC it is between 0% and 8%.How does the speed compare to FFdshow's libavcodec H.264 decoder...

[Sirber]

(just had some fun searching usenet and p2p channels)It's easier than you think...

[Sharktooth]

Oh, well... even on the web...

[Rectal Prolapse]

But does VLC do deblocking and deinterlacing?

Oh wait - you said 720p. Was deinterlacing disabled in VLC and CoreAVC? I'm not sure if CoreAVC will try to "deinterlace" a progressive stream if that is enabled - if so it would chew up more CPU cycles.

Does VLC use Overlay or VMR9? If the CoreAVC test was in VMR9 and VLC is in Overlay, you should see a big difference.

[Sharktooth]

Deinterlacing is triggered only on interlaced sources.
However VLC uses libavcodec that has a more "compliant" output than coreavc (due to the blocking bug in coreavc).
So basically if Rumbah results are correct (but i doubt it - maybe it was a VMR vs Overlay comparison), libavcodec looks better and is faster than coreavc.

[Rectal Prolapse]

Thanks for the clarification.

[KoD]

I should say that these kinds of low VLC cpu usage when decoding avc is not something new. It was reported months ago, but the general consensus was that the real cpu usage of VLC is higher than what taskmanager shows.

[Sharktooth]

that's a nonsense...

[Rectal Prolapse]

That could be possible if a lot of work is done by worker threads not owned by VLC. However, overall CPU usage should be mostly accurate, even if CPU usage of VLC itself is low. Right? :)

[Sirber]

right :)
you cannot hide CPU power! mouhahahahaha!

[KoD]

What can I say ? Please enjoy avc playback with 0-8% cpu usage, then. As for me, I have higher cpu usage while watching a simple dvd.

[Rumbah]

How does the speed compare to FFdshow's libavcodec H.264 decoder...

I installed ffdshow tryouts revision 684 Dec 11 2006, and I got a cpu usage playing that file of about 10% - 23%. What I noticed is that CoraAVC uses at least two threads for decoding (both HT "cpus" work) while ffdshow uses only one(CoreAVC and ffdshow playback with Media Player Classic).


Does VLC use Overlay or VMR9? If the CoreAVC test was in VMR9 and VLC is in Overlay, you should see a big difference.
I think VLC uses Overlay, at least it works with the ATI theater mode. I set MPC output to Overlay mixer, so it should use Overlay, too. (I think VLC does not use DirectShow, perhaps that's a big advantage regarding speed)

(but i doubt it - maybe it was a VMR vs Overlay comparison)
As mentioned above, I think both used Overlay.

As for me, I have higher cpu usage while watching a simple dvd.
Watching DVD I have a cpu usage of about 2% in VLC and 10% in MPC with the internal decoders.

[bob0r]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6182657.stm

:devil:

[Foreigner999]

Hmm seems the coreavc rant thread has turned pretty luke warm after the cracks were made public. I wonder if this was just a coincidence or the maybe just the free market speaking?

*****************************************************
Gates said that no one is satisfied with the current state of DRM, which “causes too much pain for legitmate buyers” while trying to distinguish between legal and illegal uses.
*****************************************************
From: http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/14/bill-gates-on-the-future-of-drm/

[foxyshadis]

There've been more posts the last 3 days than the 3 days before the crack was released, so.... It just means there's not much more to say, since it's up to Core to make the decision. Until a new version comes out and dozens more show up to rant about Core's lack of purchase automation, that is.

[JohnnyFu]

Hmm seems the coreavc rant thread has turned pretty luke warm after the cracks were made public.

thanks for the hint, that means i can finally reinstall my windows without loosing well paid software.

[3ngel]

including an Activation Wizard that is installed on the users PC to self-serve activation/de-activation without any interaction of the Core Account system

That's the FIRST INTELLIGENT THING i hear from Betaboy.
In this case, if this situation will REALLY be implemented WITH NO INTERACTION WITH SERVER, and NO NEED FOR CONNECTION, then i think it will be a good thing for you, for the users on this forum.
You will regain ALL the lost respect.

[Px]

that's a nonsense...
No, programs can cheat so-called "OS CPU Usage" timer, to avoid that some program read cpu usage from internal cpu sources. For example - RMClock (cpu.rightmark.org). Some time ago I made tests with different video decoders, with apple, powerdvd and coreavc average cpu usage were similar, but with tcpmp "OS usage" and "CPU usage" differs for near 20%, so "OS usage" shows lower cpu usage, than it really was....

[oddball]

Latest VLC runs like poo on my setup. I use Zoom Player beta 5 RC1 and overlay for speed. Beats all other players and decoders with CoreAVC 1.2 installed. I can just about playback 1080P x264 video on a AMD 3200 XP. VLC or ffdshow just stops dead almost on playback and seizes all CPU so much that ending the player takes ages.

[Inventive Software]

*Bump*, just in case people are still feeling rantish before Xmas. ;)

[bob0r]

I have given up on coreavc, quicker updates my shiny white ass. (If DVBviewer deinterlacing mode, display widescreen as 4:3 is suppost to be fixed, why not release a minor update just for that? Hell SVN like updates would be perfect for me, i dont mind updating once a day/week/month)

I am beginning to like Cyberlink H.264 decoder in software mode more and more.
And seeing new CPU prices drop like flies, decoding 1080p_x264_all_cpu_load_costing_high_profile_settings would be easy with ffdshow even on half a core.

I always had great respect for coders who code something great from the ground up, but when commerialism is holding them back to produce more updates, they get grumpy when bugs are found, and they are not in the mood to continue, it pisses me off :/

Products worth my money(buying or donating) due to proper coding and bug fixing: 2
- ioFTPD
- FlashFXP
- <strike> something avcish here</strike>

[rura]

I'll post and rant a bit. I bought 1.0 the day it came out and they never emailed me about 1.2. I've tried emailing but I have not received a response and it doesn't look like I ever will. Activation (while disgusting) is the least of my concern when I can't even gain access to my legitimate copy... Suffice it to say I've used alternate means to get 1.2 and don't regret it in the least. CoreCodec is bar none the worst software company (from a support standpoint) that I have ever dealt with in the 17 years since I got a computer.

[Foreigner999]

LoL if this keeps up, I predict that CC will abandon doom9 and stay in thier own forum. Why? At least there they can control their own forum and delete messages as they pop up. Here, they dont have any control over what gets said directly. Time will tell.

[Malow]

At least there they can control their own forum and delete messages as they pop up. Here, they dont have any control over what gets said directly.

sure, like where is the @%@#)(%$@# trial version???? (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=901248&postcount=2068)

[BetaBoy]

We have fixed all issues that we are aware of in the current internal build of CoreAVC and have added some more output options.

On a side note we also have done more work on our OS X versions and have added our initial SMP support for Intel based CPU's. On linux.... we are planning to demo CorePlayer Pro with the latest CoreAVC running on Ubuntu at CES if anyone wants to have a peak you can PM me.

[Ginsonic]

And, Betaboy, will all of us, who have never received their 1.2 update, have any chance to ever get it :mad: ?

[goofee]

I've sent you guys emails, PM's and forum posts over several boards. Nothing. When you go commercial with a product you need to give support or at least some info that's correct and you stick by. Never in my life have i gotten such rotten support on a product. Do we have to wait for 1.3 for access? Some info would be nice as i've said so many times now!!!

[Episode]

Perhaps you guys should go to see your nearest consumer rights advisor or a lawyer and ask help from them. Every consumer has absolutely every right to do so if they haven't recived a product or service that they have paid for. Just because CoreCodec is a small business doesn't give them any right to treat their customers like crap.

[ChronoCross]

This thread gets more entertaining each day. Legal action over $20. What an absurd concept. It'll cost you more money to get a lawyer with no guarantee that you'll even win.

I would recommend not sending 800 emails but rather 1 email with from the account you originally purchased coreavc.

You should do something like this

To: BetaBoy@gmail.com
Subject: CoreAVC 1.2 Email Update
Body:

Hello,

I recently purchased a older version of your CoreAVC software and never received a core login/password. If you could send me an email with my account creation so that I may download the update that woul be greatly appreciated.

Thank you
Customer Real Name


Then you wait. If they got your orginal email for purchase 1.1 and were able to send you one for 1.1 they will get this. However since I'm sure most people sent 500 emails if they didn't get a response within 5 minutes it may take some time because:

1) They are not robots
2) They do not work 24/7
3) USA Timezone.
4) It's new years weekend.

[goofee]

That's it. Let's me be clear, i've been patient. I'm serious. Let me explain it all and bare with me.

I've sent this email you mention right after the 1.2 release and got an answer that it'll be fixed. Meanwhile they are saying at the forums that they'll release a new version for the activation issues. Two weeks past and nothing. I then sent a follow-up on the first email and got nothing. The forums then said i wasn't alone. Then they say in their own forums "write a mail with UPDATE in the header and it'll be handled". I do just that and i get nothing. Then they say "we're having problems with our spam filter, please send again". I do just that and nothing. I then get desperate and send to every email addy corecodec has online. Nothing. They then say in the forums that they are working on a new release out in six weeks or so. After that i sent PM's and forum posts. Nothing. And now this statement from betaboy. Like i said, if you run a business like many others do on this planet give some info that's correct and stick to it or else it seems like a scam! And another thing, at least testing a web-site or a activation procedure to a small closed group would be an idea next time. That's what everyone else does to confirm that their product is somewhat working.

If the product wasn't this unique Corecodec would have been gone! And the strange thing is, after all this ranting betaboy and all the others doesn't even seem to care. All we get is this promise of a new version and everything will be ok. Not only once, but again and again! Like we believe them every single time!

No promises when the product was free may have worked, but now, if i had an alternative i would a gone for it weeks ago!

I've been paying for products on the Internet as long as it's existed so i claim to have some experience on the matter. Get it together Corecodec, you could actually make some money in the future just yet.

[Malow]

We have fixed all issues that we are aware of in the current internal build of CoreAVC

again, i hope the old interlaced issue is in the "list"...

[Ginsonic]

ChronoCross:

Well then, let me explain. I meanwhile did not send one, not two, but countless emails and PMs to every possible CoreAVC address I could get. I sent my PayPal transaction details four times including a PDF containing all data, because they first told me, that they could not find them. I wrote an email exactly like described in CoreAVC forum. Now I am still waiting since the day CoreAVC 1.2 was released and got NO answer to ALL of my messages. So please Do not tell me to be patient :mad: !

[Dregelmyller]

"Best" option seems to be to open a paypal dispute.
Got my money back pretty quick.

Gave up on any hope receiving the codec after a long 30+days patient waiting.

Will not buy it again until all flaws/issues are worked out.

[DeepBeepMeep]

We have fixed all issues that we are aware of in the current internal build of CoreAVC and have added some more output options.

On a side note we also have done more work on our OS X versions and have added our initial SMP support for Intel based CPU's. On linux.... we are planning to demo CorePlayer Pro with the latest CoreAVC running on Ubuntu at CES if anyone wants to have a peak you can PM me.

Have you fixed the issue with the colorspace when coreavc is not at the end of the chain? Since I haven't received any thanked you or any form of feedback after I have sent you the sample, I am quite of losing hope this will ever be fixed...

[goofee]

A word of advice to all those who are considering buying Coreavc.

These people are bunch of scammers. They've lost my trust completely at this point. They don't answer email, pm's of forum posts and don't activate my product. They always claim it's because of some bogus reason and try to make it seem everything will fixed. But it never is.

The fact that they delete posts in their own forums that can hurt them (but is the truth) just shows they are trying to cover their ass and milk money out of this as long as they can.

I'm gonna try to spread the truth about them every chance i get at this point, they deserve it.

[goofee]

A word of advice to all those who are considering buying Coreavc.

These people are bunch of scammers. They've lost my trust completely at this point. They don't answer email, pm's of forum posts and don't activate my product. They always claim it's because of some bogus reason and try to make it seem everything will fixed. But it never is.

The fact that they delete posts in their own forums that can hurt them (but is the truth) just shows they are trying to cover their ass and milk money out of this as long as they can.

I'm gonna try to spread the truth about them every chance i get at this point, they deserve it.

[Ginsonic]

I am sorry to say, that goofee is right. Since release of version 1.2 I am fighting for my update with no result. NO answer to countless emails and PMs (also in their own forum), always only lame excuses (Spamfilters...). I will never buy any Core product again, because I am totally frustrated and can not understand at all, how a company can treat their customers like this !

[goofee]

After trying (and i mean really trying) for over two months now, there just is no excuse.

[bond]

guys, this thread is about coreavc as in "no ranting and flames" eg if you are having concrete bug reports

for flaming and ranting keep it best for yourself or at least only use the ranting thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=118775&page=9)

and no cross posts!

[BetaBoy]

All.... For the few ppl that insist on ranting email me directly and lets get your agressions on on me. As far as the postings... we will not tolerate a few ppl registering several accounts with the same IP and posting in the manner that has happened.

As before anyone can email me if they have an issue: betaboy@corecodec.com

Back OT: Look for a new version within the next week now that we are back from CES.

[BetaBoy]

We have been very agressive with support issues granted we are still dealing with the issue users not receiving emails. This is due to ISP's marking our email as spam and they are being deleted. We have hired a third party validatiion service for registration email delivery to fix this issue which kicks in next week.

As far as the postings... we will not tolerate a few ppl registering several accounts with the same IP and posting in the manner that has happened.

As before anyone can email me if they have an issue: betaboy@corecodec.com

[goofee]

I've sent PM's that don't rely on spam filtering but nothing!

Baning my ip at your board is just childish. And i've only had one account ever.

As well, I'm not alone in having issues, have you read your own forums?

But fine, i've sent you yet another email let's see you fix me access then.

[goofee]

All.... For the few ppl that insist on ranting email me directly and lets get your agressions on on me. As far as the postings... we will not tolerate a few ppl registering several accounts with the same IP and posting in the manner that has happened.

As before anyone can email me if they have an issue: betaboy@corecodec.com

Back OT: Look for a new version within the next week now that we are back from CES.

I've sent PM's that don't rely on spam filtering but nothing!

Baning my ip at your board is just childish. I'm a customer dude! And i've only had one account ever.

As well, I'm not alone in having issues, have you read your own forums?

The worst part is that you make me seem like the bad person in this, when in fact it's you!

If i wasn't a nice person i could've start a nice little crusade about all this all over the place, worse than this, but i won't.

But fine, i've sent you yet another email let's see you fix me access then.

[bond]

merged the rants to the ranting thread

[Ginsonic]

But fine, i've sent you yet another email let's see you fix me access then.

I did so too ! And remember, You have the possibility to send me a PM in Your forum. No ISP problems possible there !

[goofee]

merged the rants to the ranting thread

Thank you, i'm sorry i messed up in the other thread but i lost my head for a moment.

[BetaBoy]

goofee... I am not negating your issue... My staff and I want to help you... on PM's I have now made sure that PM notifications are now on so I receive the emails when users PM me.

[goofee]

goofee... I am not negating your issue... My staff and I want to help you... on PM's I have now made sure that PM notifications are now on so I receive the emails when users PM me.

Ok, great! I've now sent you an email, a PM on your own board and a PM on this board.

[Ginsonic]

Miracles do happen :rolleyes: !

I finally got an answer from Betaboy ! Hoping to be able to install my version 1.2 soon...

[DarkNite]

I would love to eventually be able to install 1.2 or any future versions... I really do hope the e-mail issue gets solved soon as well. None of my queries have been answered (that I know of), and I can only imagine what would happen if I called Qwest and asked them to query their e-mail servers for my responses.

The one thing I can say is I enjoyed CoreAVC 1.1 at the time, and would still have it installed if it didn't hang when attempting to run a video on my secondary monitor.

[goofee]

Miracles do happen :rolleyes: !

I finally got an answer from Betaboy ! Hoping to be able to install my version 1.2 soon...

At this point i'll believe it when it happens. There has been so many empty promises.

[clsid]

Just google for "moo" if you are tired of waiting.

[ChronoCross]

Edited.

wow supporting piracy....nice.

[clsid]

These guys have already bought it...

Proud to be a pirate. Har har.

[Inventive Software]

Sorry clsid, but I can't condone that. Please edit your post, Chronocross too.

[goofee]

Ok their support is almost non-existent and they have a lot to improve regarding just about everything. But to resort to piracy? No. Not when the product has so much potential. Even i think that. I've seen too many good products squeezed out because of minor issues, i want to support this one.

Microsoft? Ok, but all other companies? No. Or do you want all your future products to come from Microsoft? Think about what that will do. Sheesh!

[Foreigner999]

Hmm
I just checked the stats on those sites and there are only about a thousand downloads, either there are many happy users of coreavc v1.2 or there aren't really that many customers.

[bond]

clsid, check rule 6 plz, striked

[clsid]

You may wanna strike ChronoCross too. See his post/quote.

I was only helping goofee & co to exercise their fair use rights, namely being able to use the software that they legally bought a license for.

[davidw89]

Hey guys is this a codec or a player..as i 've got the Core AVC player 1.4 or something...but iam not sure if it's better than TCPMP 0.81 RC1

[f@chance]

Well I add my voice to those that are displeased. Bought 1.2 on the day of release, didn't get it because of browser foul up on Core's side. Went on vacation, initiated PayPal dispute, PayPal wants me to resolve this with CoreAVC.

I received the link in my PayPal account but don't want to use it because of the off-line issues the product is not ready for prime time yet in my opinion.

I anticipated for CoreAVC a slowdown over X-Mas period, then absence due to CES, but now I am ready again to pick up where I left off. Next CC statement if the refund is not on it. I'll be back :D

[Ginsonic]

At this point i'll believe it when it happens. There has been so many empty promises.

It seems, that You were right. I had two answers first, a nonfunctional attached version and since then no further support :mad: Again no answers to my emails to Betaboy...

[Inventive Software]

*bump*, to keep it on the first page and in line with the CoreCodec / CoreAVC thread. ;)

[ChronoCross]

why did you bump this? you should be striked for doing a bump like this

[Sirber]

+digg for the bump! ;)

this thread is important.

[Sharktooth]

I dont think he should be striked. A lot of new users sign up every day and they better been warned of possible problems.

[Inventive Software]

It fell off the first page, which is unusual but not unheard of, and I wanted to keep it in tandem (sort of) with the other thread. It had been 4 or 5 days since someone posted. In a popular forum, that can be a lifetime.

[ChronoCross]

okay so I'll go back to the last page of this forum and bump the most useless thread on the entire forum. Do you see how dumb that is just bumping things? If people want to know there is the following:

:search:


@sharktooth

Should it be stickied then? How about all the anti software threads should we keep them all at the top of the forum so people can "be aware"

Really most of you just want to keep it up so you can continue to troll all night and day in the official trolling coreavc thread.

[Shinigami-Sama]

So if i decide to upgrade to vista later on in the year, my version of coreavc bites the dust? Lol customer service at its finest.

:rolleyes:
you bought a licence for CoreAVC for XP
its pretty much the same as buying a car and expecting the same keys to work in a different brand

[foxyshadis]

Let's not start with the bad analogies. Core has picked out their position in the DRM war, however others feel about that, and people need to heed that or look elsewhere.

[Inventive Software]

Actually, foxyshadis, Shinigami-Sama's analogy is spot on. The activation for CoreAVC is like a key to unlock the software, much like a license key. If you buy a license for Windows and want to install it on 2 computers, you need 2 licenses as that's how the software will play nice. Same for Adobe's Photoshop.

[Foreigner999]

I thought there was a polarity to trolling. A pro-stance and an anti-stance. But since you are a beta tester I assume you are a CoreAVC customer? Or do beta testers get their licenses free?

Anyway, do you guys/gals remember the old terms of how the reset activiation system was supposed to work? I thought it was supposed to cover a lot more circumstances than it does now?

[Disabled]

:rolleyes:
its pretty much the same as buying a car and expecting the same keys to work in a different brand
Actually, foxyshadis, Shinigami-Sama's analogy is spot on.

Bwahaha you compare CoreAVC to a car? *lol* If you want a car comparison, here is mine:
I bought a CD radio with (***) MP3 support (*,**) and they tell me after a firmware upgrade it is locked to the car, and I can't change it back to the old one and use it in my new car.


(*) to be added at a later date via free firmware upgrade
(**) MP3 just one feature missing, add another two and you have what core does.
(***) Features in each CD radio Edition is subject to change


Whatever, please tell us Betaboy, what we are and will be allowed to do with our licence excactly. And if I should start using the hassle free version?

[ChronoCross]

I paid $$$ just like the rest of these people.

[Disabled]

Anyway, do you guys/gals remember the old terms of how the reset activiation system was supposed to work? I thought it was supposed to cover a lot more circumstances than it does now?
All I remember is them saying it would be so they could provide free upgrades.
Actually they didn't say very much at all - well sure why should they, they would have had many less customers if they would have said how CoreAVC will evolve.
And they did not respond to questions asking about what is allowed and such either knowing the mob would be pissed.

[foxyshadis]

Actually, foxyshadis, Shinigami-Sama's analogy is spot on. The activation for CoreAVC is like a key to unlock the software, much like a license key. If you buy a license for Windows and want to install it on 2 computers, you need 2 licenses as that's how the software will play nice. Same for Adobe's Photoshop.

Taken at face value, his analogy would mean that if you tried to use the product key on another product (car), it wouldn't work. Would you expect CoreAVC's key to activate PowerDVD for you? No, of course not. But other software manages to reuse codes just fine, software isn't a car. I'm kind of tired of how many bad analogies get trotted out whenever DRM comes up, because it avoids real legal differences (when the analogies even make sense).

Remember, DRM rant posts will end up moved into the ranting thread anyway.

[Foreigner999]

Hmm, I just expected (wrongly as a consumer) that investing in CoreAVC would have a better longevity than what the reality is. I thought my *one user license* was mine. That while it was tied to _One Operating System License_ on one Partition and obviously one computer that it wouldn't be Permanently bound to my XP license. I thought the post (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=914718&postcount=101) meant that I would be allowed use of that single license to be moved to another operating system or pc if i no longer owned it the original, etc. I realistically didn't expect to do this anytime soon but now that doesn't seem to be an option later on.

This means that I can't unbind my *CoreAVC license* from my XP license to _replace_ it with another operating system. For example windows 98 or Vista Ultimate vs Vista Buisness in two years. If I had known I would be so shut in by one product I am absolutely sure I would have avoided it in the first place. Makes me wonder how is anyone sane supposed to buy a batch of CoreCodec products if the shut in is so great that to leave behind an operating system is to sound the death knell of a load of cash.

I dont like the activation system, granted. I can live with using one license to one OS, but making it non-transferable? I dont know what sane persion would throw cash away like that. This is a bad analogy but it's like buying a ticket to a fair than buying a license to any right to use that technology.

P.S. if you sell your PC am I wrong in thinking that you should transfer the license to the new owner? Im talking about PC's that come with the OEM version of XP.

[Hans Ohlo]

[...]
i am completely with you. this is the worst scam i have ever known. people bash microsoft, but corecodec is more extreme in every aspect in ripping people off.

i can only tell the people with legal licenses, if they have trouble transfering their legal license to use coreavc versions available on the net which got freed of the avtication scam.

i do not support piracy, i own a license. but i cannot believe what corecodec is trying to pull with this 'pay to get it working on another os' thing... shame on them!

[Inventive Software]

But other software manages to reuse codes just fine, software isn't a car.
Software reuses codes because it's the same code for the same software, and is like a pre-recognised code much in the same vain as license keys before activation got introduced a few years ago. The software key / car key analogy I stand by, because no 2 car keys will ever be the same, unless you get another "backup" cut. You cannot expect one key to fit a different model of car, or even another car of the same model range. This, so I'm led to believe, is much how AACS or HDCP (one of those) works, by "blacklisting" a key or set of keys so that it's unusable.

[Foreigner999]

i am completely with you. this is the worst scam i have ever known. people bash microsoft, but corecodec is more extreme in every aspect in ripping people off.

i can only tell the people with legal licenses, if they have trouble transfering their legal license to use coreavc versions available on the net which got freed of the avtication scam.

i do not support piracy, i own a license. but i cannot believe what corecodec is trying to pull with this 'pay to get it working on another os' thing... shame on them!

It's only a scam if they willfully withheld info, which I wouldn't know if they did. But honestly, I doubt there was a conspiracy to do so. Why they haven't spelled out exactly what a customer should expect if they buy their product is a better question.

Through what process exactly did they go through when deciding what to put up on their bullet point presentation at coreavc.com? This I would love to know, because I have never seen a company change postures so rapidly from one month to the next. I could be wrong. Then again, I dont believe many people seem to be well informed (including me) about where the company is headed when it comes to thier policy and thier future plans as to their, as of yet only released product.

Before someone jumps at the chance to say "it was offered and known beforehand" this is simply not seemingly true; because if it were true, there wouldn't be a long thread about rants as to how people didn't know and outrage a few months ago as to where this product was going. If people knew they were boarding the titanic we would have all have kept our money and waited or spent it on a different solution that gave us a better feeling of money well spent.

I'll hopefully change my mind when the chance to enjoy what a codec should deliver without so many restrictions. Lets make an unofficial joke changelog:

CC:
===v2===
Corecodec relaunches coreavc.com v2
+Bugfix: Fixed website and now has 30% uptime
+Changed: Added product support (2 months wait time)
+Changed: Added registered Email authentication support

===v1===
Corecodec launches coreavc.com v1
+Changed: Product support will be added in 06'*


CoreAVC:
====V1.2====
+Bugfix: Added licenterion
-Bugfix: Freedom
+Changed: Enhanced Support for Restricted Computing
+Bugfix: Removed SMP typo 4 cores is now 2 (4 Core support wasn't present to begin with)
+Bugfix: Network DNS Issues
+Bugfix: Browser support
?Feature: GPU support *(TBA)

====V1.1.0.5====
+Bugfix: Bugfix update

[Gnerma]

Amusing changelog Foreigner. It really is an unfortunate situation because I feel CoreCodec could be a great company to deal with if they fixed their balance issues. By this I mean a few trained PR employees dealing with the interface between the company and their customers. Also better information management and documentation would go a long way.

+Bugfix: Removed SMP typo 4 cores is now 2 (4 Core support wasn't present to begin with)

The interesting thing about this is the codec was happily utilizing 4 CPU cores at one time. See this (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=802095#post802095) post by MuTeK around the release of v1.0 for a good example.

[GmorG McRoth]

The software key / car key analogy I stand by, because no 2 car keys will ever be the same, unless you get another "backup" cut. You cannot expect one key to fit a different model of car, or even another car of the same model range.

hmm I don't own a car but I always thought your key works when you change the road, or use different gasoline. Moving from operating system to another OS does not change the code of software (if it's already ready for this different OS). So car analogy would be that your car asks you for new key every time you change street. Though I may be wrong.

[Inventive Software]

No, you misunderstand me. The car analogy I refer to is the key to unlock the door to get into the car and the same key to turn the engine on. This is much how activation works with software, as (XP as an example) you have a license key to unlock the door to the software, and you acquire an activation key when you activate the software, like turning on the engine and driving. Where you take that car or what street you choose to put on it is down to you and you only, same as we can't tell you what software to put on your XP install. ;)

[GmorG McRoth]

I think it makes sense, if put that way.

[goofee]

It seems, that You were right. I had two answers first, a nonfunctional attached version and since then no further support :mad: Again no answers to my emails to Betaboy...

Got one PM from betaboy that everything was fixed and that they would send me an email with info. No email received after 1 week so i sent yet a PM, no answer for 1 week. So i guess they're just making up excuses as usual just to shut me up while the money comes in.

Or i'll bet betaboy posts some bogus promise soon after this post that they found out that it was best for them that i'll wait for the next version coming REAL soon. Then absolutely everything will be allright!

I feel so violated and betrayed.

[Foreigner999]

Amusing changelog Foreigner. It really is an unfortunate situation because I feel CoreCodec could be a great company to deal with if they fixed their balance issues. By this I mean a few trained PR employees dealing with the interface between the company and their customers. Also better information management and documentation would go a long way.



The interesting thing about this is the codec was happily utilizing 4 CPU cores at one time. See this (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=802095#post802095) post by MuTeK around the release of v1.0 for a good example.

Totally feel the same way. Hmm, I checked that link out. Isn't that the non-directshow version running? Better question...I thought the direct show version was based off the plugin for TCPMP. If that is so, then why exactly doesn't the directshow version support 4 cores (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=802223#post802223)?

Gnerma, I thought betaboy was a professional PR person? Unfortunately their PR department also runs Customer Service (minus the CSR software).:devil:

[goofee]

As it is now the Coreavc is a farse. First chance i get at a superior decoder i'm gonna jump ship, whatever the cost. I don't have time to hunt betaboy and his gang for love.

The clock is ticking.... :sly:

[Ginsonic]

Although I still cannot believe it, I finally got my update and an account entry. :D

[BlackSun]

Although I still cannot believe it, I finally got my update and an account entry. :D

I took care of the people I knew about this morning and BetaBoy certainly did the same as we finally can fix them. If there are still some people that did not get the update, or the download link after the paypal process, please submit a ticket on http://support.corecodec.com
Please provide a valid email, do not use your Hotmail account. Attach (inline) your Paypal receipt.

Then I will fix it asap. Do not PM me please.:D

[BetaBoy]

Then I will fix it asap. Do not PM me please.:D

Anyone can ping me still if they have an issue... I welcome it.

As far as many of the others in this thread.... with the addition of our new support center @ http://support.corecodec.com we hope to eliminate many of the issues people had felt were not said even though they were but did not want to read through 12x amount of pages to extract that info.

This way its out there, you can comment on it, add to it, complain about it and make it change. In the end we are evolving because of your comments... and I thank those ppl for their feedback and apologize for the issues we have had... its best to beat this down now then later with with over 20+ new closed source and open source projects coming around the corner (BetaPlayer, CoreMAKE, CoreTunes, CoreCaster, CoreAVC Encoder, TCME Encoder, etc.).

[Foreigner999]

Whats TCME Encoder?:D

[DarkNite]

Ticket submitted. I would love for this issue to be resolved finally. One more question...

Attach (inline) your Paypal receipt.

Is submitting the PayPal reciept number good enough?

[BlackSun]

Ticket submitted. I would love for this issue to be resolved finally. One more question...



Is submitting the PayPal reciept number good enough?

Yeah sure, I will verify it anyway :)

[BetaBoy]

Ticket submitted. I would love for this issue to be resolved finally. One more question...



Is submitting the PayPal reciept number good enough?

Yes...

[BetaBoy]

Whats TCME Encoder?:D

Its our encoding engine... we call it several names TCME (The Core Media Encoder) and CoreProducer is another name we have used. Smaller versions of the encoder will be in our other applications for transcoding (like CoreTunes)... In the end however we will likely opt for another name when they are released to the public.

[DarkNite]

In the end however we will likely opt for another name when they are released to the public.

Doh! I really liked the name CoreProducer.

Anyways, I have recieved a download link and my trouble ticket is closed now. Thanks for straightening that out.

/me returns to waiting for desktop version of CorePlayer

[popper]

Anyone can ping me still if they have an issue... I welcome it.

As far as many of the others in this thread.... with the addition of our new support center @ http://support.corecodec.com we hope to eliminate many of the issues people had felt were not said even though they were but did not want to read through 12x amount of pages to extract that info.

This way its out there, you can comment on it, add to it, complain about it and make it change. In the end we are evolving because of your comments... and I thank those ppl for their feedback and apologize for the issues we have had... its best to beat this down now then later with with over 20+ new closed source and open source projects coming around the corner (BetaPlayer, CoreMAKE, CoreTunes, CoreCaster, CoreAVC Encoder, TCME Encoder, etc.).

ohhh, 'CoreCaster' would that have my longtime idea for multicasting tunnels over ipv4/ipv6 for web use video etc ?,
(probably not the DHT/P2P integrated though id imagine, as people still dont seem ready for that.... even now).

open or payware btw?.

i get the impression that that might be the base for the venice project if they ever DO put multicasting in there.

btw , i hope you intend to include as standard 25fps UK PAL PIP(CIF etc)/SD/HD transcodeing and other settings/options in these related products along side the usual US NTSC oddball framerates, DVB-H (2) being the most backed current format thats likely to become mass (world|UK/EU) market in a very short time.


it might be nice for some EASY GUI end user tools for making standard DVB transport streams WITH several video/audio AVC/AAC/or even AC3 inside AKA DVB-T/S/C style (perhaps TSconverter will do it one day?)so we could if we so wished, take a currently standard TS container with a PIP(cif etc) and SD and even a HD encode of our content inside and then simpy multicast stream that one file for our display devices weather it be the PC the laptop or the mobile DVB-H2 device we got for christmas.

then all we need do in get the Hardware kit makers to stop being short sighted to include something like the KiloCORE FPGA in all their products and licence an IP for our AVC needs for inclusion in that , or if a new codec comes along its then easy to re-program the kit for that need, it laughable to think everyones panacea is GPU co-pro assisted decoding when cheap and low power (multicore)FGPA's exist today and could be used for exactly this at a far cheaper rate and yet far more profit for everyone, someone just needs to include it and innovate first!.

i like to refer to the BBC pdf for their content creation etc as its clear they set the standard most informed companys follow, i find it interesting that Discovery (USA) seems to be on the ball and includes all the framesrates , probably already take the PAL 100I/P too.
heres one http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/HDBookv01_02.pdf

the professional markets can and are taking advantage of the new DVB TS markets so it would be a very good thing if the so called end user could also have easy access to creating/using and streaming their end-user created content to the same standards
heres an idea of were things stand as of middle of last year http://www.newvideobusiness.com/content/view/74/26
very informative as regards bitrates and use of multiple PIP/SD/HD from one input for instance, can we have the same?.

[JohnnyFu]

2CentOT: I havn't said very much in the past weeks, but i'm still reading the coreavc threads on the internet, and in the meantime i'm not longer sure if it was right to support CoreAVC when you had your start. My feeling is that we helped to summon another evil software company... with all respect...(me myself is working in a software company) the whole activiation thing is nothing more than an annoying problem for your real customers who reinstall/change their operating system often. Those who don't want to pay for Software will keep carry on using cracks.
I'm not envy!.... the activation thing is just one step too much....Good luck for the future anyway...