Author Topic: New TNC release  (Read 4196 times)

Offline mai

  • TOSEC Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
New TNC release
« on: December 25, 2009, 09:14:59 PM »
I have just read the new TNC document and i am a little bit confused about an example, maybe i have misread or dont understand.

Quote
Although you should note that obviously no set can have all flags at the same time because some of them are incompatible with others (e.g. you can’t have a set marked as [ o] and [ u]at the same time, or [cr] and [!] etc.)

Its because of [cr] and [!] , is it now really true, that its not allowed to use this flags at the same time, then i have to ask "Why?".
As i have said, maybe i misreading it.
Please tell me.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2009, 09:20:38 PM by PandMonium »



Offline PandMonium

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1316
Re: New TNC release
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2009, 09:44:03 PM »
ok, edited your post first, some dump flags from tnc always get replaced with bbcodes :P

That just means there are flags that can't be used together, a set can't be an under and over dump i suppose, or a bad dump and a [!], you already understood this.

The part you didn't get is the usage of [!] and what it means, i've to admit that i'm not 100% confident on what was the first idea when it was created too.
Basically [!] means a verified good dump, in other words it marks a set that we know is 100% correctly dumped and verified. The problem is with this correct/verified part, knowing something is 100% correct and nothing wrong was done or happened in the process is hard, toseciso does this by requesting that 2 or more members submit the same hashes dumping different original discs.

In theory a cracked set was already altered and is not the original that's why they should not have a [!], on the other hand there are some systems that have [!] in weird sets that aren't verified dumps, either by mistake or because renamers had a different view about that [!] assuming that it means the set is correct and playable until the end without errors.

So that's the problem afaik, [!] has been seen and used for long in 2 different ways: 1) for 100% correct and verified good dumps from chips and original media only ; 2) for sets that have been played by someone and seem to be 100% ok (at least by playing them).

This can lead us to a good discussion here, nice finding :)

...and btw, in certain cases i guess there could be a [!] and [cr] using the rule 1), maybe if a set was cracked by a group and later some shitty company in china for example started to sale pirated disks with that crack in it, 2 people could had buy that disk and dump, getting similar hashs here, what would happen now? this may be a question for other members too :P

Offline Cassiel

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
    • Email
Re: New TNC release
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2009, 12:41:58 AM »
[!] is a hold over from Matt Cowering's GoodTool's where he has personally (or a close 'associate') has verified the ROM dump.

idoru presumably adopted this for TOSEC ISO since that's the way he set it up (with different dumpers cross checking ISO rips).


Offline Cassiel

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
    • Email
Re: New TNC release
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2009, 12:44:19 AM »
Any existing [!] in the main TOSEC branch or PIX will be pretty arbitrary to be honest.... if we even choose to use this sort of flag outside of ISO then CLEAR and VERIFIABLE guidelines need to be set up (IMO).... over wise it will end up being beyond pointless....

Offline PandMonium

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1316
Re: New TNC release
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2009, 12:53:38 AM »
Yes, like what happens now, we have probably a lot of [!] based on goodtools, possibly on nointro and other projects too and we also have cases where the flag was used because they were "playable" in certain systems/dats (i've just found some [h][!] for example).
This is probably due to the non existent/defined guidelines so each renamer long ago used their view of it. :P

Offline Cassiel

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
    • Email
Re: New TNC release
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2009, 01:01:38 AM »
Exactly, [h][!] is beyond dumb...   :(

Maybe we should restrict to ISO branch...?

Offline TKaos

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 533
Re: New TNC release
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2009, 01:04:30 AM »
The only files that should have [!] are ATX for atari 8bit, IPF for Amiga and G64 for C64....as far as I know those formats are all like 1:1 copies of originals+the copyprotection, correct me if i'm wrong

Offline PandMonium

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1316
Re: New TNC release
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2009, 01:28:50 AM »
Possibly but even then there are problems, in my view a verified good dump should be a set where we are 100% sure it was correctly done, has no errors and is reproducible.
A bit like what happens with ISO part, that if we mark a set as [!] it will be seen as perfect and if i have a disk of that game and dump it properly i should expect to end up with the same crcs. The problem in doing this is that most of us aren't dumping stuff so we can't just mark a downloaded set without any other info and be sure it is a [!], it could have been bad dumped, altered after dumping or while circulating around on numerous sites, become corrupted on some transfer and a good number of other theories.
So i suppose thats why, in the begining the [!] were the sets that cowering/someone dumped and verified, or for example no-intro sets since their goal is exactly this :)

Offline Cassiel

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
    • Email
Re: New TNC release
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2009, 01:35:58 AM »
Well it comes down to 'trust' doesn't it?

The CAPS project (or whatever they called now, SPS?) are (IMO) a reputable and trustworthy project when it comes to accurate dumping of Amiga (+ Atari?) images.... but why G64 and ATX?

Have you personally dumped multiple copies of the same physical software media from different sources and then compared hashes? Who has? How much faith do you put in them...?

Not deliberately baiting, just playing Devil's advocate and making an important point.....