Search options (Page 32 of 33)

We don't allow multiple / alternate accounts.  You can use your existing login info with DICUI, or if you'd prefer not to use that, it's not required.  You can PM me if you have any additional concerns/questions about this.

The convention most used on redump for volume titles, is a space between the "." and the number, so you'll find most entries will say "Vol. 2" instead of "Vol.2" even if there is no space on the disc.  This is a sort of normalization/standardization that is done with the romanization here. 

I am working on a rough guide for some of these conventions, but it currently is a WIP.  When I have something remotely organized, I'll share for further review and discussion to help address things like this so everyone can be on the same page.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.