Ok, thank you for your help in clearing that up for me and also for developing Clrmamepro.
By the way, what is the *correct* method for auditing roms?
If I use a Mame .dat in Clrmamepro and compile a full set with none missing, is that enough?
Or should I run an audit with DOS Mame afterwards? I assume that when talking around the years 1998 to 2001 that it was ok to audit with Mame32 as well?
I have run a verifyroms with both the DOS and Mame32 variants of versions 0.036 and 0.037b5 of their respective sets and come up with various messages.
As far as I know the 'No good dump known' can be ignored in this instance.
Same with 'Not found - no good dump known' and 'Rom needs redump' as well.
The "INCORRECT CHECKSUM" and "INCORRECT LENGTH" messages have got me worried though. I think somebody mentioned there is a valid reasoning for some of those and I am not sure if there is anything a user can do or should do to rectify them.
Also it lists most romsets as 'Best known' but some are listed as 'bad'. At the bottom of the report; 2240 romsets found, 2200 were OK.
Mame32 will show less roms 'available' than 'all games'.
Is this 'normal' and what is classified as a 'full set'?
Or is something not 'right' because remember that clrmamepro compiled the set with 'none missing' and didn't mention any errors from what I noticed.
Read about my latest custom HLSL setup here;
http://gamingnos.blogspot.com/
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: Something funky with ClrMamePro?
Reply
