Flashback

DamienD · 17 May 2016, 19:38

Hey guys,

When running some of my files through the latest TOSEC dats I was extremely surprised to see that the version of Flashback that I copied / tested wasn't recognised

This was made from the SPS files "1885: Flashback 4 English OCS EU Retail: Delphine Collection" but only after monotonously testing a lot of versions available in TOSEC at the time. This version is of course 100% and no code protection; see this thread:

http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=22738

...so why is it not included in TOSEC; I mean that thread is from 2006

Anubis · 17 May 2016, 20:03

You are patient fellow, DoubleD!

idrougge · 18 May 2016, 00:02

Because TOSEC isn't some kind of definitive collection of 100 % working Amiga games. It's a catalogue of ADF files.

DamienD · 18 May 2016, 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by idrougge

Because TOSEC isn't some kind of definitive collection of 100 % working Amiga games. It's a catalogue of ADF files.

What? Have you actually read through the thread I linked to in the 1st post idrougge?

Many EAB members (me, Adderly, bippym, demoniac, Overdoc) spend a lot of time going through various TOSEC files available at the time to work out which versions are working 100%, not translated from the French version into English etc...

I spend many, many hours playing through the various versions testing / making notes etc...

Some versions were not cracked completely, others like the ones by "Interpol" & "Genetix" have minor graphics bugs on the 2nd and 7th stages.

All of this work / effort doesn't seem to have made it into TOSEC for some reason which seems bizarre to me.

Also, you can see in the latest TOSEC dats there are these (which unfortunately they still have manual code protection though unlike Flashback from the same compilation):

... Another World (1995)(Delphine - U.S. Gold)(Disk 1 of 2)[compilation Delphine Collection].adf
... Another World (1995)(Delphine - U.S. Gold)(Disk 2 of 2)[compilation Delphine Collection].adf

Anyway, I really don't see what you're getting at...

Ok, so don't include this version in TOSEC but at least mark some of the other versions as [b] due to improper cracks / graphics bugs / translation errors as identified in the original thread.

Thalion · 18 May 2016, 18:12

Maybe that version was simply forgotten. I wouldn't see a problem here, including it in next version.

DamienD · 18 May 2016, 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thalion

Maybe that version was simply forgotten. I wouldn't see a problem here, including it in next version.

Yeah quite possibly Thalion

...just surprised; that's all.

Considering what an important game Flashback is and also all the effort everyone put into finding a 100% working / play tested, non-translated, graphic bug free version...

GameBase Amiga use this version and a lot of EAB members

I believe Adderly was part of the TOSEC team back then and definitely marked this set with a [!] flag in 2006 and wrote some nice comments (though he made a load of effort / undertook analysis towards achieving this also):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adderly

3 pages of posts and many hours of playtesting later finally achieved: One of the greatest Amiga games as a verified good dump version!

You made it possible, they community has to say a big thank you DamienD!

nnever2000 was surprised that it wasn't still included in TOSEC in 2010:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nnever2000

Hi boys,
someone known why the Flashback [adf from ipf].zip 100% version is not in tosec?
Is because is derived by IPF version?

Anyway; I've put the correctly named files again in The Zone! for TOSEC inclusion

Anubis · 19 May 2016, 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by idrougge

Because TOSEC isn't some kind of definitive collection of 100 % working Amiga games. It's a catalogue of ADF files.

Care to explain then what '!' sign in TOSEC naming convention means??

Retro-Nerd · 19 May 2016, 13:37

A verified good dump. In this case Damien played through the whole game.

butfluffy · 19 May 2016, 16:37

i think i will just keep Damiens verified version and delete all the others.
i don't see the point in keeping the others because some of them are broken, glitchy and so on.

idrougge · 19 May 2016, 16:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by butfluffy

i think i will just keep Damiens verified version and delete all the others.
i don't see the point in keeping the others because some of them are broken, glitchy and so on.

How will you know they're broken in that case?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gimba1

Care to explain then what '!' sign in TOSEC naming convention means??

It means that it's a verified good dump. There's nothing in the TOSEC charter that forbids good dumps.

But I've also been told not to ADF dump things which are already dumped in IPF format.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamienD

I spend many, many hours playing through the various versions testing / making notes etc...

All of this work / effort doesn't seem to have made it into TOSEC for some reason which seems bizarre to me.

Yeah, the TOSEC machinery works really slowly. I think almost nothing I've dumped or sorted has been added.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamienD

Ok, so don't include this version in TOSEC but at least mark some of the other versions as [b] due to improper cracks / graphics bugs / translation errors as identified in the original thread.

Agreed.

butfluffy · 20 May 2016, 03:13

thats the thing i don't really know which ones are the bad ones but having one verified version of the game is enough for me. it seems like not such a bad idea to delete all the others in this case.
i don't want a image of every single file in tosec, one working image of each game is enough. games which have multiple versions and to my knowledge are not verified i will keep those multiple versions.

idrougge · 20 May 2016, 16:18

Oh, I thought you were talking about removing them from the official TOSEC DATs.

butfluffy · 20 May 2016, 18:48

no not at all. i did think it was a good idea a while back to remove known bad disks/cracks from Tosec but it was pointed out to me that some of those bad cracks and so on are part of amiga history and that makes sense.
the more bad disks/cracks which are labeled so in Tosec is a good thing though. i'm sure a lot of people want the entire tosec set for collecting reasons but i'm happy whittling it down to working versions and working versions with the best available trainer etc.

idrougge · 20 May 2016, 23:44

That's another thing TOSEC isn't: a collection of games. It's a checksum database.

butfluffy · 21 May 2016, 03:26

good point. i always think of TOSEC as rom sets for various systems, probably because back in the day i downloaded some TOSEC sets as multi rar files and thats why i still think of tosec that way. the same as no intro and goodsets i guess.

Retro-Nerd · 21 May 2016, 13:14

GoodRoms is pretty similar to TOSEC ADF. They (or he) sorts all kind of Rom release dumps into the database, not matter if they are bad, overdumped, hacks etc. While No-Intro lists only proper retails dumps and some prototypes/unlicenced stuff. Which is more like TOSEC SPS/IPF.

mai · 22 May 2016, 22:18

As stated in mentioned thread and in this thread, those Flashback ADFs are created from IPF!
IF we are aware of such facts, then there is no reason for us to add the ADFs to
Commodore Amiga - Games - [ADF]
because it is already in
Commodore Amiga - Games - SPS.
Isnt it reasonable?

Retro-Nerd · 22 May 2016, 22:27

And even when there is no 100% working dump of this specific version in ADF format in TOSEC? Doesn't make sense at all. It's an useful addition. Especially for real disk users who can write this images back to disk easily.

DamienD · 22 May 2016, 22:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by mai

As stated in mentioned thread and in this thread, those Flashback ADFs are created from IPF!
IF we are aware of such facts, then there is no reason for us to add the ADFs to
Commodore Amiga - Games - [ADF]
because it is already in
Commodore Amiga - Games - SPS.
Isnt it reasonable?

What about real Amiga users who can't use .IPFs then; how do they play a version that isn't faulty or translated???

...and you're trying to tell me that the following isn't in exactly the same boat (plus it still has manual code protection so is quite useless; yet it's in TOSEC):

... Another World (1995)(Delphine - U.S. Gold)(Disk 1 of 2)[compilation Delphine Collection].adf
... Another World (1995)(Delphine - U.S. Gold)(Disk 2 of 2)[compilation Delphine Collection].adf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retro-Nerd

And even when there is no 100% working dump of this specific version in ADF format in TOSEC? Doesn't make sense at all. It's an useful addition. Especially for real disk users whom can write this images back to disk easily.

Totally with you my friend

Crazy stuff indeed

mai · 22 May 2016, 22:42

So I am glad, that I am not responsible anymore for Games section.

17 May 2016, 19:38	#1
DamienD Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: London / Sydney Age: 47 Posts: 20,420	Flashback Hey guys, When running some of my files through the latest TOSEC dats I was extremely surprised to see that the version of Flashback that I copied / tested wasn't recognised This was made from the SPS files "1885: Flashback 4 English OCS EU Retail: Delphine Collection" but only after monotonously testing a lot of versions available in TOSEC at the time. This version is of course 100% and no code protection; see this thread: http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=22738 ...so why is it not included in TOSEC; I mean that thread is from 2006 Last edited by DamienD; 17 May 2016 at 20:18.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Requesting Flashback	Darkripper	request.Old Rare Games	17	20 October 2006 01:55
Flashback - Cheatcodes...	DamienD	HOL data problems	4	04 June 2006 06:49
Flashback Remake	Shoonay	Nostalgia & memories	9	25 July 2005 12:25
trying to get Flashback to run, please help!	Unregistered	support.Games	2	18 May 2005 16:22
Flashback Lv2	Freakyweakywoo	support.Games	24	09 September 2004 09:05

17 May 2016, 20:03	#2
Anubis Retro Gamer Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Underworld Age: 51 Posts: 4,058	You are patient fellow, DoubleD!

18 May 2016, 00:02	#3
idrougge Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Stockholm Posts: 4,332	Because TOSEC isn't some kind of definitive collection of 100 % working Amiga games. It's a catalogue of ADF files.

18 May 2016, 18:12	#5
Thalion Amiga Collector Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Germany Age: 41 Posts: 679	Maybe that version was simply forgotten. I wouldn't see a problem here, including it in next version.

19 May 2016, 13:37	#8
Retro-Nerd Missile Command Champion Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Germany Age: 52 Posts: 12,435	A verified good dump. In this case Damien played through the whole game.

19 May 2016, 16:37	#9
butfluffy Registered User Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: In the Hills Posts: 377	i think i will just keep Damiens verified version and delete all the others. i don't see the point in keeping the others because some of them are broken, glitchy and so on.

20 May 2016, 03:13	#11
butfluffy Registered User Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: In the Hills Posts: 377	thats the thing i don't really know which ones are the bad ones but having one verified version of the game is enough for me. it seems like not such a bad idea to delete all the others in this case. i don't want a image of every single file in tosec, one working image of each game is enough. games which have multiple versions and to my knowledge are not verified i will keep those multiple versions.

20 May 2016, 16:18	#12
idrougge Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Stockholm Posts: 4,332	Oh, I thought you were talking about removing them from the official TOSEC DATs.

20 May 2016, 18:48	#13
butfluffy Registered User Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: In the Hills Posts: 377	no not at all. i did think it was a good idea a while back to remove known bad disks/cracks from Tosec but it was pointed out to me that some of those bad cracks and so on are part of amiga history and that makes sense. the more bad disks/cracks which are labeled so in Tosec is a good thing though. i'm sure a lot of people want the entire tosec set for collecting reasons but i'm happy whittling it down to working versions and working versions with the best available trainer etc.

20 May 2016, 23:44	#14
idrougge Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Stockholm Posts: 4,332	That's another thing TOSEC isn't: a collection of games. It's a checksum database.

21 May 2016, 03:26	#15
butfluffy Registered User Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: In the Hills Posts: 377	good point. i always think of TOSEC as rom sets for various systems, probably because back in the day i downloaded some TOSEC sets as multi rar files and thats why i still think of tosec that way. the same as no intro and goodsets i guess.

21 May 2016, 13:14	#16
Retro-Nerd Missile Command Champion Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Germany Age: 52 Posts: 12,435	GoodRoms is pretty similar to TOSEC ADF. They (or he) sorts all kind of Rom release dumps into the database, not matter if they are bad, overdumped, hacks etc. While No-Intro lists only proper retails dumps and some prototypes/unlicenced stuff. Which is more like TOSEC SPS/IPF.

22 May 2016, 22:18	#17
mai Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Federativnaya Respublika Germaniya Posts: 4,994	As stated in mentioned thread and in this thread, those Flashback ADFs are created from IPF! IF we are aware of such facts, then there is no reason for us to add the ADFs to Commodore Amiga - Games - [ADF] because it is already in Commodore Amiga - Games - SPS. Isnt it reasonable?

22 May 2016, 22:27	#18
Retro-Nerd Missile Command Champion Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Germany Age: 52 Posts: 12,435	And even when there is no 100% working dump of this specific version in ADF format in TOSEC? Doesn't make sense at all. It's an useful addition. Especially for real disk users who can write this images back to disk easily.

22 May 2016, 22:42	#20
mai Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Federativnaya Respublika Germaniya Posts: 4,994	So I am glad, that I am not responsible anymore for Games section.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)