POLL: Do you truncate your cheat?

[kelvSYC]

Do you truncate your cheat? By truncating I mean reducing the number of digits you use in your values, extra values, and addresses by cutting off leading zeroes (Williams and some other drivers aside)?

Which of the following would you rather have or regularly use?

Code: Select all

:gamename:00000000:00001000:00000001:FFFFFFFF:Cheat 1
:gamename:00000000:1000:01:FF:Cheat 2

... or a median between the two?

[ianpatt]

I prefer keeping everything at eight digits, even for byte/short cheats or CPUs with less than 32 bits of address bus.

Why? Not sure. Some assemblers assume everything not specified using the full 32 bits is signed, so 0x80 would equal 0xFFFFFF80. It also keeps everything lined up, even when using cheat types whose address field always defaults to the full 8 digits.

[Bugfinder]

I prefer keeping everything at eight digits.

Me too, the reason is to have them all neat visually speaking

[Pugsy]

I too prefer the full hit so that all the new-type cheats will all line up. Also unless it's a bit cheat the mask should be FFFFFFFF. Manually picking a mask to go with the poke value is not ideal - takes longer and adds nothing to the cheat.

[kelvSYC]

I guess I only do that for the sake of preserving as much of the original intact, just in case more cheats can be found in the same byte (like how the samsho3 Mode/Class/Color cheats were found on the same byte as the actual characters themselves).