(2,588 replies, posted in General discussion)

so, I already submitted this information to DICUI for update, but I wanted to share here also.  I was talking with Enker about the layerbreak information for xbox discs, and apparently people (myself included until I discovered the issue) have been submitted the incorrect layerbreak for xbox discs, when they should essentially all be the same default one. 

Here is what Enker shared with me:

"Hey, yes the DICUI layerbreak for Xbox/Xbox360 (and also Blu-ray discs) is incorrect. It's caused by DIC reporting two layerbreaks, one for the video partition and one for the game partition (DICUI uses this one). It never logs the actual layerbreak that takes into account the video partition+middle zone that comes before the game partition. If you add the video LayerZeroSector + Middle Zone + game LayerZeroSector, then you get the default value on the disc page.

DICUI could omit the layerbreak for Xbox/Xbox360/Blu-ray discs, since we never need to enter one for those discs."

As I said, I've already sent this to DICUI to pull the correct one, but I wanted to share with you as well sarami, in case anything has to be done on the DIC side.

The correct layerbreak is apparently the default of 1913776, and not the 1715632 that often/sometimes gets reported.


(2,588 replies, posted in General discussion)

sarami wrote:
sadikyo wrote:

I was having the same problem - but I tried with the new test version you shared here - and it worked.  Thanks!

Thanks test. I want to see your disc log. Would you upload them?

Yes - this is the one that worked with the test version


(2,588 replies, posted in General discussion)

sarami wrote:

Transfer length was too large.

uiDirPos: 341431, TransferLength: 82

Fixed it. Test plz. http://www.mediafire.com/file/eq80y20l9 … st.7z/file

I was having the same problem - but I tried with the new test version you shared here - and it worked.  Thanks!


(6 replies, posted in New Dumps)

Can you please verify and confirm that mastering code?  Disc serial is "610-7102" and mastering code starts "610-7201" ?

Please give sir LastCat wiki access.  He's dumped many discs and works on a variety of systems, and would like to update wiki as he goes or purchases things.  Thanks!


(3 replies, posted in Guests & account requests)

superg is an awesome PS contributor.  Let's get him some access! smile


(1 replies, posted in Fixes & additions)

fuzzball - I understand this issue has been discussed before without a perfect resolution.  I have reached out to the redump mods and admins, so that we can have a discussion and then get this settled once and for all, about guidance for correct EXE dates. 

I will update as soon as I find out.  Thank you for your patience as we discuss and get it settled.


(11 replies, posted in General discussion)

Works for me!

As I said before - I don't really have an issue with the change itself so if this enables more consistency - sounds good!


(11 replies, posted in General discussion)

Because we don't have good, solid, well documented guidance for naming conventions and entry rules.


(11 replies, posted in General discussion)

We could probably go back and forth on some of these things endlessly.  For example,  Polyphony (game developer) listed the game some places as "A-Spec" and others as "A-spec."

At the end of the day, we just either have to apply a database convention or make a determination based on the factors deemed relevant and move forward.

Personally, I don't really care which one it is as I can see decent arguments for both and it isn't a singular word where a broad capitalization scheme easily applies from a database standpoint.

In this case, the main game is popular and has had multiple verifications, with multiple admins and mods modifying these entries but keeping "A-spec" every time.


(11 replies, posted in General discussion)

I know that the game itself plus most of the official listings refer to it as "A-spec" - for example:

https://www.playstation.com/en-us/games … -spec-ps2/

"A-spec" on its own, isn't necessarily a well defined or established word or compound word, so our guesses about exactly what to do are a bit subjective.  I don't know that we have thorough rules to handle every situation like this - in terms of words and partial words separated by hyphens.   

Personally, I don't really care which it is, but I think A-spec makes sense so I don't see strong reasons to change it really.

Thank you for your great efforts hellodeibu! We'll get you setup soon!

Thank you very much for your contributions Ratiocinator! We'll get you taken care of soon.


(2 replies, posted in Guests & account requests)

Lusid1 wrote:

I have several hundred PSP Games on UMD (mostly USA) I want to help preserve.  Several are on the missing list, and a lot of them appear to need confirmation dumps.

Bumpity bump!  Thanks very much for your interest Lusid!  We'll get you setup as soon as possible.  I'm excited to see the PSP list dwindled down and look forward to your help.  Thanks!


(2 replies, posted in General discussion)

I'm inclined to agree, technically fuzzball is correct. 

https://www.jp.playstation.com/software … 87364.html


(3 replies, posted in General discussion)

I noticed this shortly after it was added and we addressed it.  Just a brief misunderstanding.  The version numbers will continue to be used for PS2 as they have been.


(8 replies, posted in General discussion)

fuzzball wrote:

new one

fuzzball - just as in the examples I gave above - most of these have english titles on the disc itself.  For example:


(8 replies, posted in General discussion)

fuzzball wrote:

Why is the original title used instead of the Japanese title?


Also, "災禍の中心" will not appear in the TOWNS version of Wizardry V.

I haven't checked all of them - but I know for the first one:


Wizardry is an interesting case hah smile


Box says "Wizardry V" and disc says it in japanese with a "5" and not "V" smile


(10 replies, posted in General discussion)

darksabre76 wrote:

If we even decided to keep the EXE Date (something I don't personally see utility in), then I vote for UTC, since in computing, the UTC date is the truth from which all other values are derived for timezones. We don't need every single person who decided to dump in their own timezone just happen to be a day off from someone else. It's not sustainable.

I agree completely.  I believe the concept of redump is to get information that is truly and objectively verifiable by anyone at any time, anywhere - so using a completely universal convention such as UTC in a case like this, seems to absolutely make the most sense in terms of what should be input for the EXE Date field.


(10 replies, posted in General discussion)

Setting aside the logistical issue of 'correcting' what is already there, I think the first step is deciding definitely what the EXE date SHOULD be, or the convention that should be used.  We can discuss addressing errors in the database, but we need official agreement/consensus/understanding on what date/time should be used in the field.


(10 replies, posted in General discussion)

Ok - let us address this here then so we are all on the same page going forward.  As I stated in that thread, it is not my intention to change any rules or conventions arbitrarily.

So, let us discuss.

Currently, there is a bit of a mixture in the database with EXE dates.  I know that for a long while now, DICUI has been pulling the EXE dates using a "UTC method" similar to what I described in the thread linked above.  I also know that other submissions have been using the recorded date per the dumper's isobuster / file explorers / or perhaps dump data such as voldesc.txt for certain console discs, etc.

There are good arguments for both methods, from a practical standpoint, etc., but we should definitely address and at least try to get on the same page.  I know that I have had this discussion with several mods who agreed that moving forward, UTC does seem to make sense as we can always arrive at that exact date, regardless of where the disc is dumped or what settings they are using.  However, this would need to be agreed on and/or commonly understood by everyone in the context of consistency in our database. 

As I mentioned, currently the database has a mixture of both methods, and it is impossible to know which is being used in which case aside from going through manually which is near impossible nor am I suggesting.

Moving forward, we need to have a definitive method and have everyone on the same page, for how to determine the build date.  There seem to be some differing opinions here, so we should hash that out and come to an agreement.

I'll clarify - I've only modified an existing entry in a few situations where I redumped a disc - and if it is formally decided to reverse the convention and NOT use the 'UTC style' as I presented, I will correct all changes I have made.  But, since currently DICUI is generating it differently, we really need to come to an agreement here and then disseminate that information / instruction fully.

I want to state that I do believe in both consistency and accuracy in the database, and I do agree that we need to do a better job of communicating all of the explicit rules and conventions for dumping, so that discrepancies like this are reduced in the future.  Thank you for bringing this up and we should definitely address it.

Jackal --- I do see your point regarding the naming when looking at it from a global perspective.  I guess the challenge here is what should come first as the guiding principle for naming?  On the one hand, when looking at it from a global perspective, the sorting makes sense looking at what you shared.  On the other hand, when looking in a particular region, the numbering and sorting doesn't really make much sense. 

So I think both perspectives have some merit and aren't completely illogical. 

However, let's look at another sample of this concept.  When you look at a game that is released in multiple regions, but has slightly different names (whether due to language, or even just other regional changes), we ultimately choose the name of the item by that region's "correct" localized name, as opposed to matching all of the titles just to have a sort of worldwide consistency.  So from that perspective, user7's sugggestion is a bit more consistent with that ideology. 

I realize the difference here stems from the discs themselves having the copied disc art with a number that doesn't seem to match up to that region's sleeve / info.  So I can see somewhat the alternative perspective.  But traditionally speaking, when I'm looking at an individual submission and looking at that particular item for that particular region, it seems logical to me at least, to try to pick the best name that applies most to that particular region.  I think this is something that there just may be different viewpoints on.

How about we all stop with the snarky comments and calling each other's actions clusterfucks and just focus on the conversation about proper submission / database conventions.  We can do so without getting all accusatory and negative with each other.  Thank you.

I understand some of the reasoning behind going strictly with what is on a disc - and I also understand that from a quality control / accuracy and ease of consistent submissions standpoint, that does streamline things and make it a bit easier. 

However, I'm also inclined to agree with user7 in this instance because there is solid logical reasoning for why naming them the way he suggests is more clear in a way, and better represents what those discs truly are.  I am ALL for adding comments and additional details that explain variances and such. 

As a user, when I am viewing and using the redump database, I'm looking at a disc and I want the title to tell me truly what the disc is.  If the disc is a game called Fire: Pass the Torch [hypothetical game], and the disc has an error that says Fire: Ass the Torch, whereas all of the packaging and everything else is "Pass the Torch" - do we name it "Ass the Torch" in the database because it is literally on the disc, though it truly misrepresents what the game is? I do realize that is a somewhat ludicrous example, but hopefully it illustrates the point.

Another example is this one:

The serial listed on the disc is 972227, but it is an error and should be 97227.  I believe the 'true' serial for this release is 97227.  While the issue is noted in the comments, personally, I think the database should be 97227, as the extra digit one is completely erroneous.

I know it's a difficult balance, because creating exceptions based on unique situations does make this more challenging.  But I also think it can provide other value and usefulness as well.  Some of things will just have to evaluated on a case by case scenario. 

IF you disagree with the above and have strong logical reasons for not doing so - that is completely fair - then please share those thoughts so we can hash it out and come to some finality on the issue and move forward - that would be great!


(22 replies, posted in General discussion)

F1ReB4LL wrote:

So what happens if a game is released on multiple systems, but the disc's release was just accompanied by a certain system?

Only that certain system should be mentioned, then, if it's somehow tied to only one of the ports.

It looks sloppy as hell and not part of the item's official title.

The region tags, various "(Alt)" and similar tags aren't the parts of the title as well, it's not an argument. The title part ends before the region tag.

I have several promotional DVDs that cover numerous different systems.  For example, I have store demonstration DVDs that cover games across 3, 4, sometimes even more systems. 

Perhaps the discussion here is more on dvds released WITH certain game releases, I don't know.

Regarding the file-naming, I'm inclined to agree with user7 and Jackal here that the current system does seem to create a really long and sloppy/complicated name.  Rather than passive aggressive attacks going both ways, surely we can come up with some solutions here that will please everyone.