Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

21

clrmame Discussion / Re: Need some advice on Mame folder structure

« on: 02 November 2018, 00:19 »

He wants to use clrmamepro to join torrents at good percentages.

People at PD use custom dats, so importing data from MAME's binary won't 100% match the torrents.

22

clrmame Discussion / Re: Need some advice on Mame folder structure

« on: 01 November 2018, 18:08 »

I think you should ask these questions on PD's forum. 

23

clrmame Discussion / Re: ROMs dumped from clones with matching hashes to BIOS files

« on: 10 July 2018, 18:03 »

My intention was not to tell you a way of running the games. This forum maintained by Roman, the author of clrmamepro, so this is of course the place to report bugs and ask technical questions. I mainly posted that so that Roman has extra information on the problem and workarounds, and to add that svgpcb.zip is affected too.

24

clrmame Discussion / Re: ROMs dumped from clones with matching hashes to BIOS files

« on: 07 July 2018, 01:23 »

Excuse me. May I try to help?  :|

Additionally to the dat generated by FB Alpha itself, it's necessary to follow the instructions below to run the affected games in the FB Alpha emulator:

Even if FB Alpha v0.2.97.43 (ClrMame Pro XML).dat says the following files are not needed for dmnfrntpcb.zip, svgpcb.zip and thegladpcb.zip, you need to add pgm_m01s.rom and pgm_t01s.rom manually to dmnfrntpcb.zip and svgpcb.zip plus bios.u42 to thegladpcb.zip to make these three sets as available and to make them run. You can find all the needed files to be added manually in the archive "pgm.zip".

It looks like this workaround is related to the problem described by Chad.

25

clrmame Discussion / Re: cmnpro 4.034 released

« on: 23 February 2018, 07:55 »

@Roman

OK, thank you for your reply. It looks like I'll have to update manually from now on.

26

clrmame Discussion / Re: cmnpro 4.034 released

« on: 22 February 2018, 02:33 »

How can I help you check this problem? Perhaps sending you somehow all files of clrmamepro's folder?

27

clrmame Discussion / Re: cmnpro 4.034 released

« on: 20 February 2018, 21:56 »

I tried using the update.dll you linked but it didn't work.

So, I updated downloading the zip and extracting on top of the installed files.

Now, after it's updated and working, if I check if there are new versions available within clrmamepro itself, I get "Can't receive version information!".

Using 64-bit on Windows 7.

28

clrmame Discussion / Re: Mame scan fing Genesis missing set

« on: 10 February 2018, 17:14 »

On the Profiler, select multiple dats, then right-click and select "Load Profiles in BatchMode".

29

clrmame Discussion / Re: TOSEC ISO problems witrh long filenames and rebuilding

« on: 24 January 2018, 18:42 »

https://www.howtogeek.com/266621/how-to-make-windows-10-accept-file-paths-over-260-characters/

30

clrmame Discussion / Re: A question about the Temp folder

« on: 16 June 2017, 06:01 »

I will try. Thank you!

31

clrmame Discussion / Re: A question about the Temp folder

« on: 08 June 2017, 22:56 »

@MAD

Your file manager looks great. Could you tell me what's the name of it? I've been looking for a good two-panel file manager.

TIA

32

clrmame Discussion / Re: Flyers, screenshots, documentation help

« on: 14 April 2017, 04:50 »

You can find A LOT OF stuff at: http://www.progettosnaps.net/

33

clrmame Discussion / Re: 0.182 'missing' ROM

« on: 31 January 2017, 18:05 »

I don't think so, because I didn't get any warning or error messages from clrmamepro every time I pressed the rebuild button.

Here is the dat-file I used, I hope it helps:
https://www.sendspace.com/file/wlo8k9

34

clrmame Discussion / Re: 0.182 'missing' ROM

« on: 31 January 2017, 00:38 »

For me it was different, you didn't test exactly what happened with me.

I had aa003.bin zipped on the target of the rebuilder. It contained other files in the zip, but no aa008.bin.

I also had aa003.bin zipped on the source of the rebuilder. And I didn't have any aa008.bin on the source.

The rebuilder should then create and add aa008.bin on the target, but it didn't do that. It simply skipped that file, and when I scanned, clrmamepro said aa008.bin was missing. I checked it, the file really wasn't added.

35

clrmame Discussion / Re: 0.182 'missing' ROM

« on: 29 January 2017, 21:23 »

I don't know if it would change anything, but I had aa003.bin in the zip and aa003.bin in the rebuild source.

I didn't have any aa008.bin, neither in the source or the target.

Because they are the same files, I thought it should properly detect that it was aa008.bin too.

36

clrmame Discussion / Re: 0.182 'missing' ROM

« on: 29 January 2017, 04:57 »

I got the message above as a reply when I asked for aa008.bin on RetroRoms.

I had the aa003.bin and the other files in the zip.

I only missed aa008.bin, and clrmamepro's rebuilder didn't add aa008.bin even after trying multiple times.

My workaround was adding manually the ROM.

I don't know if after that the scanner would remove or not any of the ROMs, I didn't try.

If you need the full dat-file please tell me because the one I used was modified (MAME was the basis).

37

clrmame Discussion / Re: Slow even with checksums disabled

« on: 10 April 2016, 03:52 »

For you, the 'name' and 'unneeded' checks require the checksums to do their jobs properly, to identify each file for sure.

For me, each checking option is kind of independent. For example, it's possible to check which files are unneeded without calculating checksums, just search which file names are not on the dat (while checksums are disabled).

It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of way of thinking. It also has to do with the concepts of the software, what the developer has in mind.

I wonder if I would get a message when 'name' and/or 'unneeded' checks are enabled but 'checksums' is disabled. A popup saying that checksum checking is required for these would be very nice.

38

clrmame Discussion / Re: Slow even with checksums disabled

« on: 09 April 2016, 18:57 »

I still think the checksums shouldn't be calculated when it's disabled. It would be much faster that way, and I'm pretty sure other people would benefit from it. Sometimes we don't need a deep scan...   

The next time I update my set (near the end of the month, probably) I'll try keeping only 'check missing' enabled, and see how long it takes.

Thank you for your time and patience! 

39

clrmame Discussion / Re: Slow even with checksums disabled

« on: 09 April 2016, 17:30 »

7 seconds is OK for me, that's about the number I was expecting. But that is without cache, right?

40

clrmame Discussion / Re: Slow even with checksums disabled

« on: 09 April 2016, 16:28 »

On my case I don't need to check the contents of the files (checksums) because I'm pretty sure that the files that are on the folder are correct, I've just rebuilt them. I only want to know which files are missing, and I want it to be faster because of that.

If clrmamepro always checks the checksums, no matter what the setting on the scanner is, why is there a Checksum checkbox?