search

ShadowOne333 / MaternalBound-Redux

A new version of MaternalBound, complete with New Controls and MSU-1 integration... And a lot more features!
GNU General Public License v3.0
78 stars 6 forks source link

Checksums #11

Open badass-boss opened 2 months ago

badass-boss commented 2 months ago

What are the checksums supposed to be for the ROM after it was patched and headerless? Is it supposed to be exactly like this?

CRC-32: 28f31600 MD4: 4771b7788f53a5db14f07f9db03fa2f5 MD5: 8ef36bde416cb1d1c2fe1753cc14e29f SHA-1: 76641a39ad19709b12f2bdd1e03869ecd4b910c1

I see some people complaining about glitches because the rom was in fact incorrectly patched and there is constant neverending pain with incompatibility between headered and unheadered roms. The expected headerless patched ROM checksums would help tremendously

ShadowOne333 commented 2 months ago

My build has the following:

CRC32: 806c44d6 MD5: d60c5b654a7eef3e61c0f4e934fd486a SHA-1: 8e85de5dec9719c00d9369af49a1b792637fa011

It's always recommended to use the BPS patch from now on to avoid any issues with the wrong base ROM being used, as that kind of patch always checks for the right base file being used.

badass-boss commented 2 months ago

How in the world is this possible?? I used bps and xdelta patches on headered and unheadered base and I always get the same checksums I posted and assumed they are correct. Guess I was wrong...

ShadowOne333 commented 2 months ago

Use the Online Patcher by Marc Robledo, that one checks if the base file has the correct checksum for patching.

badass-boss commented 2 months ago

I did just that. Uploaded bps file and it only accepted the unheadered rom and patched successfully. Still got the same checksums I posted in the 1st message. Which one is it then?

ShadowOne333 commented 2 months ago

It's possible it could be different since I got this checksum with a compiled ROM, not by patching. Let me try patching a ROM instead, what patches are you using? From where?

badass-boss commented 2 months ago

I originally used patches from romhacking but it doesnt matter as the bps file from both sources is identical

ShadowOne333 commented 2 months ago

Using the BPS patch from Romhacking.net with the Online Patcher, and selecting the option to "Remove header" gives me a checksum clearance with a green checkmark. Afterwards, the patched ROM gives me the following checksums:

CRC32: a2f2fd9b MD5: 8ac15e2412f0ec5700c0beef23c83447

badass-boss commented 2 months ago

Ah, so you used a headered rom and removed it in the utility but after that the header was reapplied and yes these are the expected values. So after removing the header again the checksums become the same as in the 1st post so I guess everything was correct then. So that is clear now but what is the deal with snes headers anyway when patching?? Why is this such a big deal? Patches requiring a header are such a pain because headered roms are obsolete and there is absolutely no advantage in using them

ShadowOne333 commented 2 months ago

Beats me tbh. Headers are just a cumbersome thing to deal with for SNES games, I don't know why they're still being used. Using headerless ROMs should always be the way to go to avoid this kind of thing. I cannot remember how many times I've had false bug reports due to the header issue.

EIther way, I'm glad this helped on your end.

badass-boss commented 2 months ago

I can add a suggestion to add expected checksums after patching in the description so people can be sure mispatching is not the issue

ShadowOne333 commented 2 months ago

Sure, I can do that. I'll add those to the ReadMe, I'd just have to check I'm getting the right ones and those correspond to the actual latest build.