mirror of
https://github.com/SabreTools/MPF.git
synced 2026-02-04 05:35:52 +00:00
[Request] - Separate profiles for Dreamcast Low Density and High Density dumps (or combine together). #454
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @ehw on GitHub (Sep 12, 2022).
Originally assigned to: @Deterous on GitHub.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Dreamcast GD-ROMs and GD-Rs contain two separate regions that must be dumped - a low density (LD) and a high density (HD) region. DiscImageCreator can currently dump both regions with in two separate modes. The low density tracks are dumped like a traditional CD-ROM/CD-R, while the high density are dumped with the "GD" mode. Currently, MPF has a "Sega Dreamcast" profile that can dump only the high density tracks with the "GD" mode in DiscImageCreator. However, there is no formal profile for the low density.
Another issue is the fact that currently there has to be two profiles for each density. More likely than not, users will most likely need two separate drives to dump Dreamcast discs - A Plextor for the low density, and a TSST (or other non-DIC supported drive) for the high density. It would be convenient if there was a profile in MPF that could handle both, but this would be very difficult to implement for a few reasons.
Describe the solution you'd like
The simplest solution that can be implemented right now is to create two profiles for the Dreamcast - one explicitly marked for low density and another for high density. Both that run the appropriate commands to make it work.
Describe alternatives you've considered
To make one singular profile for Dreamcast, a lot more work has to be put in that will definitely break in the future. This would also be very involved for the user as there are a lot of ways the procedure can go.
I would hold off on implementing any of this straight away as its possible that sarami might want to change certain things with DIC in the near future. But I'm filling out a feature request just for record keeping.
@mnadareski commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2022):
Both of these are difficult, to say the least. The ideal solution would be for DIC (or other dumping programs) to handle the high/low mix themselves and not have to rely on a third-party solution (MPF) to do the work.
That being said, there's at least a band-aid solution for part of this, which as discussed in Discord, is not immediately apparent. Dumping a GD-ROM as a "CD-ROM" handles only the low-density area and dumping as a "GD-ROM" only does the high-density area. Each of the systems that support GD-ROM should have an associated CD-ROM profile already. I may look into a secondary internal profile specific to GD-ROM low-density area (and maybe rename the current "GD-ROM" to "GD-ROM HD Area" or something).
@mnadareski commented on GitHub (Oct 18, 2023):
Tied at the moment to https://github.com/SabreTools/MPF/issues/527
@Deterous commented on GitHub (Feb 20, 2024):
I don't think there is much benefit to renaming the media type, even if it is a simple change.
The GD-ROM dumping guide explicitly mentions dumping LD Area with MPF by selecting CD-ROM as the media type.
Most people dumping the HD Area probably won't use MPF, but if they do they can select GD-ROM.
MPF doing two dumps automatically requires sweeping changes to the code (as you've listed) and adds too much complexity for something that 0.001% of users will be doing.
If in the future DIC or Redumper supports dumping both areas in one command, then MPF could add a new Media Type to support this (renaming the current GD-ROM system to "GD-ROM (High Density Area)")
If everyone agrees, the current "GD-ROM" system could be renamed now to something more descriptive, e.g. "GD-ROM (High Density Area)", but otherwise I don't think this issue requires any fix right now.
@mnadareski commented on GitHub (Feb 20, 2024):
For better or worse, I'm going to count this as completed. The dumping programs themselves need more work before this would make sense to change.