All Psygnosis, all the time!

[Abaddon]

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

My understanding is Psygnosis referred to which version the game was for in the blurb on the box that said what markets the game was for.

"Not for sale outside UK, Europe and Australia" usually referred to PAL, and "not for sale outside the USA" for NTSC machines.

Unfortunately, i pretty much tossed out the game boxes when I got a game. I stopped tossing them later on, but beast was was like the 3rd or 4th game I purchased for the amiga, so that box is long gone. Some of the Psygnosis release have ntsc or pal on the disk itself, but Beast does not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCD]

Originally Posted by rhester72

Amnios NTSC KF 5-rev preservation dump in The Zone.

Thank you I've added the dumps and IPFs to the server.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by rhester72

Amnios NTSC KF 5-rev preservation dump in The Zone.

Notes:

- Disk 1 appears to be the only one region-specific (PAL or NTSC), all known Disk 2s simply read "Amiga Disk 2"
- Disk 2 may have a modified (high score?) or damaged track per disk-analyse:

*** T61.0: Unexpected track length (seen 102215, expected 100150)
** WARNING: 1 track is damaged or unidentified!
T61.0: sectors 2, missing
T0.0-0.1: Unformatted
T1.0-79.1: Psygnosis B
T80.0-83.1: Unformatted

For this reason, I have *NOT* assembled an unofficial IPF release, though I would bet that my Disk 1 + the SPS Disk 2 would make a valid as-retailed NTSC release.

EDIT: Confirmed that 61.0 *is* the high score track _and_ it's actually busted on my set (i.e. every score is 0!). Restored bad score track from SPS dump of disk 2, confirmed with disk-analyse and unofficial IPFs are Zoned!

Sorry to say that, but the IPF you made with Disk-Analyse for Disk 1 is wrong, the Protec $4454 serial long track on disk 1 is not seen as correct.

I have used your kryo big dump of disk 1, and i have generated a RAW file, from which i made an IPF, you will find it in the zone with the long protection track correctly encoded.

[TCD]

Thank you Denis I've replaced the IPFs on the server.

[rhester72]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

Sorry to say that, but the IPF you made with Disk-Analyse for Disk 1 is wrong, the Protec $4454 serial long track on disk 1 is not seen as correct.

I have used your kryo big dump of disk 1, and i have generated a RAW file, from which i made an IPF, you will find it in the zone with the long protection track correctly encoded.

Thank you! I wonder how that occurred...the output I get from disk-analyse looks as follows:

$ disk-analyse -f "Amnios Disk 1" AmniosNTSC_Disk1 AmniosNTSC_Disk1.ipf
T0.0: AmigaDOS
T0.1: PROTEC
T1.0-77.0: Psygnosis A
T77.1-83.1: Unformatted

which shows the track as recognized and encoded, but the result is absolutely different from yours.

How did you perform the correct encoding?

By the way, thank you all for the correction - I've removed the bad IPFs from The Zone.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by rhester72

Thank you! I wonder how that occurred...the output I get from disk-analyse looks as follows:

$ disk-analyse -f "Amnios Disk 1" AmniosNTSC_Disk1 AmniosNTSC_Disk1.ipf
T0.0: AmigaDOS
T0.1: PROTEC
T1.0-77.0: Psygnosis A
T77.1-83.1: Unformatted

which shows the track as recognized and encoded, but the result is absolutely different from yours.

How did you perform the correct encoding?

By the way, thank you all for the correction - I've removed the bad IPFs from The Zone.

I use the SPS official encoder.

[rhester72]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

I use the SPS official encoder.

Ah.

Is it publicly available anywhere?

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by rhester72

Ah.

Is it publicly available anywhere?

It is not.

[rhester72]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

It is not.

Understand.

I've filed a bug report:

https://github.com/keirf/disk-utilities/issues/169

Thanks again!

[rhester72]

Armour-Geddon NTSC (two sets, one with blue disks, the other with white disks) KF 5-rev preservation dumps Zoned.

Things to note:

- As with the PAL release, only disk 1 specifies it is NTSC (so disks 2 and 3 are likely common to both regions), this is true of both the blue and white sets
- The blue disks all encoded to IPF just fine with disk-analyser...which may not be a great thing, see below
- The white disks (which have no discernable markings indicating anything different from the blue ones other than sticky vs. printed labels and white disks instead of blue) are *odd*. Specifically...
- White disk 1 doesn't even *remotely* match the disk-analyse profile
- White disk 2 (which was a bear to dump fully as the disk was dirty) shows "T8.1: Unexpected track length (seen 102145, expected 105500)" when converting to IPF, which suggests it is a) a high score track, b) NOT modified (since it doesn't have an AmigaDOS track length), and c) has a PROTEC track 0 side 1 that CAPS/SPS said isn't being encoded properly by disk-analyse (see earlier commentary from dlfrsilver on Amnios Disk 1)...perhaps the PAL dump had a modified high score track and the disk-analyse IPF encoder was built around that?
- White disk 3 is mercifully normal per disk-analyse

As a result of the above, I'm not supplying unofficial IPFs of any of them at this time.

[Keir]

Originally Posted by rhester72

Thank you! I wonder how that occurred...the output I get from disk-analyse looks as follows:

$ disk-analyse -f "Amnios Disk 1" AmniosNTSC_Disk1 AmniosNTSC_Disk1.ipf
T0.0: AmigaDOS
T0.1: PROTEC
T1.0-77.0: Psygnosis A
T77.1-83.1: Unformatted

which shows the track as recognized and encoded, but the result is absolutely different from yours.

How did you perform the correct encoding?

By the way, thank you all for the correction - I've removed the bad IPFs from The Zone.

How is the disk-analyse output differing? The only difference I can see is a small difference in track length (110000 bits vs 111000 bits) either of which is plenty more than the minimum length accepted by normal PROTEC.

Apart from this they look pretty identical to me!

[rhester72]

Originally Posted by Keir

How is the disk-analyse output differing? The only difference I can see is a small difference in track length (110000 bits vs 111000 bits) either of which is plenty more than the minimum length accepted by normal PROTEC.

Apart from this they look pretty identical to me!

This is above from dlfrsilver:

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

Sorry to say that, but the IPF you made with Disk-Analyse for Disk 1 is wrong, the Protec $4454 serial long track on disk 1 is not seen as correct.

I have used your kryo big dump of disk 1, and i have generated a RAW file, from which i made an IPF, you will find it in the zone with the long protection track correctly encoded.

Perhaps it's simply the length that they are referring to? I don't know, I'm a bit far afield on this one.

[rhester72]

Originally Posted by rhester72

- White disk 1 doesn't even *remotely* match the disk-analyse profile
- White disk 2 (which was a bear to dump fully as the disk was dirty) shows "T8.1: Unexpected track length (seen 102145, expected 105500)" when converting to IPF, which suggests it is a) a high score track, b) NOT modified (since it doesn't have an AmigaDOS track length), and c) has a PROTEC track 0 side 1 that CAPS/SPS said isn't being encoded properly by disk-analyse (see earlier commentary from dlfrsilver on Amnios Disk 1)...perhaps the PAL dump had a modified high score track and the disk-analyse IPF encoder was built around that?

Interestingly, I can't even get SCP versions of disk 1 or disk 2 to boot in the latest WinUAE at all. :/

EDIT: Nor will either boot in WinUAE via FloppyBridge.

[Abaddon]

Originally Posted by Keir

How is the disk-analyse output differing? The only difference I can see is a small difference in track length (110000 bits vs 111000 bits) either of which is plenty more than the minimum length accepted by normal PROTEC.

Apart from this they look pretty identical to me!

I can confirm that the Amnios IPF created with disk-analyse does pass the protection check successfully.

[Retroplay]

Originally Posted by rhester72

- As with the PAL release, only disk 1 specifies it is NTSC (so disks 2 and 3 are likely common to both regions), this is true of both the blue and white sets

Just as I suspected, see this:
https://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p...postcount=1055

[rhester72]

Fun fact - Armour-Geddon uses MPH, not KPH, for speed unit-of-measure (and feet instead of meters) in both NTSC and PAL versions =)

[desiv]

Originally Posted by rhester72

Fun fact - Armour-Geddon uses MPH, not KPH, for speed unit-of-measure (and feet instead of meters) in both NTSC and PAL versions =)

As I understand it, most of the UK uses miles per hour...
Although I didn't think they used feet tho, so that's weird.

Must have been really trying to appeal to that HUGE America Amiga audience. ;-)

[Abaddon]

What NTSC versions of the games are still needed? I Uploaded Shadow Of The Beast II NTSC to the zone

If someone has the NTSC version of Bill's Tomato Game and uploads it to the zone I will add support for it in disk-analyse.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by Abaddon

What NTSC versions of the games are still needed? I Uploaded Shadow Of The Beast II NTSC to the zone

If someone has the NTSC version of Bill's Tomato Game and uploads it to the zone I will add support for it in disk-analyse.

I made a set of IPF for Beast II NTSC in the zone.

[TCD]

I've added the raw dump and the IPFs to the server.