20 June 2017, 00:53 | #41 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London / Sydney
Age: 47
Posts: 20,420
|
See this thread TOSEC guys: Hyper Warp
...added, Crashdisk Last edited by Crashdisk; 28 June 2017 at 16:47. |
28 June 2017, 17:39 | #43 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 46
Posts: 1,996
|
Quote:
- TMF Compact 37 (19xx)(The Magnum Force) - Mini Executeable Game Disk #2 (1989)(Bamiga Sector One - Cybertech) and may be soon: - Associate & Aztec Warrior & Kin & Miami Mice (19xx)(Quartex) |
|
28 June 2017, 18:24 | #44 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London / Sydney
Age: 47
Posts: 20,420
|
Ok, but these are compilation disk.
The one in The Zone! is a single game disk. ...btw it wasn't created by me; as mentioned I found it in Gamebase Amiga. |
28 June 2017, 19:04 | #45 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 46
Posts: 1,996
|
|
28 June 2017, 19:37 | #46 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London / Sydney
Age: 47
Posts: 20,420
|
???
So what if the disk was made for the needs of Gamebase; what difference does that make? All the compilation disks you've listed that supposedly have "KIN" on them (but no way to actually tell from the names) were made specifically and not original... This .ADF is out in the wild, probably being used by a great number of people; therefore shouldn't it be catalogued in TOSEC? Here's the problem. What does that mean; "not exactly what I'm looking for"? So, what is it exactly that you're looking for then? It's a constant battle with you guys trying to work out what type of disks one should submit and which will possibly be allowed or rejected. I haven't seen any set rules / regulations / guidelines... One minute something is ok and then the next it changes without any explanation. We need consistency guys |
28 June 2017, 20:22 | #47 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,348
|
Quote:
And the compilations should note what's on them. |
|
28 June 2017, 20:43 | #48 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 46
Posts: 1,996
|
I will try to clarify my choices (this is my point of view, not necessarily that of the other members of the team) :
- I hate to use flag [a] (look "1st Division Manager (1992)(Codemasters)[cr NMS]" set by example) - I hate deleting files from the database - With equal content, I prefer to integrate a disk of the 80/90 years rather than a recently rebuilt - We can have dozens of different disks with identical content, in any case functionally (bamcopy doscopy, highscore, .fastdir, creation date, rebuilt, etc). Should we all integrate them? I do not want to! Therefore, when I have to integrate a program of 1990, I do not spontaneously add a disk made in 2008. I will look for alternatives that come close to the original date. If I did not have this requirement, we could create the disks ourselves! In summary, I do not say it will not be integrated (Gamebase version) but I will look for alternatives before ... This would not always be possible because of the limitations on the length of filenames Last edited by Crashdisk; 28 June 2017 at 20:48. |
28 June 2017, 21:55 | #49 | |||||
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London / Sydney
Age: 47
Posts: 20,420
|
Quote:
You can't have one member doing things one way and then another doing something completely different. Quote:
If a better / cleaner disk is created, no matter which year / decade, then surely this is a good thing? Quote:
...but no one has asked you to do it this way previously, it's how you guys have always done it. Quote:
Quote:
As far as I'm aware there are no other stand-alone .ADFs for this game. We aren't talking about better alternatives, there are none at present. We also aren't talking about a dozen different disks with identical content but bamcopy, doscopy, highscore, .fastdir, creation date, rebuilt, etc... Last edited by DamienD; 28 June 2017 at 22:00. |
|||||
28 June 2017, 22:26 | #50 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,348
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
29 June 2017, 18:07 | #51 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Federativnaya Respublika Germaniya
Posts: 4,994
|
My thinking matches with Crashdisk, althought, as previously said, both DamienD and Idrougge are right, TOSEC rules are clear, TOSEC catalouges all, and yes, i am not happy with this situation.
Anyway, at the end its Crashdisk his decision to add or not! Do not call into question Crashdisk his job, he has to handle millions disk images. Last edited by mai; 29 June 2017 at 18:23. |
20 July 2017, 18:48 | #52 |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Spijkenisse / the Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 525
|
nice! I'm lazy as well in checking if there's a new DAT file, but what a nice suprise Lots of evenings are gonna be filled again with hunting and updating! The joy!
|
30 August 2017, 00:31 | #53 | ||
We need more scans!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Copenhagen / Denmark
Age: 49
Posts: 326
|
Quote:
You're welcome :-) I usually send Turran a pm when I've uploaded, I can add you as a recipient as well next time. Quote:
|
||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TOSEC Release (2016-01-03) | mai | project.TOSEC (amiga only) | 16 | 18 April 2016 21:50 |
Upcoming TOSEC Release | Cassiel | project.TOSEC (amiga only) | 14 | 16 September 2014 19:29 |
TOSEC Release (2014-02-28) | Cassiel | project.TOSEC (amiga only) | 13 | 06 April 2014 21:20 |
New TOSEC Release (2011-11-11) | Cassiel | project.TOSEC (amiga only) | 8 | 07 January 2012 00:00 |
|
|