Obsolete OOVPA maintenance

[RadWolfie]

Moved from Cxbx-Reloaded/Cxbx-Reloaded#798

Original post by @PatrickvL:

Recently, all OOVPA have been revised.
As a result, we now have OOVPA in our code that are disabled, because these OOVPA where either:

• moved to another version,
• replaced by a better declaration,
• declared entirely wrong,
• describing an unknown symbol,
• duplicate to another declaration,
• too generic,
• or disabled for another reason.

For this issue:

• review all disabled OOVPA
• remove all OOVPA that we can safely do without
• add notes to the ones that need more attention
• create an issue with a remaining task list, gained from the previous step
• report, test and deliver the above results and then close this issue

[JayFoxRox]

Can you be more precise?

• Is it all contained in certain files?
• Do we know where everything is?

As a beginner on this repo, I feel a bit lost, with terms like "OOVPA" (also see lack of #22), but also the assumption that everyone knows where the respective code is (like this PR).

[PatrickvL]

The Cxbx-Reloaded wiki has some articles on OOVPAs : https://github.com/Cxbx-Reloaded/Cxbx-Reloaded/wiki/Maintaining-OOVPAs-for-HLE-function-detection#scanning and https://github.com/Cxbx-Reloaded/Cxbx-Reloaded/wiki/HLE-v2-Database-Method

@RadWolfie and/or @jarupxx (being the two people most recently working on OOVPA maintenance) should best be able to judge the current state of this issue.

[RadWolfie]

The issue remain open since there are some OOVPAs left unused and other disabled. It is being work on.

[RadWolfie]

I notice there's removal of obsolete OOVPAs from Cxbx-Reloaded repo. I recently found out from one of Voxel9's branch with re-add Rtl signatures. These removal should be investigate and determine if worthy to re-add, in need of better signatures, or simply false positive.