Posted 03 April 2013 - 12:46 AM
Posted 03 April 2013 - 05:56 AM
Best bet is to try the free RM6 Essentials. It will upgrade your database file, hopefully, without using GEDCOM. Either the upgrade may resolve the corruption or the File > Database Tools that were added in RM5 may succeed. That's an irreversible upgrade so you will need to continue to use RM6 on that file.
Failing those, you could submit a help request to Tech Support with a backup of your db file.
I have had some success with sqlite in recovering data from corrupted files so as your last resort...
Posted 03 April 2013 - 07:22 AM
No matter what I do, the program will not let me convert my file to a gedcom. Any suggestions?
You do not convert it to a GEDCOM file, you export to a GEDCOM file.
If you just used a different word for it, sorry I misunderstood.
Posted 02 June 2013 - 01:14 PM
Since the GEDCOM 5.5 specifications have been available as of 1995, one would think that all genealogical software would adhere to the standard. They don't and RM is no exception.
Here's the webpage for it, in case you're curious: http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pmcbride/gedcom/55gctoc.htm
I use several programs which interpret GEDCOM files that I download from the Internet. (No, I do NOT merge them with my RM database.) Each one of these programs reports problems with GEDCOM files generated by RM. My favourite, Behold!, included.
Is anyone currently working on this?
Posted 02 June 2013 - 03:20 PM
RM also exports the gedcom in Unicode. Some other programs may only accept Ansel.
When you export a gedcom for use in another program, uncheck Extra details (RM specific).
All genealogy programs use their own interpretation of gedcom specs or modify them to work with their particular features in their program.
Some, like Bruce may attempt to make corrections depending on the program the gedcom came from on import to RM. Some programs do not.
The gedcom standard is defunct and hasn't been updated for many years. It becomes less useful as programs become more complicated. But, it is all there is for now. Hopefully, the couple of projects trying to come up with a new standard will be successful.