'More >0.8.0 woes'
Author:Jason Compton (guest: search)
Date: Tue, Jul 27th, 2010 @ 22:30 ( . )

I'm running into some more instances where 0.8.0 seems to do a better job than later versions (in this case, 0.8.5.)

I actually dropped down to OpenCBM d64copy to grab Planetfall r20 after I got suspicious, tried the nib I got from 085, and it failed in-game $verify. The OpenCBM d64 works correctly, as does the 080 nib converted to g64. Every attempt to use a g64 from 085 fails $verify. The 080 nib works in-game and nibscan confirms it has the same data as the d64copy.

Attached (spread out over a few replies to deal with the 250K attachment limit):

planetfall.nib - nibread 085, fails
planetfall_try2.nib - nibread 085, fails
planetfall.d64 - d64copy, works
planetfall080.nib - nibread 080, works

To test, load game and enter
$verify
at prompt.

Attachments:
1280284241_planetfall_set1.rar


REPLY: [With No Quote] --- [With Quoted Text]

'More >0.8.0 woes'
Author:Jason Compton (guest: search)
Date: Tue, Jul 27th, 2010 @ 22:32 ( . )

Another attachment...

Attachments:
1280284320_planetfall080.rar


REPLY: [With No Quote] --- [With Quoted Text]

'More >0.8.0 woes'
Author:Jason Compton (guest: search)
Date: Tue, Jul 27th, 2010 @ 22:32 ( . )

...and one more.

Attachments:
1280284348_planetfall_try2.rar


REPLY: [With No Quote] --- [With Quoted Text]

'More >0.8.0 woes'
Author:Jason Compton (guest: search)
Date: Tue, Jul 27th, 2010 @ 22:33 ( . )

I should add that I had a similar problem with Hitchhiker's Guide Solid Gold. I seriously doubt this is "an Infocom thing"--it just so happens that Infocom games have their own built-in checksum feature which perhaps is making it easier to spot the trouble.


REPLY: [With No Quote] --- [With Quoted Text]

'More >0.8.0 woes'
Author:Jason Compton (guest: search)
Date: Tue, Jul 27th, 2010 @ 22:44 ( . )

Here's another data point--I found another Knights of Legend original set. When I scan with 085, I get an MD5 different than the set I made last week. But when I scan with 080, the MD5s match. Side two of the new set included for comparison--one with 085, the other with 080.


Attachments:
1280285043_kol_s2_080.rar


REPLY: [With No Quote] --- [With Quoted Text]

'More >0.8.0 woes'
Author:Jason Compton (guest: search)
Date: Tue, Jul 27th, 2010 @ 22:45 ( . )

Here's the rip with 085.

The punchline from nibscan comparing the two:

29/36 of likely formatted tracks matched all sector data


Attachments:
1280285116_kol_s2_085.rar


REPLY: [With No Quote] --- [With Quoted Text]

'More >0.8.0 woes'
Author:Pete Rittwage (registered user: 558 posts )
Date: Wed, Jul 28th, 2010 @ 13:22 ( . )

The actual images all seem to be fine- I can convert using the old tools and the resulting D64 will match. Very strange. I've seen this before with the Infocom games- even though they aren't "protected" they seem to have sometimes have multiple copies of a sector on the disk sometimes, or at least it is detected as so...

I'll see if I can get to the bottom of it.


REPLY: [With No Quote] --- [With Quoted Text]

'More >0.8.0 woes'
Author:Pete Rittwage (registered user: 558 posts )
Date: Wed, Jul 28th, 2010 @ 17:50 ( . )

I did find the issue. The tracks on some Infocom titles are very short- shorter than we can write, even with a fast disk motor- must be something to do with their mastering process. I adjusted the conversion settings to account for it. Your images were read fine, it was just an issue with conversion to G64/D64.

You can grab 0.8.6 if you want- there is no reason to re-read any disks.


REPLY: [With No Quote] --- [With Quoted Text]

'More >0.8.0 woes'
Author:J Achernar (registered user: 36 posts )
Date: Wed, Jul 28th, 2010 @ 20:00 ( . )

I am still a new user on Nibtools, so please bear with me. I had previously downloaded v7.0. After getting the parallel interface working I made a few scans and then downloaded v8.5. The "Paul Whitehead" images I submitted were made with v7.0.

I scanned my originals and backups (for comparison) of "Guide to Chess Openings" using v8.5 (to be submitted in a few days after I finish with verification and documentation). I could never get a good scan of the side 1 original. Several attempts returned different results. It then scanned perfectly under v7.0.

I tried a few other disks and contined to get bad results with v8.5. I will give v8.6 a quick try and then email you some results.


REPLY: [With No Quote] --- [With Quoted Text]


--- 0 Users Online --- 0 Recent Unique Posters

Q113=1715293593 - Threads: / 1715293593