Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Option to disable IPS softpatch warning #285

Open
ValiantBlade opened this issue Jun 1, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Option to disable IPS softpatch warning #285

ValiantBlade opened this issue Jun 1, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@ValiantBlade
Copy link

I know the IPS softpatch warning is there for a reason, but usually for my IPS-patched ROMs I like to keep them in the format of ROM+IPS file. The reason for this is because it makes scanning ROMs with a front-end of some kind a lot easier, since most of those use CRC checksums, and the IPS hardpatch process disrupts that.

BPS can only be hardpatched so any BPS patched ROM also usually doesn't load into a frontend properly, and it just saves me time and headaches to use a ROM+IPS for most things. However I am aware IPS sucks for a lot of reasons, but since I play a lot of older fan-translations of RPGs, most of the time BPS files aren't even made available.

The vast majority of ROMs today are unheadered, and the warning is pretty much superfluous to most users, especially since most people who aren't using pre-patched ROMs are likely already making sure their checksums match the ones listed on ROMHacking.net. So for me, the warning is just a nag dialog telling me what I already know, that prevents me from properly using the CMD to launch a game seamlessly using a frontend of some kind, without hardpatching and jumping through hoops to make a frontend read it properly.

I don't think there should be no warning, just maybe one when a headered ROM and an IPS file to softpatch are detected. Because that is where the majority of IPS patch conflicts arise, and if an IPS patch needs a header for whatever reason, that's likely something the user of the hack likely knows going in.

@jeffythedragonslayer
Copy link

Is there a proposed syntax for this feature?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants