78387325 visitors

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Nightcrawler

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 76
I actually found my old work last year and was going to release it but the HDD I had the project on died shortly after I discovered it and I haven't found a back-up.

Hmmm... Another infamous DeJap hard drive debacle? :laugh:

Nice to see you again DarkForce! It's good to know you haven't been hit by a bus. :P You're never too old to satisfy that ROM hacking itch, you know. What are you up to these days?

Newcomer's Board / Re: Is it fine to hack translations?
« on: March 23, 2014, 01:25:00 pm »
Well... after a tiny research, I've found out that he's left a wabsite and his e-mail around, but his website is currently dead (it was bought by a japanese company or something) and all of his translations are dated as of 2003. Maybe I should try to send him an e-mail, but... I don't think he'll answer.... something tells me he's not active anymore. :-\

Even so, take a minute write an e-mail and be done with it rather than speculate. ;)

So if someone hacks a translation hack, which category will it be submitted? Under Hacks or Translations? And would it be an Addendum or an Improvement? We don't want to add/delete files like what happened to mziab's hacks just to correct the categories.  :(

Since it's not furthering, fixing, or enhancing the translation, then it would probably end up being in the Hacks section. I think there has been a case or two like this in the past, although I can't recall the names.

Site Talk / Re: Homebrew Section?
« on: March 23, 2014, 01:02:35 pm »
Oh, OK. I agree there. I assumed what would be written in that field would reflect the included license. We can make that more explicit in the field help and/or guidelines.

Site Talk / Re: Homebrew Section?
« on: March 22, 2014, 12:12:08 pm »
Yes, I think it makes sense then to have the Source Code Language a text only field.

Doing a write-in for Source Utility is an interesting thought, but without including a full form, we'd end up with a similar situation to the Game write-in's where it would be a bare bones entry that someone would need to edit to fill in the rest of the information all the time. A utility entry without a description and other info is certainly undesirable and what result if nobody went back and filled it in after approval. This is a problem in general with the write-in's on the site. Including the full Utility form doesn't seem like a smart idea either.

snarfblam, you want to see the full license text in the entry? The GPL and LGPL text for example are very long. I'd hate to store a bunch of redundant text copies of that and it would still be a copy of the text which would also be found in the readme or distribution. I think that would eat up quite a bit of database space for no good reason. Perhaps if the license text was only included in the case of a custom license it might make sense (this assumes the 'custom' license is just a few lines and not say a modified GPL or something).

Newcomer's Board / Re: Is it fine to hack translations?
« on: March 22, 2014, 11:54:15 am »
Although you don't need permission, it's common courtesy and good community ethics to ask/inform the author of your intentions if they provide contact information and are able to be reached. Many authors enjoy hearing where their projects may be used. Some authors may even be willing to provide you some helpful information or resources regarding the original project to make your job easier or aid if you get stuck. It's much less likely they would want anything to do with helping you if you did not extend them any courtesy. Also, wouldn't you want someone else to do the same if they wanted to use your hack?

As you know, you should certainly give proper credit in the readme, credit lists, public descriptions, or even applicable in-game splash/title screens. I think everyone will agree claiming anything as your own that is not is a cardinal grievance in any walk of life.

How would I fix that there, I can't seem to edit the post. Oops sorry about that, should have checked over it before posting.

Go to the News section and submit and edit for your News Article.

Site Talk / Re: Homebrew Section?
« on: March 19, 2014, 07:55:41 pm »
Rejoice! :) The Homebrew section is almost here! I went through this topic and came up with a rough draft of the form, guidelines, and subpage. The preview button will work, but the submission button will not. Submissions will not be allowed until all the fields and what not are finalized and properly hooked up to the queue.


Most ideas were incorporated, but I am still not sold on several of them and wish to discuss them further.

1. Source Code Language
I don't think we want to get involved in keeping/maintaining a table of programming languages. We might want to axe this field. Perhaps for homebrew, we may only be talking about Assembly, C, and C++ and need no more. I don't personally know of any written in anything else. However, I am also giving consideration that this field may be ported to other sections like Utilities which would use any language conceivable and require maintenance.

2. Source Utility:
This was done as Neil suggested linking to our Utilities 'Assembly Tools' category. If we go with this field, we may want to rename that category so it is clear to accept C/C++ compilers (or have a separate compilers category and link both to the drop down here). My issue with this field as mentioned earlier in the topic is version mismatches. Say homebrew X assembles only with older assembler version Y and not the current version Z carried by our site. Secondly, I expect lazy people will, rather than submitting the tool they used when not found to our database, simply chose 'None'. Then, we'll have a bunch of 'Nones' and the field isn't all that useful.

3.Source License
Here's another field we may choose to axe. I don't think we want to get involved with maintaining a list of available software licenses (and there are always custom ones) for a proper dropdown. So, we're left with a write-in field. Write-ins are only partially useful as it becomes just a text tag and not easily searchable for any other purpose. Also, as mentioned, the majority of content on this site has no license whatsoever. So, I certainly question how useful this is as-is? I also shudder with the educational consequences of people having no clue what a license is.

While I understand the general idea behind this one from what Neil suggested, I'm not sure how useful it is in its current iteration. What do you guys think about this? I'm not sure I understand the choices well. Everything would be 'processor' wouldn't it? Nearly everything with any screen output would also be 'Graphics' by default. I'm not sure how useful those would be for starters.

My initial thoughts were homebrew basically fits into three categories and I have tried to provide explanation of the difference between the three. Although, a case could be made that Tech Demos and Hardware Tests are basically the same. My thoughts were mainly to separate them due to the potential for archiving emulator accuracy test type ROMs. Perhaps they should be ruled out of scope here, but I don't think accuracy test ROMs are actually centrally archived anywhere else and thought maybe we should do so. Thoughts on the categories?

Lastly on all the source code fields, I am also giving consideration that these fields may be ported to other sections like Utilities. So, if we want to keep them, consideration should be made on their usefulness and application to other areas of the site.

Programming / Re: Need some 65816 assistance
« on: March 13, 2014, 06:34:45 pm »
LDA (BF 00 D8 2A) is "LDA $2AD800,x". Is that what you want? For this to work as you instruct, you need to also relocate the data. Is your data now also in bank $2a? You were loading data from bank $0a, now it needs to be in bank $2a to work with the instructions you've given. Otherwise, you want to use LDA (BF 00 D8 0A) which is is "LDA $0AD800,x". That would pull the data from the old location while your routine resides in the new bank.

You can't use the ADC instruction in the manner you expect.  ADC (69 00 D8) is immediate. #$D800 means you're adding the immediate value $D800 to the accumulator. ADC (6F 00 D8 2A) is addressed, so it's actually ADC $2AD800 which means add the value STORED at location $2AD800, which of course is not what you want. If all you did was change the bank, you shouldn't need to change that ADC instruction.

I highly advise stepping through with the debugger to see what is actually happening and where data is being pulled from. This will help you learn better what is going on and what is going wrong.

ROM Hacking Discussion / Re: SA-1 register $2225?
« on: March 08, 2014, 04:03:44 pm »
If I understand correctly then the SA-1 can see the entire  BW-RAM (mapping both 40-4F/60-6F spaces) but the SNES only sees half (the 40-4F portion)?

Right on that. I think your general understanding of the points you mentioned are also correct.

Certainly the SA-1 has great potential to hombrew if it could be fully leveraged. As you know, there is a pretty big learning curve to really being able to take advantage of this setup. It's of little surprise that most commercial games utilizing the SA-1 didn't even take full potential of it either. It's probably the most advanced and versatile of all of the add-on chips.

Site Talk / Re: mteam's Translation Fixes
« on: March 07, 2014, 08:46:28 pm »
Absolutely. Different sources can generate different hashes for the same functional ROM depending on whether or not they included header information in the hash. Most people provide the hash from a given known database like NoIntro etc. and specify the source of the hash. This avoids any confusion and will be applicable to most older translations.

In other cases where a straight file hash is appropriate because no ROM database options exists, it is recommended to provide the file hash with no header (strip it entirely off) and note the hash was calculated as such. Regardless, the source of the hash is critical for others to come up with a match.

I don't believe zeroing out the header bytes is the same as stripping them off entirely for hash calculations. I think those algorithms differentiate between that that. A quick test seemed to generate different hashes with CRC32 for example. Can someone confirm?

That looks great to me! Nobody makes 'em like you do. :)

Front Page News / Re: ROM Hacks: New Hacks Added to the Database
« on: March 07, 2014, 06:45:49 pm »
Right. It's unplayable. Both snarfblam and mrrichard999 confirmed and it was flagged as non-compliant. One of these days we'll have a publicly available listing of all the flagged non-compliant material and reasons given to avoid confusion and attempts to re-add. Such information is being kept in the submission logs like the rest of the submissions. :)

EDIT: I should note this information IS already publicly available for the past 30 days in the change log (By clicking on Changes on the top bar site menu).

Site Talk / Re: mteam's Translation Fixes
« on: March 06, 2014, 08:12:04 pm »
No problem, I can resubmit them myself. Is this a recent policy change? My rationale behind submitting those fixes as hacks and not translations was that I haven't touched on any of their scripts and that the patches are useless without the original translations.

Thanks mziab. :) The Addendum category has been around for quite some time. The intention is Addendums to Translations belong in the Translations section and Addendums to Hacks belong in the Hacks section.

It might also be worthwhile to edit the descriptions of the originals translations to notify visitors that your fixed patch exists, otherwise people continue to find the original old translations and might not be aware of your patches.

Site Talk / mteam's Translation Fixes
« on: March 05, 2014, 08:14:45 pm »
One of mteam's translation fixes was flagged as non-compliant for removal because they are addendums to translations and thus belong in the Translation section rather than the Hacks section. There are a total of three of these:

There's no way possible to convert hacks to translations (or vice versa). Can somebody with some free time please submit these appropriately as Translations so they are not lost. The catch is, the system requires ROM/ISO Information on all new submissions, which was not previously provided on those entries.

These hacks fix some of the most notoriously broken translations in history. We don't want to loose them!

Site Talk / Re: Bizarre site connectivity issues
« on: February 20, 2014, 08:11:45 pm »
There was a DDoS attack on the DNS server (hosted separately from our server). It has been mitigated and normal service should return soon.

Our server is happy, working fine, and recently backed up. :)

Site Talk / Re: Anti-Piracy Circumvention Measures
« on: February 15, 2014, 01:41:24 pm »
I share Pennywise's sentiments. However, thinking in terms of policy and what has been said here, the only way something like this fits into the context of our site would be as an intended improvement for others to base their hack on, or potentially a bug fix as is the case for unreleased games. I don't think it justifies itself as an improvement, and I don't think we want to inadvertently pave the way for cracks or anti-piracy material for later systems which is a whole different world. We're left with Bug Fix, and that primarily lends itself to unreleased (or maybe satellite) games which is one of the only legitimate reasons to have such a thing here. Such games require such fixes to function at all.

So, how about keeping it simple and allowing such hacks only in the context of a Bug Fix, which really only applies to unreleased type games?

Under that:
1. I'd say remove that Datach entry as that would not fall under this rule.
2. The 40 Winks entry can stay as it is required for the game to function.
3. General anti-piracy submissions should be rejected.

Site Talk / Re: Homebrew Section?
« on: February 08, 2014, 04:41:27 pm »
Although a license section is not a bad idea at all, I don't think it's a worthwhile time investment the way things stand. Unfortunately I imagine somewhere in the range of 85% - 95% of material on this site has no distribution or license information. And 50% of those doesn't even have a readme! With such a small fraction of cases where it is even applicable, one can be referred to the readme (if that even exists). It could be argued that it could still help with awareness to try and turn the tides, but it has been an ugly uphill struggle with the ROM/ISO Information which was intended to do the same. I doubt the submission reviewers want another problematic field that the vast majority of our patrons are completely uneducated about.

While I also generally agree with demos and unfinished work being undesirable, I wonder with all of those excluded how much material is left? What about something like an HDMA demo on the SNES? I think a good chunk of homebrew is tech demos like that. Should they all be excluded? I think there is alot of educational value in such 'demos', especially if source code is included. So, there is still the question of whether there is enough homebrew material out there to make the section worthwhile if such things are excluded. Perhaps we should gather up a list here of what's out there that could potentially be added to the section upon launch. We can see what's out there and what we're dealing with. We'd also have a nice compiled list here in the meantime regardless of the section development.

Site Talk / Re: Homebrew Section?
« on: February 06, 2014, 06:13:10 pm »
If they are selling their software, it's not homebrew, it's commercial by definition. Commercial has no place in this section. If such material were to be uploaded, it could be flagged and removed as non-compliant with policy. The possibility of non-compliant uploads exists the same in this section as any other section. I don't see any distinction.

With that said, it might speed this section along if someone were to hash out what specific fields would be expected or needed in the form for such a section, and what you might want the guidelines to be. When I got around to it, I was just going to say take the Hacks form, remove non-applicable fields, keep the applicable ones, and add any that might be need to be added (none immediately came to mind). ROMs would of course be allowed for homebrew as they would be legal as far as I know. Otherwise, I imagine it wouldn't look much different than our Hack or Translation subpages.

Site Talk / Re: Homebrew Section?
« on: February 05, 2014, 07:54:15 pm »
I will probably go ahead with adding the homebrew section. It's probably quite a way off though.

It would probably be nice to link to RPGe's translation in the description so people unfamiliar with it will know what it is.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 76