Jiggy-Ninja

Riolu's the only one that fits that bill, Porygon, Eevee, and Happiny are all too slow.

Reading speed is actually slowed down when you have all caps, since the words only look like a rectangular block, and you don't have "g"s and "j"s dipping below the line with "t"s extending upward to give the words a unique shape.

If you read the thread, you would have noticed that I posted a code that does all of this work for you.

I think you misinterpreted what I'm saying. Religion and science, in my view, are mutually exclusive at their fundamental level. The battle isn't between religion and science exactly, but between superstitious faith and skepticism. Science requires people to always be skeptical, to always seek a better, more accurate answer. Nothing is to be trusted except direct, repeated observation, and even then people are skeptical about whether or not their senses are fooling them. This attitude weeds out bad ideas, and constantly drives us to seek a better and better understanding of the universe. Religion usually requires some degree of the exact opposite, unquestioning faith in the decree of an authority. What the Bible says is true simply because it's The Holy Book, and no evidence that can be gathered by mortal man can hope to disprove it. Even if it can be shown to be logically inconsistent, it's still true. Do not question it, just abide by it. The two attitudes cannot exist peacefully together, as they will inevitably clash. It might not be an all-out war, but there is a lot of tension. The subject of this topic is one of the areas where the tension is the worst, but there's inevitably others that I can't think of.

My cat lazes around the house most of the time. Sometimes she'll playfully swat rubber bands around the floor, but that's rare. She doesn't like unfamiliar people, and will hiss and swat at them if they get to close. She absolutely hates the vet's office, and fights for her life every time she goes there. When we took her to get shaved, despite being told explicitly to tranq Cally before shaving her, the dumb ass groomer tried to do it without a tranq anyway. By the time she got around to tranqing her, Cally was so worked up and had so much adrenaline rushing that she needed a double dose to be sedated. It took her too full days to return to normal after that. I usually don't call people dumb asses like that, but what she did really pissed me off, and if I had seen her, I'd have been raising hell, which is usually pretty rare for me. Bella and Cally get along about as well as any pair of sisters do. Bella is like the annoying little sister that always wants to play, and Cally is the big sister that just wants to be left alone. ---------- Post added at 07:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 PM ---------- I know, she looks exactly like the black lab we had before (except for the brown fur she's getting), but dad thinks that she's too small to be a lab. At about 1 year old she's about maybe 1.5 times as tall as our cat.

I have the cutest little mutt bitch ever! And no, it's not swearing to say bitch if you are referring to a female dog. That's me, my little sister Shyann (2 people thought she was my daughter :eek:), and our mutt, Bella. I like to call her Bell Bell. Here's another picture from soon after we got her. Don't ask me what breeds she is, because I don't know, nor do I care much. She apparently barks like a beagle, but that's all I know. We got her through a bit of deception. The pound she was at has a policy of waiting a week to give the owner a chance to pick up the dog, then it's given away to whoever wants it. My sister put her name on the waiting list, but she was third on the list. Dad really wanted the dog, so he talked our neighbors into going to the pound and pretending to be the owners. At the time, I was rather meh about the prospect of getting a dog, but as soon as they brought her home and I saw her adorable face, my heart melted. She even melted my mom's heart, and she was adamantly against getting a dog. She doesn't like to sleep alone, and like to curl up with other people in bed. Oddly, she's been growing a 50-50 mix of brown and black hair just about everywhere on her body except on her tail and spine. It's really cool to watch her color seem to subtly flow from black to brown when the light shifts. We also have a cat. (Shyann again, holding the cat) Her name's Cally. Sorry for the bad picture lighting, it's a crappy camera phone. Her hair's usually much longer, but we had her shaved recently because it was getting all clumped and matted. Funny story for how we got her too. About 4 years ago she showed up in our yard, not much more than a little hair ball. Mom actually tripped over her. She tossed the cat over the fence a couple times, but she kept coming back, so we just kept her. In total, my family has had 5 pets over my lifetime. Alex, a golden retriever. I don't know what happened to him, I think I was in elementary school when we had him. Henry, a black lab. He ran away. T_T Mostly our fault, since we didn't take very good care of him. I can only hope he found a family better than we were then. The last pet before the current two was Tiger, an orange stray cat that wandered around our house quite a bit. We fed him, gave him shots, and then he just stopped coming around one day.

I know the truth won't be accepted by everyone. That's a problem with people though. How is it not natural? Simply because it doesn't happen without human intervention? If they argue that, the logical conclusion is that humans themselves are unnatural, and should not exist in the world. And the Amish do use technology. They just place arbitrary limits on the technology they deem acceptable to use. Wheels, clothing, levers, even something as simple as a stone used to crush things with are all examples of technology. Scientists use the Earth to make things too. What are the other methods you think scientists use, paranormal seances? The only thing that is possible for any human to do is manipulate the Earth around us. Scientists just pursue ever more advanced and powerful means of manipulation. Plastics are formed by chemically modifying crude oil, which comes from the ground and was formed by decaying plant matter. Computers are made with metals and semiconductors mined from the ground put in very intricate formations. Electricity is made using magnetic fields or chemical reactions, and carried over copper or aluminum wire, both of which are metals mined from the Earth. The discovery of germs as not unnatural either. It was done by human's manipulating the Earth around them to be able to observe things normally unseen. Microscopes use glass, which is just melted sand, in special shapes and configurations to manipulate light in a way that allows our eye to see things extremely small. People, irrational and superstitious people, are causing the problems. Religion is just the excuse they use. I know how you feel. "Toughing it out" isn't always viable, since the unconscious influence our brain has on our behavior can be VERY powerful. I'm almost ashamed to say that I used to be of a similar kind of mind as the people that looked down on you for using meds, until about halfway through senior year when I realized first hand just how powerful the brain can be in thwarting your conscious mind. Without going into too many details, my brain completely and utterly rejected Literature class. No matter what I tried, I could not get around it. I ended up dropping out and graduating 6 months late with literally just enough credits to pass. It wasn't because I was stupid. Far from it, I was easily one of the smartest people in my school. My brain just totally rejected the class, and it didn't help that A) it was a required class that I had to pass and B) I had failed one semester the year before, so I had to take two during senior year. The seeds of a crash had been sown several years before, probably in middle school, but with a double load of Literature and impending graduation, I nose dived. If people were to call me weak for that, I would respond, "Of course I am. If I wasn't, I wouldn't have a problem."

That's a problem with religion, not science. Science has found something, and people refuse to use it for religious reasons. Religion is causing the controversy there, not science. I can't even figure out how people think this is a dilemma. Ultimately, medicine is natural, since everything about it is derived from from things and processes that are possible in nature. Ultimately, it's no different from banging to rocks together is a special way to make a sharp edge to cut things with. So, from a statement made by people that would refuse to acknowledge physical evidence, you conclude that the scientists are untrustworthy? I conclude that the religious people are ignorant fools. Officially, we started the Iraq war because we suspected that they had WMDs, which it turns out we were lied to about that. Why we're still in it is something probably God can't even understand. I do not like the concept of country. Or state, or county, or anything like that. I wish they would disappear. They reinforce the "in group/out group" mentality that encourages hostility towards the "out group". It's this mentality that drives most of the bigotry, racism, and xenophobia in the world. So no, I don't believe that fighting to defend your country is a good thing. Defending the people of your country is another matter. The country mentality makes it easy to justify hostility and war by saying something like "We're fighting Iraq". Well, what is Iraq? Being asked that question, most people would point to a political map. However, a political map is just arbitrary lines drawn on paper. You can't see Iraq from space, since all of Asia and Europe looks like one gigantic piece of undivided land. Wars are fought by people, against people. Until that's realized, wars will continue. And that won't be fully realized until we stop treating groups as an entity in and of themselves, and not as the collection people that they are. Also, I think all politicians should have to personally fight in the wars they start. I guarantee there'd be a lot less war if that happened.

Of course not. No human can. Scientists are only able to do what it is possible for people to do. Where have you been in the last...forever. Science separates us from the animals. Agriculture, animal domestication, and tools are all products of science, and allowed early humans to cease being hunter-gatherers and settle down to form civilization. This statement is just blatantly ignorant. Most scientific theories are backed up by observation, and the best ones make predictions that can be used to test the theory. If the predictions are false, the theory needs to be discarded or reworked. You do have a point though about the Big Bang. Cosmologists have a pretty good idea of how the universe was a fraction of a second after what is currently know as "The Big Bang", but before that current scientific formulas don't work as well. The Big Bang is our best guess, though currently some theorists are trying to come up with alternate explanations since the Big Bang Theory has needed to be patch-worked and fine-tuned so much it's no longer as elegant as it was. Of course not. That's the whole point of science, to discover what we don't know and to answer the questions we have in as objective a way as possible. Correct, just because a scientist says it, that doesn't make it true. There needs to be justification behind the assertion that God does not exist. Likewise, people who assert that God exists need to prove it as well, not just point out "Well, there's no proof that he doesn't exist, so it's possible." Possible goes both ways. You are arguing from morality and emotion. This is a fallacy, and has NO place in this discussion. On top of that, you are utterly wrong. Controversy and violence is not the only thing that science has lead to, especially in biology. Germs were one of the greatest discoveries in medical science ever, because it allowed people to actually treat the causes of disease with confidence rather than guesswork. This has lead to radical extensions in the human life span. Secondly, science is not the only thing that causes controversy and violence. I would argue that religion is even worse in this regard. How else could you explain basically the entire Middle East? Or the Crusades and Inquisition from our own Christian Church? Science, like religion or anything else in this world, can be used for good or bad. How would truth lead to war? Disagreements are what lead to war. Truth removes disagreements. Religious wars are particularly bad, and are usually fought over what should be just petty differences. By pitting truth and hope against each other, you are attempting to enforce a false choice, another argumentative fallacy.

The thing is, hope and comfort mean nothing to science. All that matters to science is whether or not something is true based on observation. It is cold, harsh, and indifferent, but science's purpose is not to give hope or comfort to the world. It's not meant to take it away either. The sole purpose of the scientific method is to objectively pursue what is true by means of careful observation and controlled experiments. So, there is a lack of evidence falsifying God, and a lack of evidence supporting God. Where do we turn? Scientist have a guideline for this sort of thing known as Occam's (somethimes spelled Ockham's) Razor (also known as the Principle of Parsimony). Stated in Occam's own words, it is "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate", or "Plurality should not be posited without necessity." More commonly, it is said to be "A hypothesis must be no more complex than necessary" The basic assumption behind Intelligent Design is that complex things require an intelligent designer. So, it follows from that assumption that because we and the world around us are complex, we must have been designed. The problem with this is that our designer must be at least as complex, and likely more complex, than the thing that is being designed. And so we run into the problem of where the designer's complexity originates. Or, "Who designed the designer?" If we follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion, we are left with an infinite chain of designers, each rising in complexity to the limit of infinity. Most scientists hate infinity, and it is commonly seen as a sign that a new, more accurate theory is necessary.* One attempt to explain this away is to say that the deity's (the most common designer candidate) complexity "just is". This adds a new assumption to the theory that violates the original one, as now we have a complex thing that apparently does not need an intelligent designer. So already there is a contradiction of assumptions. Applying Occam's Razor with the new assumption in place, we can cut the deity out of the picture entirely. If complexity can spontaneously be formed, in the absence of proof of a deity's existence, we can draw the conclusion that our complexity was formed this way, without the need to postulate a second entity. The end result of that line of thought is that somewhere down the line, complexity must be able to arise from simplicity somehow. Currently, the method we have for biological complexity arising from chemical simplicity is known as evolution, which works by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. Now, I will admit here that Occam's Razor is not a rigorously defined theory of axiom. It's only a guideline. However, it is my belief that Occam's Razor is a very common sense principle that reflects the goals of science quite well, which is to explain the complex phenomena of the universe using tools that are as simple as possible. Whether you accept Occam's Razor or not is up to you, just know that it is very widely accepted, especially among scientists. There's nothing stopping Intelligent Design from being a legitimate science. It is possible that we were designed by some superior intellect (whether aliens or deities, take your pick) and then "seeded" onto this planet.** However, such a claim is very extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require evidence that is equally or more so extraordinary.*** So far, most of the "evidence" put forth by ID proponents is simply poking holes in evolution, and saying "They're wrong, so we must be right". That's not even evidence, so it doesn't meet the "extraordinary evidence" requirement for such an extraordinary claim that they are making. If ID people want to be taken seriously as a science, they need to stop just trying to just prove that evolution is wrong and start looking trying to prove their own theory right. Until then, ID will not be taken seriously by anyone even remotely scientific. *As an aside, general relativity faces this exact problem, currently. GR predicts that the mass at the center of a black hole reaches infinite density. Scientists that this as a sign not that black holes actually are infinitely dense, but that the theory is not complete enough to handle edge cases like this. GR tends to deal with things that are massive (like kilograms and stuff, not size), and QM with things that are extremely small in size. Black holes are both small and massive, so it's believed that QM and GR need to be combined in some way to fully explain what happens at the center of black holes. **Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) even admits this himself in an interview for the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. (It quite surprised Ben Stein) ***This is why quantum mechanics, despite being probably the most extraordinary and colossally messed up body of scientific theories in the entire history of science, is so widely accepted. The body of observational evidence so perfectly matches up with the predictions of QM that it's almost impossible to deny that it is true.

That....can't be right. I don't know where you got it, but I'd bet money that that code does not work. It's way too random and makes absolutely no sense. It's rather infeasible to make a code like that.

0x15DC, actually. You have to add the dex number and subtract 1, since the first byte (0x1451) is presumably Bulbasaur's data. That's the next step for now.

I make sure to save at least twice (sometimes 3 or 4 times just because) before examining the save. Plus, it's impossible to save after getting Piplup and before battling Turtwig, you go straight into the battle. I also saved just before entering Sandgem, after I saw the Starly.

Something else I've wondered about. Okami mentions believing in God because she thinks life should have a purpose. Well... ...what if you do discover that purpose, and you don't like it? What then?

Not familiar with that, sorry. It should work though, you just might have to convert the save to a compatible format.

Get a flashcard like Acekard 2i to directly edit your save file.

While it is best to know what you're doing, just reporting notable differences and similarities for other people to interpret is helpful too. If you do that, be sure to upload the actual save files too. ---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ---------- After searching through 3 save files, I am fairly confident that the Sinnoh and National Dex flags for Platinum are at 0x1642 and 0x1643, respectively. Now comes the fun part. deciphering the huge bitfield that stores the data for our beloved ぜんこくずかん. ...I just noticed, I think I used a Pokedex complete code on my Japanese Platinum (which I totally forgot about), since I have all the forms and languages unlocked for all the dex entries. That means that the flags for the Forme and Language extensions are probably at 0x1640 and 0x1641, since they're both 00h on the two new saves I made and 01h on the regular Plat save. I don't know which is which yet, but I'll figure it out. In my Jap Plat save, there's a big block of data 493 bytes long (familiar number, anyone) of nothing but 3Fh. It starts at 0x1451. I suspect that each byte is a bitfield that represents which parts of a Pokemon's Dex entry is unlocked. This is progressing much faster than I thought. ---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ---------- Eh, this is odd. For the new saves I started, the only dex entries in it are seeing Starly, seeing Turtwig, and owning Piplup. At the place I predicted Piplup's dex flags to be, there's a 0x02. But at the places for Turtwig and Starly, there's nothing at all. Bit 1 seems to be the "Captured" flag, in any case. Most peculiar.

You're forgiven. Quite obvious, yes. Probably someone that spoke British English translated that part, since I think that's the British spelling of "form". Not 100% sure though. Is the form part usable right after you get the Pokedex, or is there something that needs to be done to unlock it? Also, is every alternate form available to view from the beginning, or do you need to unlock those too? Cool. So each language dex entry for each Pokemon is unlocked as you get it? And which dex entry is unlocked depends on the 0x17 Original Language value, right? Where is the kid that unlocks this feature? Yup, know this too. That's it is a bit of an understatement, but now I've got a good starting point.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven This is so much nonsense I can't even believe it. I have to say something about this, for the sake of anyone that reads it. As was already mentioned, quite a few (but not all) of the arguments in there are presupposing that the Bible is true. That is bad logic, and sets this thing on the wrong foot already. The "Evolution - Genesis" table is also has a glaring inaccuracy, which again, doesn't do this any favors. I'm pretty sure that plants would have to come before land animals, since photosynthesis is the foundation that drives the entire food chain. Without plants, the first land animals would have nothing to eat. That seems obvious, really. I could be wrong, though. Moving on, the big bang, the universe from nothing. First, trying to argue against quantum mechanics on the basis of "logic" (seems more like they mean "intuition") is a bad move. QM is highly, highly counter intuitive, and makes absolutely no sense if you approach it using standard intuition. Second, they misunderstand the concept of "vacuum". A vacuum is the absence of matter. As far as I know, there aren't different kinds of vacuums, The Torricellian vacuum they mention seems to just be a vacuum made in a specific way, not a special kind of vacuum different from other kinds. They are right though that a vacuum is not nothing. It's actually less than nothing. Current observations support the hypothesis that a vacuum actually possesses a very slight negative energy, like anti-gravity. Thirdly, saying that something from nothing is against all laws of science is blatantly ignoring their own statement that some cosmologists argue that something can come from nothing in certain circumstances based on the laws of quantum mechanics. They didn't even split this contradiction up among different paragraphs in hopes of getting me to forget the first sentence. Lastly, drawing a parallel between finance and quantum theory is so bad it should just be thrown out. The only way the comparison would make sense is if that bank account was constantly getting deposits and withdrawals of totally random amounts at totally random times, to simulate Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle. Like I said before, quantum mechanics is so unbelievably convoluted that it's impossible to understand using our standard intuition. Bad, bad, bad. There's some logical fallacy at work here, I can smell it (and my sense of smell is usually pretty bad), I just don't know the name. Just because the experiment is intelligently designed doesn't mean it can't apply to unintelligent things. If the experiment results in life by using conditions that could have conceivably happened without intelligent intervention, then it is possible for life to begin without intelligence to guide it. If you really believed this argument, you would have to invalidate all of science, since all experiments (all good ones anyway) are conducted in highly controlled environments to factor out all variables except for the one currently under study. These highly controlled environments do not resemble reality in the least, but they let us piece together slowly the entire picture of reality, one factor at a time, without interference from other variables. I do agree with their conclusion that the experiment they mentioned does not definitively prove that life evolved from nothing, but I don't think the experiment was ever meant to be that. The fanfare was probably more media's doing than the scientists, since quite a few (but not all) are rather conservative in their proclamations. The experiment is a stepping stone, to other experiments about the origin of life. Now, to attack the specific points the use to attack this experiment: As far as I know, there's no proof that it wasn't like that either. However, ammonia and methane I think are the result of biological processes, and probably couldn't exist in significant amounts before life. Still, it does show that amino acids can be formed under reasonable conditions with a little intelligence or luck, and is a stepping stone to other research. I'll concede this point, since it sounds like a fair criticism. (Shocking, really) That's assuming it's assumptions about ozone and amino destroying UVs are correct, which I think they are. If someone can tell me if they are true or false that'd be great. One of my favorite sayings answers this quite well: It is better to have and not need than to need and not have. If the right-handed amino acids cannot create life, then this is a non issue. The left-handed ones will go on to create life, and the right-handed ones will be chemically destroyed, eventually. If right-handed ones can create life, then why they didn't would be a fair question to raise. However, disproving this specific experiment doesn't disprove the principle, it just means that different experiments need to be devised. Evolution is not pure chance. Evolution is composed of two equally important parts, mutation and natural selection. Mutation is entirely random, but natural selection isn't. It introduces the nonrandom bias of favoring mutations that increase an organism's reproductive success. I'll say it again, evolution is not random. Here's a more accurate junkyard metaphor, made to resemble a genetic computer algorithm based on the process of mutation, natural selection, and reproduction. Several roughly identical piles (say, 100) of junk exist in the junkyard. A very small tornado rips through the yard, introducing slight, random variations in piles. The most jumbo jet-like pile it then chosen, and the rest of the piles are discarded. The chosen pile is then copied 99 times. A tornado rips through the yard again. Rinse and repeat a few billion times. And before you argue "Choosing implies an intelligent designer" or some other nonsense, this is just analogy. It's not perfect, it's just made to show a concept. In biological evolution, the "chosen ones" are whoever lives to breed another day. Now for the section about comparative anatomy, the assumption that similar looking anatomical structures have similar origins. There's no subtly in the origin definition. Similar structure suggests similar origin. It's straightforward, plain as day, and even mentioned in the first paragraph of the section. A bat's wing and salamander's forelimb have similar structure. This implies that they have similar origin. A bat's wind and an insect's wing, though they have identical function (enabling flight), have very different structure. This implies that they have different origins. It couldn't be any clearer. It might be an assumption, but it is not an unreasonable one. Siblings resemble themselves more then they resemble other people, and they have a common ancestor, their parents. The physical resemblance is due to shared genetics. Anatomical structures are shaped largely by genetics. Extrapolating the sibling thing, it stands to reason that similar anatomical structure amongst different animals implies similar DNA, which in turn implies a common ancestor. Creation presupposes the existence of God as the creator. Science (ideally, at least) presupposes the existence of nothing, and builds our knowledge based entirely on observation. This is interesting, and if true is worth looking into, since it refutes the whole "similar structure implies similar DNA" issue I pushed earlier in the post. I want to hear more about this. Unfortunately, there's no more in the section about this. T_T http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005071327.htm Next section, missing links. The usual hum drum about how the fossil record is incomplete and stuff like that. I wonder if it's incomplete in that the fossils there aren't links, or that there's just nothing there, in which case it could be anything. Then there's a chart dealing with the classification of fossils that have been found into either ape or human. Kinda meaningless, since evolution is about a spectrum of change, not rigid groups, classification like that isn't really helpful for anything. Finally, stuff about "kinds". It argues that animals are not capable of reproducing out of their "kind", and that the "kind" boundary has never been crossed. Based on my understanding of evolution, it's not about mixing "kinds" together, but making new "kinds". Not about crossing barriers, but erecting new ones. If a "kind" becomes geographically separated into two or more populations, the members of those populations can evolve separately in different ways, until they are reproductively isolated (meaning they can no longer interbreed), forming new "kinds". That's evolution. Damn this is long. Tear at it.

94000130 FDFF0000 94000130 FDFF0000 B2101D40 00000000 D9000000 00111D10 C0000000 0000000C DC000000 00000004 D6000000 000233E8 D1000000 00000000 C0000000 0000000A D6000000 000233E8 D2000000 00000000 94000130 FEFF0000 B2101D40 00000000 D9000000 00111D10 C0000000 0000000C D6000000 000233E8 DC000000 00000004 D2000000 00000000 94000130 FFFB0000 B2101D40 00000000 DA000000 00111D10 D4000000 00002400 D3000000 00000000 D7000000 0207404C D2000000 00000000 Relevant areas are bolded. 5 is one of those "If" statements, so to do what you want to do, you'll need this: B2101D40 00000000 DC000000 00111D10 50000000 YYYYYYYY If those 0 and 1 statements never change location, you'll need to wipe the offset register with D3000000 00000000 before writing those. So, in the end, your code is: 94000130 FFF70000 B2101D40 00000000 DC000000 00111D10 50000000 00000002 D3000000 00000000 0210B76C 00103DE0 1210B770 00002050 D2000000 00000000 I look forward to this. :kikkoman:

If you shut the game off without saving, the Missingno would be erased from existence.

1) Thank you. Wasn't really that hard. Using my Pearl, I dumped saves with both an all black and blank sig, and used HxD to find the differences. The gigantic block of Fs in the Black sig save that was all 0s in the Blank sig save was a dead giveaway for the location. Then, I made a number of test case sigs, which included just the corners, and black bars across the sides and top. Analyzing those test cases let me get the way they were stored. Then, I found the Plat location and did a quick check to make sure it was stored the same way. Only took maybe an hour, 2 at the most, including the time to type up the post. 2) This is a topic made to recruit people to map out the save structure to improve the wiki. Posting stuff here that you didn't want on the wiki would seem quite odd to me. :confused: 3) My example is correct, and it is little endian. Big endian is the way our numbers are normally written, with the biggest numbers to the left. The number 4523 has 4 thousands, 5 hundreds, 2 tens, and 3 ones. The equivalent number in little endian would be 3254. 03, when converted to binary and little endian, is written as 11000000. You're crazy. 4) Sounds like fun. ---------- Post added at 11:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 PM ---------- I shall do my best. First though, I need to know what you're talking about. I hardly ever use my Pokedex, so I'm not very familiar with all it's functions. If you could detail all of the Pokedex's functions outside of the familiar "Seen it, caught it, got the data" thing, that'd be a big help. I'll probably start with a clean game, and see what changes as I see and capture Pokemon in the SinnohDex. This promises to be a fun challenge.

I solved the trainer card signature thingy. Surprisingly, it's a little more complicated than I thought. First, the offsets. D/P: 1,536 bytes, starting at 0x00005904 Plat: 1,536 bytes, starting at 0x00005BA8 The signature area is 192 x 64 pixels, for a grand total of 12,288 pixels. This area is divided up into 8x8 groups of pixels. Every 8 bytes of the signature's memory block represents one of these boxes, the first being in the upper left, in the order left-to-right, top-to-bottom (just like reading English). Within each of those 8 byte structures, each byte represents a row within the pixel group, the least significant byte being the topmost row. Each bit within each byte represents a pixel (1 = Black, 0 = White) in that row, with the least significant bit representing the leftmost pixel. So, in order to make an 8x8 group with a one pixel black border, you would use the values: FF 81 81 81 81 81 81 FF. 2 dimensionally represented in binary, this gives you: 11111111 10000001 10000001 10000001 10000001 10000001 10000001 11111111 For a 2 pixel wide stripe down the left side, you use: 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 11000000 11000000 11000000 11000000 11000000 11000000 11000000 11000000 It's important to remember that the DS uses whichever Endian (I think it's Little) puts the bits in the reverse order that we read them, with the least significant bits to the left. 192 of these groups are assembled to form the image that makes your signature. Next, Pokedex! This should be fun!

These sound fun, and the middle should be pretty easy. I have a Japanese Platinum, but since the save structures are identical it won't matter much. HxD has a compare function? It's not really tougher to locate flags. The process is exactly the same, it just might take a little longer. The only think difficult about flags is that multiple flags can be stored in one byte, like how Ribbons are stored on a Pokemon.

The wherever you got it from copied those codes, since it's an exact copy, character for character, of part of the file I posted. Plus, I can tell just by looking at them that they are D/P codes. The Secret Key one here, though, looks like an Eng Plat code. ---------- Post added at 08:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ---------- Bad luck, I think. I had that problem once breeding Staryu without using any codes.