Recent Posts

1

General Discussion / Are the dates on these Colecovision games correct?

« Last post by Danceographic Ocean on February 06, 2023, 03:03:21 AM »

I saw something odd, the following games are the same dates, the 28th, but on the page on github it says 26th. Is it wrong in the dat or am I missing something?

Coleco ColecoVision - Games (TOSEC-v2022-12-21)/Cross Bomber (2022-08-28)(Caruso, Fabrizio)/Cross Bomber (2022-08-28)(Caruso, Fabrizio).bin
Coleco ColecoVision - Games (TOSEC-v2022-12-21)/Cross Chase (2022-08-28)(Caruso, Fabrizio)/Cross Chase (2022-08-28)(Caruso, Fabrizio).bin
Coleco ColecoVision - Games (TOSEC-v2022-12-21)/Cross Horde (2022-08-28)(Caruso, Fabrizio)/Cross Horde (2022-08-28)(Caruso, Fabrizio).bin
Coleco ColecoVision - Games (TOSEC-v2022-12-21)/Cross Snake (2022-08-28)(Caruso, Fabrizio)/Cross Snake (2022-08-28)(Caruso, Fabrizio).bin

https://github.com/Fabrizio-Caruso/CROSS-LIB/releases

2

TOSEC Naming Convention / Re: [a no cracktro] vs [a cracktro disabled/removed]

« Last post by Crashdisk on January 26, 2023, 08:09:24 PM »

I found a good example to explain you why we should not rename [b checksum error] tags to [b corrupt file] in a systematic way :
Voyager v1.00 (1989-05-03)(Ocean)(M3)[cr OCL][b checksum error]
[1C8773E3]

This game uses a bootloader to load the game contained in a DOS file called "DJG"
The Oracle crack was made directly in the data sectors without correcting the checksum. The result? It works very well because the loader doesn't care!

In the end, this version is the real Oracle distribution

3

TOSEC Naming Convention / Re: [a no cracktro] vs [a cracktro disabled/removed]

« Last post by Crashdisk on January 26, 2023, 04:59:35 PM »

Hi,
you had already mentioned a similar subject some time ago about the tag [b checksum error]. The reason is simple, I process the games 1 by 1 and not only to change a tag or two. I examine all the disks related to the game. For the "RVF Honda" game alone, I have analyzed 88 disks (for the next release).
the [no intro] tag is going to disappear but this requires examining the different versions to determine who did what compared to the original.

For information about this last publication, I have reviewed 208 games and that's not bad...

4

TOSEC Naming Convention / [a no cracktro] vs [a cracktro disabled/removed]

« Last post by Kodoichi on January 25, 2023, 01:36:27 PM »

I noticed this in the Amiga games dat:

The latest release 2023-01-23 renames entries from "no cracktro" to "cracktro disabled" or "cracktro removed", which makes sense. There are still some entries where "no cracktro" is left. Were these simply forgotten, was there no time for renaming due to the deadline for the Tosec release or are they supposed to be like that, to tell us the cracking group did not leave any visible info?

5

Database / Datfiles / Re: Panasonic JR-200u

« Last post by Maddog on January 24, 2023, 07:23:40 PM »

TOSEC is very interested in cataloguing anything it doesn't have. We will be very happy to have software for this system in our database.

6

Database / Datfiles / Panasonic JR-200u

« Last post by VintageVolts on January 24, 2023, 02:21:10 PM »

Years back, I acquired a Panasonic JR-200u computer. It is a VERY obscure computer, apparently. I know the TOSEC project has worked with obscure systems before, but after searching the site and this forum, I see no indication that anybody is aware of it.

My system came with a handful of cassette games, some of which are still sealed in their packages. I came here to see if others know of the system, and may have resources for previously archived tape WAV files for it. Or even if TOSEC will be interested in cataloging the system.

If anybody is curious about it, I have details on the system on my own blog.

http://www.vintagevolts.com/the-panasonic-jr-200u/

7

Errors & Contributions / Re: IBM PC Compatibles - Games - [IMG] (TOSEC-v2021-12-11)

« Last post by Cassiel on January 23, 2023, 03:32:40 PM »

Not sure if this is related, but these 3x (the only 3x I'm aware of) trigger Windows build in Anti-Malware due to the contained virii. Maybe we just dump them outright. Sorry, bad timing I know with release right around corner!

8

General Discussion / Re: [Dreamcast] Different checksum for track02.raw?

« Last post by Maddog on January 23, 2023, 01:37:53 PM »

Using SDRip on my Dreamcast and cross-referencing TOSEC, I'm seeing that for some games like The House of the Dead 2 US NTSC, every file in the dump matches TOSEC's checksums EXCEPT the track02.raw.

Is this OK/normal, or is it an imperfect rip?

There are certain discs that have more than one print runs and different disc audio offset. I don't want to go too technical, but if your ringcode (serial at the bottom of the disc) is different from what is shown in the dat, then it's likely to be different.
Specifically for House of the Dead 2, the verified dumps came from *12S* 51002 and *13S* 51002 ringcodes.
If you have any other, it will likely not match. And what is more, we need these dumps submitted to us to match many unverifieds sitting around.
Again specifically for HOTD 2, we have *7S*, *9S* and MK-51002 1Mx ringcodes that are currently unverified. If you can help verifying any of those, I would be obliged.
Detailed lists of all known discs are supplied here: https://dcemulation.org/dumpcast/viewtopic.php?t=4052

9

General Discussion / Re: [Dreamcast] Different checksum for track02.raw?

« Last post by Aral on January 22, 2023, 10:28:55 AM »

Have you tried any other games to see if they match the respective checksums?

10

General Discussion / Re: [Dreamcast] Different checksum for track02.raw?

« Last post by Drakkhen on January 22, 2023, 01:57:51 AM »

Hi, understood, I'm not asking for ROMs or anything, but I am wondering why my own rip's track02.raw seems to differ from TOSEC's checksum. Is it that I have a unique disc? Should I submit this?