ToK's File Prediction is no longer supported?
 

I'm posting this here cos although it is about ToK, its not entirely about it...

In the early days of learning KVCD, it made sense to use an automated program to feel my way thru things. I initially chose ACP, but tended to prefer ToK. I still use ToK even today (but only for File Prediction), simply because I found it more user friendly compared to CQMatic (no offence Kwag).

Nowadays it seems that ToK is yesterdays news. This, for me, is fair enough (shame - since it had as much potential as DIKO has now). I've moved on, and know how to do most steps manually - with the exception of File Prediction.

The point of my rant here is....Is there anything of worth to take from ToK's method to determine file size? Does anyone have any insight into the theory behind its File Prediction? Particularly the 'New Faster Prediction Thx Tenra' that it uses.

I ask simply because ToK's File Prediction has been ever reliable for me - giving consistently great results. Maybe I'm in a minority with CQMatic (I'm probably too lazy to persevere with it).

Sorry this was so long. :roll:

Re: I know ToK is dead....however....
 

The reason why Tok is no longer supported IS because the author did not log since a very long time ! All this king of questions were discussed a lot with him when he was on the forum. Tenra was also the name of someone that disappeared. So go on the Tok forum and seach into it.

Now, CQMatic was developpepd because Tok prediction is WAY OFF in much more case than CQMatic (no offense with your own experience). So there is nothing to take in it.

There is NOTHING difficult in CQMatic !
You have to use short pathname, to not use exotic char in the names and remember to reset range editing and uncheck the "source range" box each time before saving the project. What is so hard in this ???

Tok is dead. Reliable prediction in CQ mode is imposible. This thread is ended.

Ok thread closed. I won't go on.

What I'll maybe do is look again at CQMatic. I know its not hard, I guess I just didnt want to have to bother learning a new skill :roll: First few times using it gave me 89.77 and I just couldn't be bothered figuring out why. If I didn't have ToK, then I'd probably have persevered.

(edit) I KNOW what to do to solve the 89.77 prob (edit end)

I'd been using ToK for so long, I guess I was resistant to change, especially when the results I was getting were fine (by my standards - I appreciate others are more fickle).

Anyway, as you say....thread closed.[/b]

@fingerbob

I agree with you in the regard that ToK was a great tool in it's day. When I first came to KVCD as a complete noob ToK was the perfect answer for me to back up my DVD's to KVCD and I found the prediction (especially with jorel's method) very accurate for me.

Now that I have a DVD burner I don't do KVCD anymore so I don't miss ToK as I use DIKO Gold to back up my movies to KDVD.

I do however think it is a shame that both ToK and ACP have died and that their author's didn't decide to open source the code so that some1 else might pick up from where they left off and maybe give these progs a much needed update.

This would have been great news for noobs as (especially ACP) were pretty much idiot proof and were pretty easy to get going with.

I know ToK needed the aid of MovieStacker to set your values in your script but it was still a very easy to use tool.

Thank God Vinicius created DIKO which is just as idiot proof for idiots like me lol. :D :lol:

R.I.P both ToK and ACP. :( :bawl: