High Score Lists > Donkey Kong High Score Lists
A WolfMAME Issue
ChrisP:
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to make a new thread in this forum, but the "General Discussion" thread is so long at this point that maybe breaking the discussion into separate threads is a good idea, rather than having a single omni-thread?
In any case, there is an issue with WolfMAME that has not been discussed or addressed yet.
Simply put, unlike .106, newer versions of WolfMAME do not produce a .wlf file along with the .inp. It is my understanding that the information that used to be put in the .wlf is now somehow embedded into the .inp itself, but I have not been able to confirm this or to find out how that works.
Some might say "then why not just stick with .106 for recordings/submissions?" The reason is that newer versions are superior in many respects, and in one sense in particular: .inp filesizes in newer Wolfs are much, much smaller than those produced by .106. I don't know how they accomplished this (some form of compression, I think) but .inps recorded in newer versions are a fraction of the size, making them much easier to store, share, and deal with.
Since I no longer plan to submit to TG, I'm basically finished with .106, as it's severely outdated. Since December I've done all of my DK playing (including DK, D2K, and Junior) in Wolf .140. But under our current rules, I would not be able to submit because .140 does not produce a .wlf. It's not a huge issue for me because I have the arcade versions of all three games, and much prefer to play on a cabinet anyway, but there are times when I need or want to play on MAME (and will be stuck doing so for Junior until I get the standard ROMset installed on my PCB, and not the "hard" kit I'm now using). Ya never know what kind of run you're going to snag a hold of and it would be annoying to not be able to submit because I don't have a .wlf.
In fact, D2K actually CAN'T be played in .106 because the ROM wasn't added to MAME until some point in the .130s. So, if nothing else, this issue will have to be resolved one way or another once we get the D2K list going. There will never be a .wlf for D2K.
Does anybody know how to extract the .wlf-type info from the new .inps?
corey.chambers:
I understand the concern. I believe that you had brought it up once before. At that time I downloaded the most recent version of WolfMAME and I could not figure out how to even record an inp let alone know how to do anything else. Not sure if there is an inp checker like there was for 0.106. I had not pursued it any further because no one had submitted any inp from any other emulator than .106, other than Rick Fothergill's score which was with .101, though it had a wlf file. Because the rules allow for any version of WolfMAME, then I would need to accommodate for the inp from these versions. One of the points of getting the inp and wlf will is because it is easily verified, and it could be verified. But if 't be newer versions of WolfMAME do not have the .wlf file to verify then I would need to either find a way to do the same process as I do with the wlf along with the inp in the wlfveiwer, or just have these players submit under the auxiliary rules. Besides, if the inp that I get matches the stream from a credible player then I don't see good reasons to reject it. I mean, if we don't know the person, they have never showed us their skills over time, they have never posted any scores, and comes out of the woodwork with a streamed game of a million points in a window only format with no audio at all... well, I think you guys get the point. I would need to specify that at least the inp would be required from newer versions of MAME if a new line or addition to a previous line is made to the list rules specifying that if something can't be verified then it can't be verified. But then maybe an accompanied evidence could help... Consider this, if I have an inp from a game that we know was started on Twitch because we could see the program start with the play and record, or maybe a restart in the end which could not be done with an inp playback, or their stream was in the monitor capture format where we could see the programs that were open on the computer, etc then this obviously seems adequate. None of this is meant to be infallible but lets just say I highly doubt anyone will get passed all of us with a fraudulent score.
If it was an inp playback on a newer version of mame then it would be nice to have a way to check it like I do with the wlfveiwer. I assume that tampering could have been done to the file, though what is the likelihood of this being done, or can it be done. I don't have to deal with many playbacks, let alone from one without a .wlf file but obviously they would need to be checked some way I would think. Especially in the case where they can't prove that it was being created as they played such as was the case with Joe Kassel's recent score submission.
Any thoughts on these differences or anything that we could come up with in the rules to address the matter more specifically?
philt80:
I also asked about this issue a few weeks back as I too prefer modern versions of wolfmame. I think at the time Corey said he'd be ok with it if he was able to verify, but that was before the detailed rule set took form...
I guess what we all need to do is dig into the details of Wolfmame and find out exactly what verification measures can be taken with versions post 106. It's my understanding that all versions of wolfmame have extra code that prevents cheating and tool assisted modification. I've often wondered if perhaps the reason so many use 106 is because it was the last "GUI" version of wolfmame released?
I actually prefer commandline wolfmame...it's much easier for me to fire up a game and takes less overhead....also includes games not emulated at the time 106 was released...I know for verification purposes, any version of wolfmame is acceptable for MARP verification...
I'll see if I can find anything out that may help and post an update if I do...
philt80:
Actually...a good person to ask would be Rick Carter if someone can get ahold of him....I think he's an adjudicator for MARP, so he'd likely have answers to all questions relative to the how and why of wolfmame verification...
Here's an answer he gave regarding wlf files several years back:
http://www.classicarcadegaming.com/forums/index.php?topic=1138.0
corey.chambers:
I just sent a facebook message to Rick Carter. So I will see what he has to say about a possible verification process for the inp file post .106 which does not also include the wlf file.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version