1

(1 replies, posted in New Dumps)

This can be added once the website issues regarding triple-layer discs are resolved.

2

(3 replies, posted in Verifications)

Thank you!

3

(3 replies, posted in Verifications)

Please paste the entire contents of the !submissionInfo.txt file into this thread.
Logs for a DVD should be small enough where you should be able to attach them directly to this thread.

4

(3,346 replies, posted in General discussion)

A relatively recent dump of a particular PCECD disc (Metamor Jupiter) produced a bad track split, where the hashes for track 15 and track 16 are incorrect.

Good:

Size       CRC-32      MD5                                 SHA-1
7215936    fef20b14    2693317a11581563a98f9a9e72b45afc    526e924a854386551b61132530554e09ca451351
1782816    45e68246    e04fcddf7ca970d7145150f75a3f87e3    9582d51f818c8b2199cca857d73436050294969e

Bad:

Size       CRC-32      MD5                                 SHA-1
7213584    b4c98d36    b60e8342f0e91616643f05148e7ea8af    65be947f99c19bee9de86c50e6b5998f074d75e7
1785168    f43f7f32    03269f4c740f5682cd16af5327e3ec5d    af1343106597a462eed5d0f9a99109ac92f03a54

Here are the logs: http://forum.redump.org/misc.php?action … download=1

The checksum for the total img file (074a677b) was correct.
Any ideas what could have caused DIC to produce a bad dump of these two tracks?

http://redump.org/disc/92260/: Comments state "Write offset was detected using the position of the first / last audio byte." but the offset value wasn't provided.

Fixed. -12 offset

6

(3,346 replies, posted in General discussion)

sarami wrote:

Do you upload logs if possible? I want to see if it's fixed as I expected.

Logs

7

(3,346 replies, posted in General discussion)

That fixed the problem with this disc. Thank you!

8

(3,346 replies, posted in General discussion)

Hi sarami,

I think I found a bug in DIC.
I have this CD-R audio CD.

DIC logs

DIC determines an incorrect track 1 / track 2 boundary.
This is what IsoBuster shows for the disc.

DIC produces the following:

<rom name="PGS - Promo Disc (USA) (Track 1).bin" size="25552128" crc="169df37b" md5="e3428a7bb35692ea9625202190220206" sha1="42da4a8b5171e1b3b66a0511611ac2671e402b13" />
<rom name="PGS - Promo Disc (USA) (Track 2).bin" size="28602672" crc="42f4fccc" md5="1c2daf66fa7b437808da638622c8bdf4" sha1="60d20f2c386c74531dd12c8b91ad174e92690d1f" />
FILE "PGS - Promo Disc (USA) (Track 1).bin" BINARY
  TRACK 01 AUDIO
    INDEX 01 00:00:00
FILE "PGS - Promo Disc (USA) (Track 2).bin" BINARY
  TRACK 02 AUDIO
    INDEX 01 00:00:00

This is what I think DIC should produce instead:

<rom name="PGS - Promo Disc (USA) (Track 1).bin" size="25199328" crc="f6d1e0ec" md5="35e6f50c3e0ec2628dd14ee3495600ff" sha1="4b3312cfd071c7010d4a3c6949216ffad764bfc2" />
<rom name="PGS - Promo Disc (USA) (Track 2).bin" size="28955472" crc="92541dae" md5="11a72eb9f5c78491d5af695711379466" sha1="46372e3a0fabea96d0ee9e3620fddb47f0dbb60e" />
FILE "PGS - Promo Disc (USA) (Track 1).bin" BINARY
  TRACK 01 AUDIO
    INDEX 01 00:00:00
FILE "PGS - Promo Disc (USA) (Track 2).bin" BINARY
  TRACK 02 AUDIO
    INDEX 00 00:00:00
    INDEX 01 00:02:00

LBA 10714 belongs to the track 2 but I think DIC takes it as a part of track 1 and just goes 150 sectors deeper than needed
similar issue is LBA 23025, it's part of lead-out if you carefully pay attention

9

(6 replies, posted in Verifications)

This post is in the right place, I’m just noting it here so it doesn’t get missed when this verification gets processed.

10

(6 replies, posted in Verifications)

FYI, it looks like this is a new Disc ID.

11

(2 replies, posted in Verifications)

Is there any white space in the barcode? Is it "5 030949 122537>" instead of "5030949122537>"?

gogadget wrote:

DIC logs attached

No, they are not.

13

(1 replies, posted in Verifications)

Verification of http://redump.org/disc/3281/

Please wrap your submissionInfo in a code block and include a link to the disc being verified (rules 3 & 6):
HOW TO: Submit New Dumps & Verifications

14

(1 replies, posted in Verifications)

Is "SONY" truly all in caps in the mastering code?

15

(1 replies, posted in Verifications)

Please edit your post to include the submissionInfo in a code block.

Please edit your post to include the submissionInfo in a code block.

This was posted in the wrong forum? It should be posted in Verifications, as it is a verification of http://redump.org/disc/67788/

Also, you forgot to attach logs to your post.
Please wrap your submissionInfo.txt in a code block.
Please read the rules: http://forum.redump.org/topic/27377/rea … fications/

18

(2 replies, posted in Verifications)

Please attach your logs.

Please attach logs.

20

(1 replies, posted in Verifications)

Can you confirm the mastering code contains "FM / CA" instead of "FM \ CA"?

This has already been requested over four years ago: http://forum.redump.org/topic/18611/to- … e-updates/

22

(1 replies, posted in Verifications)

In the future, please do not submit multiple games in a single thread.
See rule #5 in [READ THIS] HOW TO: Submit New Dumps & Verifications

23

(1 replies, posted in Verifications)

In the future, please do not submit multiple games in a single thread.
See rule #5 in [READ THIS] HOW TO: Submit New Dumps & Verifications

24

(1 replies, posted in Verifications)

In the future, please do not submit multiple games in a single thread.
See rule #5 in [READ THIS] HOW TO: Submit New Dumps & Verifications

25

(1 replies, posted in Verifications)

In the future, please do not submit multiple games in a single thread.
See rule #5 in [READ THIS] HOW TO: Submit New Dumps & Verifications