Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 3
    So if the alleged cheat had just bothered to mount his CRT sideways, he might have gotten away with it? Commented Nov 5, 2018 at 18:15
  • 10
    Even with a sideways CRT there are still some differences in how MAME works compared to real hardware. In real hardware, the electron beam reads memory as it goes, so changes made to the display memory might appear immediately or delayed by a frame, depending on where the electron beam happened to be when the change was made. In MAME, a 'snapshot' of the display memory is made at a particular instant, and the electron beam draws from the snapshot. This leads to screen updates appearing in much larger 'chunks'. Commented Nov 5, 2018 at 22:59
  • 7
    @Tommy Using MAME itself isn't exactly equivalent to cheating persay, but it's certainly suspicious for someone attempting a WR, especially if they claim it acts like the original, and should be inspected. IIRC the only reason it was even called cheating, is that the rules of the record, was that it be performed on original hardware. MAME prides itself on accuracy, so unless intentionally modified, any differences should be fixed where possible. Commented Nov 5, 2018 at 23:16
  • 9
    There were two cheating issues. First he said that it was real hardware, either by mistake or deliberate, which invalidates the score and casts doubt on all his other ones. Second with MAME it is possible to use save states to cheat and then play back a fake run for the video, so even if MAME were verifiably identical to the real hardware no MAME run that wasn't witnessed live could be trusted. Commented Nov 7, 2018 at 9:45