326 Reply by user7

(16 replies, posted in General discussion)

>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.

Go to forum: General discussion

327 Reply by user7

(16 replies, posted in General discussion)

>One one hand, of course we want to use the titles used on the disc/box

Well to be clear, the box has one Demo # and the disc label has another Demo # often. Within a region, the box Demo # flows in a stable order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6..., whereas the disc label Demo # follows an uneven order: 3, 2, 7, 12. The reason is because the disc labels #s are adapted from the UK disc labels.

This usually doesnt matter because they'll match the UK entries (which are treated as master titles with sans-UK in their name), but when regional variants are unique builds, the waters get murky. This is why I believe using the packaging Demo # is more accurate, because the Disc Label #s are repurposed out from other counties out-of-order numerically. The disc label Demo # refers to "random grab bag region where we pulled disc label art from without updating it".

This is why it makes the most sense to use the packaging Demo #s.

However with NL Demo 80, it had a disc label # of 101. I can see this being a nice bookend and why it's tempting to name it as 101 in the redump entry, but in the context of all regions with exclusive variants, it's not the best approach due to the above mentioned chaos of disc label demo #s.

Go to forum: General discussion

328 Reply by user7

(16 replies, posted in General discussion)

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

Go to forum: General discussion

329 Reply by user7

(16 replies, posted in General discussion)

Re-read. This is about choosing one system of numbering over another. This does not relate to a specific incident but MANY, but your arbitrary changing of the most sensible system of numbering of random entries.

There are two Demo #s on all OPS2M releases, you're choosing the irrational option for the titles.

Go to forum: General discussion

330 Topic by user7

(16 replies, posted in General discussion)

Attention *clears throat* *taps podium mic*

As many of you know I've been hunting PS-series PAL demos for quite some time. OPS2M PAL demos are particularly tricky for several reasons. One of the biggest reasons is that discs from Region A often get released into Region B and the data is modified between regions. This by itself wouldn't be an issue, however the disc label from Region A carries over to Region B, which conflicts with the Issue # and packaging Demo # from Region B.

For example:
This demo was released as an exclusive to Benelux. This serial number has never been spotted in another region. Now there are technically two different demo #'s this could be labeled as:

* Officieel PlayStation 2 Magazine Demo 73 (referencing the disc #)
* Officieel PlayStation 2 Magazine Demo 57 (referencing the packaging # and issue #)

I argue the disc # is the incorrect one to use because it is incongruent with the regional ordering. If we used disc titles for all regional variants and lined them up, you'd see numbers wildly skipping around.

In addition to Jackal modifying / favoring disc label numbering (which is unintuitive), he also is renaming entries with the UK titles, for example this entry is named: "Official PlayStation 2 Magazine Demo 73". Nowhere on this disc or packaging does "Official PlayStation 2 Magazine" appear, period!

In addition, many other entries go by packaging / issue numbering (which makes perfect sense), however Jackal's modifications do not!

Here's another example: http://redump.org/disc/51793/
The packaging number is 9, the issue number is 9. It is the 9th disc released in the series in France.
HOWEVER! If Jackal's reign of terror continues, this would be relabeled as "ops2m demo 11" because that's what the disc label says. Is it from the 11th issue? NO. Is it listed as the 11th Demo on the packaging? NO. Is it arbitrarily called the 11th issue on the disc label because the disc label art was ported from another region? YES.

For these reasons, we should go with the packaging Demo #'ing system and not the inaccurate disc labels that Jackal is so keen to use and mess up the database with. Right now, Redump OPS2M regional entries are a mish-mash of packaging/issue and disc label numbering.

Please let us bring accurate order to this chaos, not add to the misinformation.

Go to forum: General discussion

331 Reply by user7

(144 replies, posted in General discussion)

*Pokes iRobot with a sharpened stick.*

Go to forum: General discussion

332 Reply by user7

(144 replies, posted in General discussion)

*Pokes this thread*

Are we at a standstill at getting Multisession discs added to redump, or are we waiting on DIC for an update?

Go to forum: General discussion

333 Reply by user7

(22 replies, posted in General discussion)

I agree with Jackal, this is the kind of annoying thing he would have pulled.

Did iRobot have any say in this?

Go to forum: General discussion

334 Reply by user7

(22 replies, posted in General discussion)

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

I'd like to voice my support for Details not being included or sorted in a file level. It looks sloppy as hell and not part of the item's official title.

Go to forum: General discussion

335 Reply by user7

(22 replies, posted in General discussion)

F1ReB4LL wrote:

Ideally, it should contain the game title, but at the very least, it should contain the system name or acronym and something to understand the reason of its inclusion into the dat.

Why? That can be noted in the entry's Comments.

Go to forum: General discussion

336 Reply by user7

(3,521 replies, posted in General discussion)

You're right, it matched. Thanks.

Go to forum: General discussion

337 Reply by user7

(3,521 replies, posted in General discussion)

How do I check?

Go to forum: General discussion

338 Reply by user7

(3,521 replies, posted in General discussion)

DIC seems to be struggling with *-R's.

Here's logs from the most recent test build, plus IsoBuster Properties and IMGBurn Discovery showing a different size from a CD-R dump: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ … sp=sharing

This isn't the first time I've had issues with CD-Rs dumping properly in DIC. A year or so back some other betas were dumping imporoperly in DIC, but properly in IsoBuster.

Go to forum: General discussion

339 Reply by user7

(3,521 replies, posted in General discussion)

Before it slips my radar again, I wanted to mention that BD-R dumping still hangs for me. pic.bin dumps, but the .iso doesn't even begin to.

Go to forum: General discussion

340 Reply by user7

(9 replies, posted in Guests & account requests)

He's a real guy with real beta discs for PS3.

Go to forum: Guests & account requests

341 Reply by user7

(7 replies, posted in Guests & account requests)

Well at the very least it should be added to the miss list. Whats the title / serial number?

Go to forum: Guests & account requests

342 Reply by user7

(13 replies, posted in General discussion)

i haven't seen ecm + ape since the UG days.

Everyone's just using bin and putting them in torrentzip or 7z

Go to forum: General discussion

343 Reply by user7

(7 replies, posted in Guests & account requests)

LuxKiller65 please dump and let Fireball take a look. Thanks <3

Go to forum: Guests & account requests

344 Reply by user7

(13 replies, posted in General discussion)

>game.bin.ecm + .ape format

Do you know what century we're living in? xD

Go to forum: General discussion

345 Reply by user7

(3,521 replies, posted in General discussion)

sarami wrote:
user7 wrote:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WiD1p- … sp=sharing

5 c2 errors exist, but I don't know why c2 error recovering function doesn't work...

Works fine in DiscImageCreator_20181022, disc dumped fine with no-unintentional c2 errors. Also two more discs.

Go to forum: General discussion

346 Reply by user7

(3,521 replies, posted in General discussion)

sarami wrote:

> user7
Logs? My unlicensed PS2 disc is no problem.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WiD1p- … sp=sharing

----

Where are we sitting with multisessional support? Have things stalled?

Go to forum: General discussion

347 Reply by user7

(12 replies, posted in General discussion)

Thanks! Do we have an Optiarch dumping guide by chance? I'd love to add this knowledge to the wiki / also which models are compatible.

Go to forum: General discussion

348 Reply by user7

(3,521 replies, posted in General discussion)

As of 20190326
I can no longer dump unlicensed PS2 discs with /sf flag.

Go to forum: General discussion

349 Reply by user7

(6 replies, posted in General discussion)

Does redump have those dpm discs flagged? Redump still needs to figure out how to handle those...

Go to forum: General discussion

350 Reply by user7

(6 replies, posted in General discussion)

sometimes required for copy protection, such as libcrypt for PSX. see here for downloading: http://redump.org/downloads/

not sure what's up with the PC ones...

Go to forum: General discussion