Separate download video/mpg from actual demo?
category: general [glöplog]
This is something that gets me : a demo has a disk/prg image file (adf, d64, prg, tap, et ) in the same download zip as a massive mp4/mpg video file of the demo.
In the cases where the original demo is a small file, could the submit form prompt the submitter for a 2nd small version, a d64, adf, or even just a 2nd zip without the video?
It would then be possible to run that directly in a web emulator for that machine.
I am suggesting just a prompt for it, not making it compulsory.
In the cases where the original demo is a small file, could the submit form prompt the submitter for a 2nd small version, a d64, adf, or even just a 2nd zip without the video?
It would then be possible to run that directly in a web emulator for that machine.
I am suggesting just a prompt for it, not making it compulsory.
I hope you're not expecting the Pouet submit form to download the ZIP, look into the contents, and then somehow heuristically make those decisions.
I do agree with the problem, but once again, the issue is with individual discipline that not only cannot be but SHOULD NOT be pushed on a select few to fix.
I do agree with the problem, but once again, the issue is with individual discipline that not only cannot be but SHOULD NOT be pushed on a select few to fix.
I think an intrinsic problem here is also that authors (rightfully IMHO) would like to submit a capture with their demo when entering their demo into a demoparty compo, but your typical demoparty management systems only allow for a single file to be uploaded - so that's typically a zip with both the demo and the capture. Demoparties then upload those files verbatim to scene.org.
It might be helpful for demoparty management systems to allow for captures to be uploaded separately, this would remove one big reason why people keep doing it.
It might be helpful for demoparty management systems to allow for captures to be uploaded separately, this would remove one big reason why people keep doing it.
Exactly what Saga Musix said.
And it can get even worse. For example, (at certain parties) organizers often forget that some videos were uploaded at their request and not because they were part of the prod release.
The same thing happens when they request additional audio tracks (with separate instruments) for the judging panel of some music competitions to hear, and then forget that those tracks shouldn't be uploaded to scene.org because they aren't part of the release.
Or they even use an upload form that doesn't even include fields like "author" or "title" (because they think the participant's nickname is enough), and in the end, many productions don't even have a name, and no one knows who made them. Oh yeah!
And it can get even worse. For example, (at certain parties) organizers often forget that some videos were uploaded at their request and not because they were part of the prod release.
The same thing happens when they request additional audio tracks (with separate instruments) for the judging panel of some music competitions to hear, and then forget that those tracks shouldn't be uploaded to scene.org because they aren't part of the release.
Or they even use an upload form that doesn't even include fields like "author" or "title" (because they think the participant's nickname is enough), and in the end, many productions don't even have a name, and no one knows who made them. Oh yeah!
As for party/compo systems vs single-file uploads, maybe recommend a standardised folder structure in the archive, something to neatly separate actual release from captures and additional material not intended for publication.
Separating and uploading the release proper could then possibly be reasonably automated.
Separating and uploading the release proper could then possibly be reasonably automated.
Quote:
As for party/compo systems vs single-file uploads, maybe recommend a standardised folder structure in the archive, something to neatly separate actual release from captures and additional material not intended for publication.
Separating and uploading the release proper could then possibly be reasonably automated.
People will not follow these recommendations when submitting their prods. A separate video upload is the only thing that will work, and even then people will mess up.
ah ok, the party/group admins suppy the demos in that form. I can see that pouet have to lust what is given and cannot spend forever picking apart zips. But maybe a prompt or text on submission, and a separate field for video file links?
Its just an idea, for next time someone is updating the site code.
Quite often you get a 16k demo and a 100mb video file in one zip!
Its just an idea, for next time someone is updating the site code.
Quite often you get a 16k demo and a 100mb video file in one zip!
edit .. LIST what is given..