Software Support > controls.dat
controls.xml outdated
Howard_Casto:
WHO DARES AWAKEN THE GREAT AND POWERFUL CASTO FROM HIS SLUMBER? ;)
SirP filled me in on the details thus far....
I'm good with everything but the whole "unverified" deal.
Human nature suggests that once an entry is out there, even if it's wrong, it'll become the accepted entry and nobody will ever bother to check it. This has already happened in the existing controls.dat in the form of mame driver changes..... People see the entry and although the button bindings/controls are off due to changes in mame they think "close enough" and never bother to update the entry even if they notice it is wrong. This is perfectly understandable... but it doesn't help our cause of accuracy above all else at all.
There's something I need to point out as well. You CAN verify a game without labels on it's controls (I beleive spy hunter was used as an example). What you have to do is verify that the buttons are unlabeled at which point you can use the mame driver's description of the controls, or more preferably, the game and or game manual's description. In the case of spyhunter, getting the labels is as easy as looking at the bezel artwork on the game in mame... the instruction card tells the official function name of each button (along with the weapons lights below). And that's kind of my point about the verified thing.... perfectly well meaning contributor insisting that a game can't be verified and he had looked everywhere for verification when in fact it can be verified farily easy. Now I looked this one up but it took quite a while... part of the job of contributing an entry is in the actual proof... it's the biggest part actually. Most of us "sort of know" the buttons to many of the classics, what we want to do is prove it. ;)
I don't have any objections to hk's magic thing-a-ma-bob helping out in the making of entries though... they just need to be verified, or left out of the db.
Now what I feel is a good compromise is a verified flag, along with a (not quite sure how to word this) "verified to be unverifiable" flag. What I mean is, you still have to prove the entry, in that you have to prove the data isn't verifiable. By that I mean in your references you add links to the manual (to prove no mention of the controls are in there) the current cp snapshot (which is too fuzzy to make out) and the flyer or something to that degree. I'll admit to the reality that some games will NEVER be verified because the data simply doesn't exist... prototypes are a good example. I see no reason why we can't add these.... you've just got to prove that you've actually made an attempt to check them.
"Not verified yet" would also be perfectly acceptable.... that would be games in the cache that haven't been checked by admins yet. I think there needs to be some sort of limit as to how long these entries are allowed to remain though.
I guess what I'm trying to say is the unverified thing as-is is a bit to vague... we need to set some very strict rules about what kind of non-proven data is added or else the preservation and documention aspect of controls.dat is as good as gone.
Howard_Casto:
--- Quote from: u_rebelscum on September 09, 2008, 03:53:08 pm ---
--- Quote from: headkaze on September 08, 2008, 08:40:23 pm ---If you download my ControlsDat program in it's Data folder are the files that list all the controls used in the dat file. In the program you can double click on a game in the list and it shows the Mame control name as well as the controls in ControlsDat.
--- End quote ---
Mame has five (5) service button types: IPT_SERVICE, IPT_SERVICE1, IPT_SERVICE2, IPT_SERVICE3, and IPT_SERVICE4. The first usually is the service mode. The latter 4 can be lots of stuff, but often are coin related (test coin, etc).
Mame only reports if the plain service, and I think controls.dat does the same.
SirPoonga, you're probably aware of this: a couple things have changed recently in mame that haven't been matched in control.dat. New and started to be used mame input ports: positional, positional_v, & pedal3. They'll need to be added to control.dat as part of the version update, I'd guess.
--- End quote ---
Controls.dat doesn't add buttons not accessable by the player, that was intentional from the beginning. Also these service buttons are never labeled anyway. We added them to playchoice games because in pc10 games, the service buttons (at the time anyway) were actually the select slot buttons and thus available to the user. This is also done in a select few more titles.
By "positional" I'm guessing they are used for games with positional guns and similar? Why do they keep monkeying with those? This will be like the 4th time in controls.dat history we have to switch em. :angry:
*edit*
Right now mame seems to be going through a input cleanup. It might be wise to wait on adding these new types until it's over (judging by the wips in the readme, it's at around 75% atm)
Space Fractal:
he-he, glad to see you comeback, after you announced a leaving of this community since February. Its of course you are one on the authors of this project, which began a bit outdated (which I now see got updated not so long).
I also see a lots of pinball games is not in. The major problem they typical used pinball buttons, but should been treated like a "Just Buttons", since they only use buttons.
You are right, new inputs should wait until they are finished to clean these up (specific these positional gun games). I do think they should been noticed, a least in the misc comment, so you are aware about it.
And the service button in PC10 games cant been used, since I see only one game is emulated at same time? but correct me if I wrong.
u_rebelscum:
--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on September 11, 2008, 11:07:08 pm ---WHO DARES AWAKEN THE GREAT AND POWERFUL CASTO FROM HIS SLUMBER? ;)
--- End quote ---
[Hides from dragon] :cheers:
--- Quote ---...Now what I feel is a good compromise is a verified flag, along with a (not quite sure how to word this) "verified to be unverifiable" flag....
"Not verified yet" would also be perfectly acceptable....
I guess what I'm trying to say is the unverified thing as-is is a bit to vague... we need to set some very strict rules about what kind of non-proven data is added or else the preservation and documention aspect of controls.dat is as good as gone.
--- End quote ---
Good ideas. How about:
Labels Verified,
Verified to Have No Labels (so labels are not "official"), and
Not Verified Yet
--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on September 11, 2008, 11:22:59 pm ---By "positional" I'm guessing they are used for games with positional guns and similar?
--- End quote ---
No. AFAIK no guns use this input type.
This type has to have a fixed number of values (or positions, which is where the name comes from I think). It's mostly used as the rotary part of rotary joysticks ATM. Though not all rotary joysticks have been converted....
--- Quote ---Right now mame seems to be going through a input cleanup. It might be wise to wait on adding these new types until it's over (judging by the wips in the readme, it's at around 75% atm)
--- End quote ---
Yup, but it looks like the clean up will end pretty soon at the rate it's going.
SirPoonga:
It seems no one has heard form SirWoogie in awhile. So I think I will talk to saint and get the project moved to hear.
This is going to require some changes so it will take some time to get the website up and going. I did some changes to the forum software so the controls.dat page knew who was logged in and what they were doing.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version