I downloaded the Artwork dat from this site, and when I updated via the WWW Profiler, when I went back to the Profiler to load, it had assumed the previous versions and I had to go do a manual re-scan of the dat. Shouldn't it come back Gray and not green/red?

Bryan

if you downloaded a datfile via the www profiler, it should appear under the 'new datfiles' profiler tree item. In this folder each datfile should be shown with a grey dot. If you then load it/update it, the old version gets replaced and the new datfile gets loaded. Now it depends on what you do. If you directly quit, the status should stay grey, if you run the scanner once, it turn red/green depending on the status of the sets.


Roman Scherzer

> if you downloaded a datfile via the www profiler, it should appear under the
> 'new datfiles' profiler tree item. In this folder each datfile should be shown
> with a grey dot. If you then load it/update it, the old version gets replaced
> and the new datfile gets loaded. Now it depends on what you do. If you directly
> quit, the status should stay grey, if you run the scanner once, it turn
> red/green depending on the status of the sets.
>
>
> Roman Scherzer
>

I've noticed that too....it doesn't even come up as a 'new/unused dat', which seems to be caused by the datfile always being called 'mame_artwork.dat'. I'm sure if the file name had a version/date in it, it would be alright. :)

nah...the version information is taken from the datfile header. I will check when I got time (which won't be anytime soon...)


Roman Scherzer

> nah...the version information is taken from the datfile header. I will check
> when I got time (which won't be anytime soon...)
>
>
> Roman Scherzer
>

Thanks Roman. One other little thing while you're looking at that - When downloading a datfile via the WWW Profiler, it asks which folder you want to put it in. If the datfile is detected as an 'update', could you automatically select the folder that the existing datfile is in? :D

simply download everything to root....as soon as you load the file then, and cmpro says it's an update, it's put in the correct folder.


Roman Scherzer

> > nah...the version information is taken from the datfile header. I will check
> > when I got time (which won't be anytime soon...)
> >
> >
> > Roman Scherzer
> >
>
> Thanks Roman. One other little thing while you're looking at that - When
> downloading a datfile via the WWW Profiler, it asks which folder you want to put
> it in. If the datfile is detected as an 'update', could you automatically
> select the folder that the existing datfile is in? :D
>



Roman Scherzer

This works great, but what causes the WWW Profiler to say I have a local dat?

I'm trying to upgrade the PinMAME - Other ROMs dat from v1.54 to v20061228 and the WWW Profiler says i already have it local and refuses to let me download it. I have cleared my cache as well as opened and closed clrmame several times.

Bryan

> > > nah...the version information is taken from the datfile header. I will check
> > > when I got time (which won't be anytime soon...)
> > >
> > >
> > > Roman Scherzer
> > >
> >
> > Thanks Roman. One other little thing while you're looking at that - When
> > downloading a datfile via the WWW Profiler, it asks which folder you want to
> put
> > it in. If the datfile is detected as an 'update', could you automatically
> > select the folder that the existing datfile is in? :D
> >
>
>
>
> Roman Scherzer
>

> This works great, but what causes the WWW Profiler to say I have a local dat?

The version tag in the datfile header does (not the filename even if it includes a versionnumber). If your local one matches (some numeric compares) the one on the server, it's listed as local.


Roman Scherzer

Ok, then something weird is going on as I don't have any dat with a version of 20061228, but it still says local.

Bryan

> > This works great, but what causes the WWW Profiler to say I have a local dat?
>
> The version tag in the datfile header does (not the filename even if it includes
> a versionnumber). If your local one matches (some numeric compares) the one on
> the server, it's listed as local.
>
>
> Roman Scherzer
>

> Ok, then something weird is going on as I don't have any dat with a version of
> 20061228, but it still says local.

send me both datfiles and I will have a look...or maybe you got an old (not used, not visible) .cmp/.dat file somewhere....run a garbage collection (profiler, popupmenu)


Roman Scherzer

I searched through all of my dats, couldn't find any with a 20061228 in them, I also did a garbage collection.

Sending the dats via email.

Bryan

> > Ok, then something weird is going on as I don't have any dat with a version of
> > 20061228, but it still says local.
>
> send me both datfiles and I will have a look...or maybe you got an old (not
> used, not visible) .cmp/.dat file somewhere....run a garbage collection
> (profiler, popupmenu)
>
>
> Roman Scherzer
>

> I searched through all of my dats, couldn't find any with a 20061228 in them, I
> also did a garbage collection.
>
> Sending the dats via email.


will have a look...one thing I forgot: maybe the xml file simply holds the wrong information about the version. I was wrong to say, cmpro uses the version tag entry in the dats....of course it uses the version tag information in the xml file which is stored on the server.




Roman Scherzer