You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Redump Forum → General discussion → Suggestion: State the version in the dat name even if there is only 1
Suggestion: State the version in the dat name even if there is only one version
E.g. New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Japan) should be New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Japan) (v1.01) even though there is no other version
Currently it is quite confusing. I can't actually tell that it is v1.1 without opening the ISO (e.g. in Dolphin) to check.
This is how No-Intro does it, and doesn't Redump follow No-Intro naming convention? Maybe I misunderstand how strictly Redump follows it though.
It should be only added when there are revisions to distinguish between them... I don't see the point in adding the version to the filename when there are no known revisions...
Fireball, why this disc http://redump.org/disc/8169 is marked as Rev A? The ringcode says that it's a Rev A but i dumped a lot of discs from different sources, original box and plastic box and i never found the older revision, so it probably doesn't exist... and i never heard of annyone finding it neither...
"I don't see the point"
I gave a point in my first post 
Confusing?! Well, i think otherwise... Confusing is having all this versions added to the filename when there aren't known revisions (like in the No-Intro PSP dats...)... In Redump i think all the Version info is stored in the DB but they are only used in the filename when there are known or already dumped revisions... It makes the naming scheme more"clean"...
Fireball, why this disc http://redump.org/disc/8169 is marked as Rev A? The ringcode says that it's a Rev A but i dumped a lot of discs from different sources, original box and plastic box and i never found the older revision, so it probably doesn't exist... and i never heard of annyone finding it neither...
Because, judging by other discs, the Rev 0 should exist as well. No-Intro also adds the revision, when it's known and when other ones are likely to exist.
https://www.satakore.com/sega-saturn-ga … n-EUR.html -- also lists the Rev 0 as unconfirmed, but possible to exist.
Currently it is quite confusing. I can't actually tell that it is v1.1 without opening the ISO (e.g. in Dolphin) to check.
And why do you need to tell that?
Why do I need to tell what the version is? I don't understand the question.
Why do you need to know the version? What does it tell you?
Exactly... Why do we have to name it 1.00 or 1.01 or whatever if it was the only version that came out?...
About the Daytona CCE, the revision A must be the original release so it's better to remove that tag from the fileneme until someone finds the Rev0...
And it should be added to the wiki missing list to intensify the search.
BTW, the Virtua Cop 2 demo should be removed. I dumped it and it matched the retail version...
"(v1.01)" tells me that its not "(v1.02)", which is undumped but does exist. And even if it wasn't confirmed to exist, it still might exist.
Yes, I see the logic now. Most of the releases are v1.00 with the ringcodes end with "-0", some have the updated ones, like v1.01 with the ringcodes end with "-1", etc., so, when you see a standalone v1.01/"-1" or v1.02/"-2", you can assume the earlier versions should exist.
So, the suggestion should be not to "state the version in the dat name even if there is only one version", but to "state the version in the dat if the earlier version/revision is likely to exist". Sounds reasonable, I'm OK with that, but I'm not the GC/Wii/WiiU sections maintainer, so I'd like to hear their dumpers'/mods' opinions as well.
I understand Hiccup's logic, but it only works for certain systems that follow a very predicable versioning system like Wii / Gamecube.
However, even that has caveats. For example there may be 1.01 without a 1.00 ever existing. I keep track of these as "Unconfirmed" in the Wii USA wiki: http://wiki.redump.org/index.php?title= … A_Missing. We have reason to believe there could be lower revisions, but we have no proof. Considering some of these are for very popular games, its quite possible that some of these 1.00 versions simply never made it to store shelves.
Another reason I want this is because for a long time I assumed that v1.01 was undumped, but in reality it was simply called New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Japan), rather than New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Japan) (v1.01). It was confusing, and others may also be confused by it, especially if they are used to No-Intro's naming and believe the Redump follows the No-Intro naming.
This isn't necessarily something that should apply to non-Nintendo discs, as they often don't (hardly ever?) start at "v1.00", whereas Nintendo discs usually do, and instances like New Super Mario Bros. Wii are an exception.
However, even that has caveats. For example there may be 1.01 without a 1.00 ever existing.
Still, nothing bad in calling it (v1.01) to motivate people to look/check for (v1.00). Again, as far as I understand, No-Intro names their roms according to the version/revision, if known, even if the existence of the earlier ones is only suggested, not proven.
You are correct about No-Intro.
No-Intro mostly covers systems that use revisions, so most of the "versions" do start at "v1.00".
My position on this issue:
For most consoles: Meh, go ahead. Nintendo and Sony make sure version info is consistent. Don't do this for the GameWave though.
For PC: NO NO NO NO NO NO!
Version info is FAR too messy on PC for this to be in the filename. It doesn't belong there.
If you disagree, look at these and consider what the revised filename would be:
http://redump.org/disc/21147/
http://redump.org/disc/45369/
http://redump.org/disc/49850/
And I believe putting the version information for http://redump.org/disc/11223/ in the filename will break stuff since slashes aren't allowed on Windows files. Yes, that game has two versions. Running sshock.exe gives a version of F1.6S, and running cdshock.exe gives a version of F1.6C.
Besides, I doubt Jackal will ever agree to this change.
Didnt read all the posts, but when there's multiple versions released of a game, and one of them is undumped, the version can be added to the filename for the one that is dumped. Is that what you mean with New Super Mario Bros. Wii?
Didnt read all the posts, but when there's multiple versions released of a game, and one of them is undumped, the version can be added to the filename for the one that is dumped. Is that what you mean with New Super Mario Bros. Wii?
When the only currently known release is internally marked as a revised version (so, an earlier one is highly likely to exist, just hasn't been found yet).
I was suggesting that for Nintendo discs, the revision is always displayed.
I don't have any experience with PC discs, so I won't comment on that.
I have never understood why having less of this type of information is good. People want to add a million-character-long string of characters like "En,Fr,Es,Jp,Ah,Uv,Il,Tx,Pv,Is" to a filename because it the game has some language choices, but a version number which is like four characters long we don't want to add. Why not? It's not like you can even search "Fr" in the filenames and only come up with games that include French because the string "Fr" is way too common... so we could argue that it's preeeeeeeetty useless to add those strings... but then for version numbers we ask "why would we do that."
But then I'm trying to figure out the logic of a project that goes back like 15 years which is kind of silly, no offense to anyone. It starts out one way and then people don't want to have to change x amount of years of naming conventions, and also opinions, etc. But I think leaving out the version numbers was always a huge mistake. I personally add them to every file I get when it makes it to my hard drive.
EDIT: Re-worded the first sentence and to explain it... a version number is identifying information about what you're playing, and to assume that something doesn't have a different version is very foolish. I came around and dumped a 1.10 of TimeSplitters 6 years after the 2.00 had been dumped, and to my knowledge it wasn't "obvious" or "known" that there was a 1.10; both are black label and plenty of games exist with versions higher than 1.xx without a 1.xx—THAT WE KNOW OF. That's the whole point. Then you just have to go back changing all the games that we find new versions for. It's a bit of a silly method and to... what, save like 5 characters off the filename?
PS2 (as well as Sega systems) versions aren't tied to revisions, so you can't easily predict the missing ones. Like, http://redump.org/disc/39485/ is v1.04, but if to name it according to the version/revision, it should be v1.0/Rev 0 due to its ringcode that ends with "1". http://redump.org/disc/22458/ -- v2.01, ends with "1", so the earlier ones, like v2.00, don't exist _for this serial_ (which differs from the original release, which is http://redump.org/disc/15921/ which is v1.01, ringcodes end with 4 and 5, so it's worth to look for 1 or 2 with the possible v1.00 inside). TimeSplitters v2.00's ringcode ends with "4" and you can't say for sure, whether "1", "2" and "3" would differ or not until you find and dump all the missing rings.
What I (in regards to Nintendo discs) and Egen (in regards to PC discs) are saying is that the version should be visible in the name because it is very useful info. The game doesn't necessarily have to have any other version.
And what I'm trying to say is that the version should be visible if it clearly states the revision, like in the Nintendo's case. Check the old TOSECISO names for Saturn, for example. They are terrible.
Okay. Well I guess you agree with me about Nintendo discs then.
Could you link to these TOSECISO names and explain what is wrong with them?
https://github.com/libretro/libretro-da … Saturn.dat -- versions look useless and distracting here. As well as publishers.
The versions might look silly be because of all the other stuff tacked on
Redump Forum → General discussion → Suggestion: State the version in the dat name even if there is only 1
Powered by PunBB 1.4.4, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 6 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.