Re: [Psid64-devel] SID file format (was: SIDDB)

[LaLa <la...@c6...>]

Steppe,

> Seconds should really be precise enough, let's not be more precise than 
> necessary, please.

I've heard others complain that the second-precision is not good enough. I tend to agree: especially with repeating tunes 0.9 seconds can make the difference between a smooth and a rough transition in playlists.

> Now for something different: Who actually is to decide about the fileformat? I'm 
> just asking because I got some quite discouraging feedback from the crew, along 
> the lines of "Nah, it worked ever since, why should we change" or "I like it the 
> way it is", constructive stuff like that. So before we start investing too much 
> of our time here I'd like to clear up who has the final say.

Ahh, blessed complacency...

Maybe if the crew was presented with an already agreed-on and polished new SID format, they'd think differently? Maybe if they were presented with a new update.exe and SIDedit supporting all the new fields, plus tools to convert the current HVSC to the new format, they'd think differently? =)

To answer your question, I think the ultimate decision lays in the hands of the HVSC Crew. If we come up with a new file format and the HVSC Crew decides not to adopt it, that's pretty much a death sentence. With no HVSC Crew support developers will also lack the incentive to upgrade their own SID players, HVSC tools, etc. to support a new format that is not used by the HVSC at all.

Believe me, I understand the Crew's complacency towards this. I suffer from the same thing with regards to SIDedit. Lack of time is a major factor for lack of development, but I was also struggling with adding support for songlengths and the like to SIDedit. I also got discouraged by the many bugs I've found in the Perl/Tk implementation during my development...

But I actually got excited by the prospect of a new file format! It was the spark I needed to get me excited about SID files again.

But that's just me, I guess...

--

LaLa