Dragon Data - Dragon 32/64/Alpha/Beta/200/Tano etc... Offer to update DAT

[Admin@worldofdragon]

I have looked at the Dragon Data - Dragon DAT files and without any disrespect to those responsible, they have obviously been created by somebody who doesn't know an awful lot about the machine.

There are errors in publisher details, no status flags for the cassette dumps (most of which in TOSEC are underdumps at best, and some bad dumps). There are also errors in the naming of files.....and stuff such as [PAK] files that simply don't belong. In other words, its a right mess.

TOSEC currently lists 694 files within the Dragon Data DATS, the World Of Dragon archive now has some 1848 files covering cassettes, disks, magazines, cartridges etc..

I would like to offer my services to take own maintenance of this set of DATS and start to bring TOSEC up to date and get all these files correctly named, flagged (or in some cases removed).

[PandMonium]

Hi there,

"Hellcome" to our reality! Unfortunately that is something common on the less known systems, especially for the older datfiles. Some members added a lot of stuff without proper info, usually inserting only the mandatory fields (title, year, publisher) and no other flags.

As for the current dats, they original ones were all created years ago, 2 of them date back from 2006: "Dragon 32 & 64 - BIOS

• " (BIN and DGN), the remaining 4 are even older, from 2004: "Dragon 32 & 64 - Various -
• " (CAS, DGN, PAK, VKD). Before the last release (2009) we were trying to get ride of the "Various" category and BIOS -> Firmware so AFAIK that was what Cassiel has done to the current 2009 ones. I'm almost sure he is not working on them apart from these changes but i will just wait for his feedback.

Finally, off course we want your contribution to the project Especially since you seem to have some good knowledge about the system and want to produce a good job. I don't know if you're comfortable with TOSEC Naming Convention but reading it would be a good start, after that and if no one opposes you can start looking at those dats to fix them and add new stuff, feel free to ask us anything and discuss here possible big changes you might want to do (like new datfiles and so on).

I think you already know about it but we aim to identify / classify correctly each set so any extra (useful) info that fits on any TNC flag should be present, instead of just the mandatory fields (sometimes with wrong data or just 19xx/"-").

PS: your username is a bit strange but i suppose that was not an error and you wanted it that way, right?

[Admin@worldofdragon]

Thanks for the quick response..

I am familiar with the TNC and am in the (very long) process of going through all 1848 files I have (30% done) and not only renaming them to match TNC standards, but also testing and verifying the software dumps to correctly set the TNC flags. Add to this the large box of undumped cassettes that sit next to my desk and the unscanned magazines I have and I have a project for the next couple of years 

I would like to suggest that we continue the structure changes introduced by Cassiel and continue them in line with the other TOSEC sets - Adding Magazines, Books, Cartridges, Operating Systems, Public Domain etc... Is there a standard structure that we should be aiming for?

If I am to start updating the existing DAT files, do you want me to do so using the existing (old) format or submit them in the newer XML format?

What about new DAT files for Magazines etc....

And most importantly - I assume there is an upload facility to submit them for formal review and release.

[TKaos]

If by magazines you mean PDF files then you'll have to contact Aral because he's the one maintaining the TOSEC-PIX part for all the PDF files out there.
If you're going to create the DATs then please in the old format.
Thanks for the help, Dragon Data DATs really need some fixing.

[Admin@worldofdragon]

All sounds good..... and just to test - here is an updated DAT to check I'm on the right lines. The attached is a replacement for the "Dragon Data Dragon - Firmware DAT" and now includes more consistent naming (The IC numbers are important for the emulators), verified dumps (I do actually own or have access to all the machines - including the prototypes).

Some of the files are identical (same CRC) - but have been dumped directly from the source machine (and verified).

Let me know if this is a valid update and I'll make a start on some others...

[TKaos]

Just had a quick look in notepad, you've made a small mistake there, for example:
Dragon 32 - 32K BASIC (1982)(Dragon Data)[IC17][!]
Dragon Alpha BIOS v1.0 (1984)(Dragon Data)[150584][!]
You need to put the [!] infront of the [more info] field, the [more info] field is always the last one, else it looks fine to me.

[Admin@worldofdragon]

Thanks.... will update with those changes (and sort out the date)...

Can somebody send me details for uploading properly...

[Cassiel]

Hello Admin@worldofdragon! Welcome.....

Yup, the original DATs are ANCIENT... I simply cleaned them up a bit for our last official release (corrected the obvious TNC errors, split them into sensible genres). It doesn't surprise me at all that the actual content is a mess. I think Firmware was the only DAT I actually added some to, and that was just because I had the images to hand.

I do not maintain these DATs so I have absolutely no issue with you working on any of them. For reference, the DATs I do maintain can be found here: http://www.tosecdev.org/index.php/forum/index.php?topic=53.0. I always keep this list up to date.

The DAT looks good, though I do have a couple of comments:
- Generally in Firmware DATs the convention would be <manufacturer> <system name> <firmware type>, e.g. <Dragon Data> <Dragon 32> <Character ROM>
- Regarding 'Dragon Beta' was this not called the 'Dragon 128', a prototype? You seem far more knowledgeable that me on these systems, but AFAIR that’s how it is named in a number of online sources.
- Again, was the 'Dragon Alpha' not actually called the 'Dragon Professional'? If these systems had been named (or planned to have this name), then I think it more appropriate to use these than any internal/informal name. That they never made it to market is irrelevant.
- Regarding 'Dragon by TANO', wasn't TANO (or Tano) simply a different manufacturer for the Dragon for other territories (again, this is completely from memory), therefore <TANO> <Dragon 32> <Character ROM> would make more sense?
- Regarding the file extensions, I know I try to keep plain binary dumps named with the extension *.bin since *.rom is a pretty nonsensical extension and is generally only used (along with other fake extensions) for the convenience of emulators. Though this isn’t part of the TNC, it is a sensible practice you might want to consider.

Please don’t consider any of these observations as personal criticisms. The better the quality (and stronger standardisation) we can get into the DATs, the better for everyone.

Welcome to the team...