Search options (Page 13 of 30)

I have an unlicensed Mini-CD that has a full-size-CD TOC. Is there anyway to tell DIC to just dump the maximimum mini-CD TOC length, instead of trying to dump the part of the disc that doesn't exist?

The two 708 dumps don't match hashes

And I wouldn't call our current handling of those sega systems ideal.

Non-pressed discs should be treated differently - for example Total NBA 98 was handled correctly.
I have a couple PS2 final betas I never submitted to redump because I don't believe an 8-byte difference warrants having an entry or collecting a rom for. However the result is that the particular disc is not accounted for in redump.

REM SESSION 01
FILE "Acclaim_At_ECTS_ (Track 1).bin" BINARY
  TRACK 01 AUDIO
    INDEX 01 00:00:00
FILE "Acclaim_At_ECTS_ (Track 2).bin" BINARY
  TRACK 02 AUDIO
    INDEX 00 00:00:00
    INDEX 01 00:02:00
FILE "Acclaim_At_ECTS_ (Track 3).bin" BINARY
  TRACK 03 AUDIO
    INDEX 00 00:00:00
    INDEX 01 00:02:00
FILE "Acclaim_At_ECTS_ (Track 4).bin" BINARY
  TRACK 04 AUDIO
    INDEX 00 00:00:00
    INDEX 01 00:02:00
FILE "Acclaim_At_ECTS_ (Track 5).bin" BINARY
  TRACK 05 AUDIO
    INDEX 00 00:00:00
    INDEX 01 00:02:00
FILE "Acclaim_At_ECTS_ (Track 6).bin" BINARY
  TRACK 06 AUDIO
    INDEX 00 00:00:00
    INDEX 01 00:02:00
FILE "Acclaim_At_ECTS_ (Track 7).bin" BINARY
  TRACK 07 AUDIO
    INDEX 00 00:00:00
    INDEX 01 00:02:00
REM LEAD-OUT 00:00:00
REM SESSION 02
REM LEAD-IN 00:00:00
REM PREGAP 00:00:00
FILE "Acclaim_At_ECTS_ (Track 8).bin" BINARY
  TRACK 08 MODE2/2352
    INDEX 01 00:00:00

This is what was submitted.

iRobot, does this help? http://forum.redump.org/topic/23287/pc-multisession-x1/

It would be nice to have xdelta patches attached to entries for such items. Ideally the CRC32 for all variants would still show up in searches.

"Creating .scm (LBA)   4497/323849 LBA[004498, 0x01192] Detected C2 error 2324 bit
Creating .scm (LBA)   4498/323849 LBA[004499, 0x01193] Detected C2 error 1124 bit
Creating .scm (LBA) 219173/323849
LBA[219174, 0x35826]: Failed to reread because crc16 of subQ is 0. Read back 100 sector
Set the drive speed: 4233KB/sec

LBA[219174, 0x35826]: Failed to reread because crc16 of subQ is 0"

Is dic telling me i should try to redump at a certain drive speed? I got that bolded message when dumping at 8x and 2x

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t_nCkh … sp=sharing

Sarami, here is an unlicensed PS2 disc that does not work with /sf flag. I wonder if there are any clues for getting this one to dump? I have been buying many unlicensed PS2 discs lately, some of them behave very strangely, others dump fine with /sf.

>The disc title is "ops2m demo 73/benelux". ops2m = Official PlayStation Magazine.

The benelux demo is a regional exclusive for that serial number / data variant. A different number is on the sleeve, the correct chronological number in the series. Again, you're ignoring the fact that there are TWO demo #s for these releases and picking the one that is NOT linear to the local series.

>Using the magazine titles and issue numbers doesn't appear to be a good solution, especially because different magazine issues from different countries can have the same disc.

Its not just "Magazine titles and Issue Numbers" its the Demo Disc # on the sleeve. The sleeve demo numbers are ordered linear, the demo disc numbers are not.

>especially because different magazine issues from different countries can have the same disc.

These are already tracked inside the master (UK) entries - which are completely dumped, however this does not relate to regional exclusives.

> The solution that you provided for those cases of just picking one of the countries / issue numbers to go in the filename (and thereby ignoring the other ones) is unacceptable imo.

Its better to use one accurate title, than an inaccurate one. These regional exclusive discs are NOT released as the titles you're putting them as. You're ignoring the proper regional order and title/Demo# on sleeve, while defaulting to UK titles that don't even appear ANYWHERE on disc or packaging.

Here's an example of why your system of numbering is terrible.

Looking at AUS by going off the Disc Label Demo #s for issues 10-15, this is how your system would title them:
10
16
12
31
32
33

By going off the Sleeve Demo #s:
10
11
12
13
14
15

You're giving these entries Demo #s that came from re-used artwork, rather than their proper release order (sleeve demo #'s).

There are TWO Demo #'s on all these releases. You're choosing the bad system to act as title entries.

Yes, they did this in many instances. They reused UK labels, even when modifying the data so that it does not match UK releases. That's why there's such a huge mismatch between packaging #s and disc label #s outside of the UK releases.

MOST disc label numbers do NOT match their packaging #'s for anything outside of UK.

The packaging numbers count like this:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

The disc label numbers count like this:
1
2
5
7
8
10
13
9