[SNES] Speedy Gonzales in Los Gatos Bandidos (Europe) (Proto) (No. 14)

Post all database contributions here.
Post Reply
Overload
Posts: 11
Joined: 01 Nov 2009 17:56

[SNES] Speedy Gonzales in Los Gatos Bandidos (Europe) (Proto) (No. 14)

Post by Overload » 20 Mar 2019 16:50

File:
Speedy Gonzales in Los Gatos Bandidos (Europe) (Proto) (No. 14).sfc
Size: 1048576
CRC32: EFE9E087 [selected]
MD5: 5F5DD66696417DF957C549BF2BFD69C6
SHA-1: 2B8AD57DDE13D58B5CECEC1F0309A4BB83908B5E

I dumped this rom about 14 years ago, its not No. 14. It's 1B

Here's some photos of the cart.

http://users.tpg.com.au/advlink/temp/1.jpg
http://users.tpg.com.au/advlink/temp/2.jpg

badinsults
Posts: 265
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 01:34

Re: [SNES] Speedy Gonzales in Los Gatos Bandidos (Europe) (Proto) (No. 14)

Post by badinsults » 20 Mar 2019 20:21

I'm curious how they watermarked the game. Here is mine (labeled 04).

http://snescentral.com/review.php?id=06 ... icle=proto

Overload
Posts: 11
Joined: 01 Nov 2009 17:56

Re: [SNES] Speedy Gonzales in Los Gatos Bandidos (Europe) (Proto) (No. 14)

Post by Overload » 21 Mar 2019 12:16

The calculated checksum bytes should be 78 AB 87 54

Looks like they have modified the lower byte of the checksum (and the lower byte of the complement checksum).

The checksum bytes on my proto (01B) are EB AB 14 54

The checksum bytes on your proto (004) are FB AB 04 54

badinsults
Posts: 265
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 01:34

Re: [SNES] Speedy Gonzales in Los Gatos Bandidos (Europe) (Proto) (No. 14)

Post by badinsults » 21 Mar 2019 20:43

I guess they messed up the label on yours then.

KingMike
Posts: 478
Joined: 22 Sep 2012 16:36

Re: [SNES] Speedy Gonzales in Los Gatos Bandidos (Europe) (Proto) (No. 14)

Post by KingMike » 21 Mar 2019 23:01

I was going to say maybe that got into some weird hex/decimal counting hybrid.

14 (hex) is 20 (dec) but that would only make sense if they labeled it 1A.

Overload
Posts: 11
Joined: 01 Nov 2009 17:56

Re: [SNES] Speedy Gonzales in Los Gatos Bandidos (Europe) (Proto) (No. 14)

Post by Overload » 22 Mar 2019 02:01

badinsults wrote:
21 Mar 2019 20:43
I guess they messed up the label on yours then.
I don't think they did.

0x04 and 0x14 are not version numbers they are the complement of 0xfb and 0xeb.

They added 0x73 to the checksum on mine and they added 0x83 to the checksum on yours. You would need more of these prototypes dumped before you could figure out any sort of pattern, if indeed there is a pattern.

Post Reply