And adding a newly arrived UHD disc, as an alternate contact for itCode:LABEL: DIRTY_DANCING OPD: BD_2a409402f1bd Status: [Still unsupported] -----
Ok, excellent.
Got it.
I'm gathering information on alternate contacts on a trial basis right now, to see if it adds any value.
My gut feeling is it will come in handy - but none of the titles I have that info for have required hunting down an update as of yet.
We'll see...
I got 1.0.6 to crash by accidentally leaving the BR disc for Dirty Dancing in my first drive while scanning the UHD for Dirty Dancing that was in the second drive.
This is why I didn't want to change it because i don't want to be dealing with error handling for stupid situations.
Why would someone have a BD and a UHD of the same movie at the same time in 2 optical drives?
I don't think that's an unreasonable situation.
It's very easy to focus on working with the drive at hand and forgetting you have a title mounted in another drive, real or virtual.
I was just discussing this with someone who was looking for, and asked me why the Scanner doesn't have, a way to select the drive you want it to scan.
I explained it's methodology is to scan all drives that have media and analyze them.
As SamuriHL can attest to (or correct me if I'm wrong) in order to do that each scan, it's set up to ignore a disc/.iso that it has already processed, ignore CD's and DVD's and ignore Blu-Rays - in case they happen to be in drives you're not intending to scan for the List.
Well, actually the Blu-Rays weren't "ignored" but they would never get included in clipboard or file because they're always found to be supported and not on the List. (Idk, SamuriHL may actually ignore them now since he checks on media type.)
So, it's good that Michael uncovered a situation where a Blu-Ray in a drive caused a problem.
Great that was caught early!
Problem found. New version incoming. It'll also use MY code for identifying media type instead of relying on what AnyDVD tells me.
Boo ya!
Wow, SamuriHL you are da man!
Just so I'm clear, if someone is using the older versions from 1.0.1.2 to 1.0.1.5, they should be still be ok, right?
'Cause I admit I'm still using 1.0.1.2 (the adjustments in 3-5 didn't apply for me).
T