Till now we did not use the [!]-tag from cow's goodtools. I feel now it is getting harder and harder to keep track with who redumped what especially since the online-db is still wip. Should we introduce it now so we can see at first glance if a game needs a redump or not?
And what about the use of (b), [h], [hir] in the gba-dat?
/ alcoatjez on 21-Sep-2005 13:22 wrote:
I would love to see the [!] tag, since it is impossible for outsiders to see which game is already verified. For me personally (still hunting for a decent SNES copier), I would gladly contribute, if it was easy to see which ROMs need redumps.
For the other tags, if no good dump exists use them, else not.
/ hydr0x on 21-Sep-2005 14:37 wrote:
well, i agree we need a tag for undumped/dumped (as you might have noticed i'm using [!] in my SNES dumpers dat)..
what i'm not sure about is wether we should use a tag for verified roms or for unverified roms, to be honest, i'd prefer short filenames, so i'd like a tag for the UNVERIFIED roms instead of the verified ones, i just don't know what we could use for that
/ hydr0x on 21-Sep-2005 15:37 wrote:
how about this, tag all unverified roms with [NV] for "not verified" or "needs verification" ??
/ hokuto on 21-Sep-2005 15:46 wrote:
Er... I'm a bit confused: I believe no-intro dats list only 1:1 copies of the original software. I mean, maybe dumps aren't verified by other dumpers, but i believe that if a dump is included in the dat, it has a high probability to be a good dump.Till now we did not use the [!]-tag from cow's goodtools. I feel now it is getting harder and harder to keep track with who redumped what especially since the online-db is still wip. Should we introduce it now so we can see at first glance if a game needs a redump or not?
If all i've stated is true, i would prefer a NO [!] tag name, because from a "preservation point of view" b-), it's better having a clean romname instead of a tag that distinguish only "verified 1:1 dumps" from "probably 1:1 dumps", that just need redump verification. Imho, of course
I all i've stated is wrong, well, i await correction and punishment
On the other side, verifing dump is a really really really good idea
Why don't create a separate dat including dumps "to be verified"?
I see some dats include "no 1:1" copies because they are the only dumps available, so imho tagging games that don't fully respect "clean software preservation" is really a GOOD IDEA: tag all of them, please!And what about the use of (b), [h], [hir] in the gba-dat?
/ bigfred on 21-Sep-2005 17:30 wrote:
A tag for non-verified dumps means double-work: Adding tons of tags and then later removing them.
How do you know a dump is 1:1 if you didn't verify it? And no - many roms in the dats are known hacked/bad dumps - check the bad roms thread. And there are tons more that had "standard intros"I believe no-intro dats list only 1:1 copies of the original software
/ X-or on 21-Sep-2005 17:56 wrote:
I think cow's tags are his intellectual properties and I don't want to see them in no-intro (just plainly ugly)
I hoped no-intro datters kept track of every dumps status (confirmed perfect dumps, need confirmation, confirmed bad dumps...)
If you didn't (that's bad), you can still make your own private dat with all info related to the dumps status, but please don't throw these tags in no-intro public dats
/ IceFox on 21-Sep-2005 18:47 wrote:
One of the things that attracted me to the No-Intro dats is that they do not use the [!] tag. IMO, that tag just looks...ugly.
I agree with X-or's previous post: Private dats can have the tag, but public dats should not.
/ hydr0x on 21-Sep-2005 19:07 wrote:
how do you guys like my idea about tagging the NOT verified ones then?? no [!] tag, but same effect
lots of work, yeah, but taking that as a reason is just lazyness
/ bigfred on 21-Sep-2005 19:47 wrote:
You think so? Why do you think they defined the * goes before + rule in mathematics?lots of work, yeah, but taking that as a reason is just lazyness
"looking ugly" sounds like a lot worse reason to me
/ hydr0x on 21-Sep-2005 20:00 wrote:
who said anything about "looking ugly" my reasons for not wanting to tag the GOOD roms is that good roms should have the shortest filename possible with as few crap and tags as possible
/ Silence on 21-Sep-2005 21:36 wrote:
Sincerely i think that a game should be named exactly as it is, with minimum tags possibly (until now is ok for me). If you start to add a flag today, another tomorrow etc. shortly we will must change resolution to read entire titles! lol Maybe i reason as a player and not as a datter, but i believe that we can continue as usual....according with other users, probably Cowering don't like this
p.s. of course last word goes to datters
/ X-or on 21-Sep-2005 21:42 wrote:
anyway I will clearly state my opinion:
/ hydr0x on 21-Sep-2005 22:22 wrote:
guys please read what i said instead of bs around, i mentioned an alternative to the [!], please discuss that instead of the [!] which we can't and don't want to use...
/ IceFox on 21-Sep-2005 22:31 wrote:
Why not just include a .txt file with the dat releases? This file would have a chart of all the ROMs, their respective CRC32s, and could state their dump history or verification status, if possible.
Or you might want to instead put it all in an MS Office Excel spreadsheet, but I don't know how feasible that is.
/ Gigadeath on 22-Sep-2005 00:59 wrote:
It should depend on datter's will, since the states of the various dats vary widely.
For example, adding a flag to the Genesis dat would be useless, thanks to cooperative work in the last months we reduced the doubtful roms to a handful, more than 95% of the dumps are verified and the remaining ones are well known and already searched for; both "verified" and "unverified" tags would be redundant in this case. Same thing with SMS/GG.
But on the other hand dats like the PCE and NES ones would greatly benefit from a verified tag, since the verifying process is at 1% for them.
So it depends from case to case.
/ xuom2 on 22-Sep-2005 07:20 wrote:
i agree to x-or post. no verified tag. eventually on a separate document.I think cow's tags are his intellectual properties and I don't want to see them in no-intro (just plainly ugly)
Write your own private dat with all info related to the dumps status, but please don't throw these tags in no-intro public dats
(it would be nice putting some (bad) tags, to 'suggest' people to redump)
/ bigfred on 22-Sep-2005 17:05 wrote:
Reasons would be interesting too. Not only yes/no
I want to help dumpers being able to easily check what needs dumping and what not. We have a goal that is preserving software and imo it should be our responsibility to support contributors as much as possible by offering them a comfortable way to know how they can help. Hiding all the info and keeping it internal will put this project in the direction of a leecher-dat - making a "mindless-rom-downloaders" collection look nice is not what I intend. If [!] is not ok then please propose what else we should use. [nv] maybe as hydr0x offered? Or a seperate dat/txt-file?
/ NGEfreak on 22-Sep-2005 17:47 wrote:
Marking roms with a verified flag is a design error. The actual releases should be marked, not roms.
/ hydr0x on 22-Sep-2005 17:59 wrote:
i have no idea what you want to tell us NGEfreak lol
/ Connie on 22-Sep-2005 17:59 wrote:
I'm not sure if this could be used as it depends on what info RomCenter DATs can hold when converted from CM Pro ones. But...
If you create a Dir2Dat in ClrMame Pro and enable the "Add Manufacturer", you could then use this field in the created dat to add for example "Verified", "Un-Verified", "Cracked", etc. As far as I know, the DAT is the only place that this 'extra' info is recorded and used.
As the saying goes, "Out of sight, out of mind" - at least just to the collectors
/ hydr0x on 22-Sep-2005 18:47 wrote:
but that's the point, the "collectors" (sorry, but collectors collect real games, not roms) SHOULD see which are unverified so anyone with a dumper (and especially for GBA a lot of people have flash carts) can verify it!As the saying goes, "Out of sight, out of mind" - at least just to the collectors
/ bigfred on 22-Sep-2005 18:47 wrote:
I'm too stupid to understand this sentence lol ?The actual releases should be marked, not roms.
Who says this is for "collectors"? My definition of collectors is non-contributing leechers. You only hear from collectors when there is some problem with their "romset". When it comes to dumping - and be it only buying a single cart for 1 euro - all you hear of them is silence.As the saying goes, "Out of sight, out of mind" - at least just to the collectors
/ NGEfreak on 22-Sep-2005 19:04 wrote:
What are roms?
Super Mario World (U) (v1.0) 524288 b19ed489
Super Mario World (U) (v1.1) 524288 deadbeef
What are releases?
SNS-MW-CAN-1 Canada Super Mario World DUMPED b19ed489
SNS-MW-USA USA Super Mario World VERIFIED b19ed489
SNS-MW-USA USA Super Mario World (bundled with Super NES) VERIFIED b19ed489
SNS-MW-USA-1 USA Super Mario World DUMPED deadbeef
SNS-MW-USA-2 USA Super Mario World DUMPED deadbeef
You can put roms and releases in a 1:n relation.
/ Connie on 22-Sep-2005 19:35 wrote:
It doesn't matter how you define the term 'Collector', be it in ROM/Image state or original Cartridge/Disc or CD. There wouldn't be a future in emulation without them - and that includes leechers.
As for ROM managers and DATs, they are for ROM/Image naming. For cataloging what you own and therefore a verified dump, I would suggest using a spreadsheet or database.
/ hokuto on 22-Sep-2005 23:17 wrote:
Well, if I set up a method for rom dumping and after verifing that dumps I've made are good, I think that subsequential dumps of different games that relies on the same cartridge hardware (i.e., cartridge with the same chipset), created with the same method, are reasonably good. Verifing them is still a great idea, of course, but i think that those dump can be added to dat.How do you know a dump is 1:1 if you didn't verify it?
Oh no, I'm lostAnd no - many roms in the dats are known hacked/bad dumps - check the bad roms thread. And there are tons more that had "standard intros"
Why add dumps that are KNOWN bad to the dat? And why don't flag them at least with a (b) tag for identifying them? I believe that goodtools are enough for bad dumps recognizing, I believe No-Intro was different because its dat list only good dumps or probably good dumps (= still not verified but produced with a trusty method).
I have no flaming intentions, just asking for well understanding thw whole matter
/ hokuto on 22-Sep-2005 23:32 wrote:
Imho, there aren't only cartridge collectors and non-contributing leechers. For example, I see myself as someone who's trying to preserve software from vanishing, even if this requires a conversion in a PC-file format...Who says this is for "collectors"? My definition of collectors is non-contributing leechers. You only hear from collectors when there is some problem with their "romset". When it comes to dumping - and be it only buying a single cart for 1 euro - all you hear of them is silence.
Having all dumps just to say: "Hey, I've all of them", it's senseless for me... I don't see how a person can find enough time to fully play all the games
I think consoles are a part of our history: if we preserve some ancient ruin (even those piece of road!), it's worth to preserve human creations as software. And some software has given me more emotions than a lot of tools exposed in museums )
/ hokuto on 23-Sep-2005 10:49 wrote:
Quoting!!!As for ROM managers and DATs, they are for ROM/Image naming. For cataloging what you own and therefore a verified dump, I would suggest using a spreadsheet or database.
I totally agree. As i've said before, i think that a separate source will be better.
Then, a [NV] tag is a good choice. Alternatively, i propose a [TBV] tag (to be verified)
Now i'm ending forum flooding with my consecutive messages lol
/ relax on 23-Sep-2005 20:47 wrote:
I like it the way it is now. Only known bad or hacked ROMs are tagged, all good or assumed good ROMs are not tagged. (It should be this way with GBA as well). Let Cowering keep his [!], to use this tag would for most systems only be to copy the Good-tools. The Good-tools (when updated) serve well as a reference (so everyone should give redump-info to Cowering), in addition we can include a text-file with the dat with additional info (as with the MD-dat now).