(12-29-2013, 06:14 PM)admin Wrote: Numerous Pysnosis titles don't convert to IPF.
IPF format is flat missing data...simple as that. It's a subset of the original flux data, converted from that data.
The *only* way to insure 100% compatibility is by using the lowest level data possible, which is what flux gives you. There is no exception to this.... period. So, if you want complete compatibility, there is only one way to go.
Thanks, Jim. What data is missing from IPF? I've gathered from other posts that IPF doesn't currently support GCR data, but is there anything beyond that?
What about the Psygnosis titles make it so that it can't be represented in IPF? I'm trying to assemble an actual technical list of shortcomings with details, rather than broad, sweeping statements.
Also, do you have any comment on my questions about guarantees, and verifying data, or disk formats? As one of the players in this space, it'd be great to get your detailed feedback.
I really think that the community is at an inflection point with regards to emulator disk formats, etc., and it would be great to have good, factual, detailed conversations about where it's going, and what the best course forward is. Is .scp good enough? Is .ipf good enough? Is .g64 good enough? If not, what does the ideal format look like, and is it better to evolve an existing format to meet those goals, or do we really just start all over with a new format?
I'm painfully aware of the limited time that tool/emulator authors have to devote to their hobbies, so focusing on the biggest bang for the buck is good. I don't pretend to know what the right tasks are, but I'd love to see some healthy discourse around the disk format issue before everyone goes off and starts investing in making disk images, updating emulators, etc..
Just my thoughts...
Thanks,
Robert