| yoeddy |
|
Sound perfectionist
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 12/27/03
|
|
Posts: 239
|
|
Loc: Boise, Idaho
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
0.144 CHDs...any technical reasons to update them to 0.149?
#310582 - 06/20/13 07:00 AM
|
|
|
I'm back a few revisions in terms of CHD versioning...just curious if there have been much if any changes made compared to the current version.
Thanks,
Jason
|
|
|
|
Re: 0.144 CHDs...any technical reasons to update them to 0.149?
[Re: yoeddy]
#310591 - 06/20/13 12:43 PM
|
|
|
From what I understand from the commit Aaron Giles posted, there should be few changes in emulation between chd v4 and v5 as far as I can see. However, the CHDs should be easier to store as V5 introduces LZMA compression and a more efficient FLAC library as well as updates to the Huffman codec. Also chdman.exe has been rewritten
On the downside, CHD v1 and v2 files are now unsupported, and CHD v3 and v4 no longer have write support (support is for read only). Also, your CHD diff files are now broken. If you need to keep your diffs, please apply them to your CHD.
You can find more info (including all the technical bits) in the commit Aaron posted back from 0.145 here: http://git.redump.net/mame/commit/?id=b8d510bca95e786441b9212280402a0ede9cfc6d
|
|
|
|
Re: 0.144 CHDs...any technical reasons to update them to 0.149?
[Re: Biafra Republic]
#310595 - 06/20/13 03:43 PM
|
|
|
> On the downside, CHD v1 and v2 files are now unsupported, and CHD v3 and v4 no longer
> have write support (support is for read only).
MAME only uses read only chds, the diff doesn't have to be the same version as the chd.
I don't tend to keep the diff files, so I don't know if you can upgrade them.
I haven't upgraded the chd files.
|
|
|
|
Re: 0.144 CHDs...any technical reasons to update them to 0.149?
[Re: ]
#310596 - 06/20/13 04:03 PM
|
|
|
> > On the downside, CHD v1 and v2 files are now unsupported, and CHD v3 and v4 no
> longer
> > have write support (support is for read only).
>
> MAME only uses read only chds, the diff doesn't have to be the same version as the
> chd.
> I don't tend to keep the diff files, so I don't know if you can upgrade them.
>
> I haven't upgraded the chd files.
I think that either in the v3->v4 update or in the v4->v5 update, having older diffs with updated CHDs caused the emulator to crash while attempting to apply the diff
anyway v4 CHDs for naomi gd-roms turned out to miss some important data, so I suggest to at least throw those away and search for the v5 versions (update v4 to v5 would not work for those, they had to be rebuilt from raw dumps)
|
|
|
|
Re: 0.144 CHDs...any technical reasons to update them to 0.149?
[Re: etabeta]
#310597 - 06/20/13 04:09 PM
|
|
|
> I think that either in the v3->v4 update or in the v4->v5 update, having older diffs
> with updated CHDs caused the emulator to crash while attempting to apply the diff
Yes, It rejects diffs if they are not the latest version.
> anyway v4 CHDs for naomi gd-roms turned out to miss some important data, so I suggest
> to at least throw those away and search for the v5 versions (update v4 to v5 would
> not work for those, they had to be rebuilt from raw dumps)
You need the new dumps and they happen to be v5. I don't really see a justification for doing a mass convert though.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9711
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: 0.144 CHDs...any technical reasons to update them to 0.149?
[Re: ]
#310647 - 06/21/13 10:41 PM
|
|
|
> MAME only uses read only chds, the diff doesn't have to be the same version as the
> chd.
Incorrect. There's a very misleading error message that appears when you try, which was quite common in the immediate aftermath of the v5 upgrade.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9711
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: 0.144 CHDs...any technical reasons to update them to 0.149?
[Re: yoeddy]
#310648 - 06/21/13 10:43 PM
|
|
|
> I'm back a few revisions in terms of CHD versioning...just curious if there have been
> much if any changes made compared to the current version.
It's recommended in general, just because if/when the emulation improves you're going to need the newest images. Also, the newer images tend to be smaller because of the additional compression support (if you're familiar with 7zip, that compression tech plus several others are now built into CHDMAN).
|
|
|
|
Re: 0.144 CHDs...any technical reasons to update them to 0.149?
[Re: R. Belmont]
#310712 - 06/24/13 01:36 AM
|
|
|
> > MAME only uses read only chds, the diff doesn't have to be the same version as the
> > chd.
>
> Incorrect. There's a very misleading error message that appears when you try, which
> was quite common in the immediate aftermath of the v5 upgrade.
AFAIK the error message was because the diff wasn't v5, not because the diff had to be the same as the chd. Yes the error message was confusing.
|
|
|
Index 
Threaded 
0.144 CHDs...any technical reasons to update them to 0.149?
Reply
[Re: 