No, I'm not thinking of Starfox.

I'm almost 99.9999999% positive that the initial release of SMRPG had something different about the SA-1 chip and later releases (the more common release) had revised boards/SA-1 chips, which cause incompatibility with the clone systems. The SA-1 doesn't store any code for SMRPG.

Perhaps the v1.0 board against the v1.1. I've read that argument, but I have a 1.0 and it flakes and I bought the game the day it came out back then.

I read somewhere that SMRPG doesn't work right on a SupaBoy

It won't boot, I covered it earlier in the thread. You have to trick the system by swapping cartridges.

I'm willing to bet version 1.0 will work just fine.

The way all these threads turn into:

http://www.break.com/pictures/best-of-5113-how-many-of-you-h...

It's the CIC that's different between SMRPG v1.0 and 1.1...

Bigger link: http://i191.photobucket.com/album...




Top one is my Super Mario RPG PCB. SA 1 chip has a different number on it, so it's a different revision. Whether or not it's a different lockout method inside of the SA 1, it's still a different revision of the chip, which was my point. Also note the different board revisions as well: 1L5B vs 1L3B. Mine works in all clone consoles that I've played (Retro Duo, Retron 3, and FC Twin). 1L3B is the one that has issues.

The bottom row of numbers is just a date/manufacturing code, not a revision number. The board code (1L3B vs 1L5B) is just how much SRAM it can have. Wasn't able to see any other differences on a quick look:

http://www.snescentral.com/pcbboa...
http://www.snescentral.com/pcbboa...

Then what do you suppose would be the cause of 1L5B being playable in clones vs 1L3B? I can't imagine that the RAM would have anything to do with it.

ETA: Not trying to say that what you said isn't correct (I didn't know about the date thing), but I've seen a lot of posts saying there was a revision to the SA1 chip. I guess if there was, it doesn't mean Nintendo had to change any numbers.