35 replies to this topic

[adebarritt]

Thanks for the feedback guys. We've been working on a new render based on the feedback you've given us. You'll notice that the new raw image actually looks even more distorted than the original image we did. However taking inspiration from the great street art posting, we think this is the way forwards. When you first load the image up on your cabinet it will probably look strange, but the longer you look at the more and more it looks three dimensional and real, it is quite a strange effect. Anyway please take a look at the new image, plus the photo we took of it on our 50" plasma and see what you think. (Please note we changed the position of the rulecards between the two images, but the main table render is identical in the two images).

 

Can't wait to hear what you all think!

 

Ade.

Attached Files

•  PP_T_Cab_02.jpg   227.92KB   38 downloads
•  IMAG0689.jpg   77.09KB   27 downloads

[Pinball999]

I can not load the image on my pin now, but I love what I see on the second screen!

[randr]

I prefer original image over new one. video of both below

[The Loafer]

Your vid seems to have the apron cut off more than the attached pic, I guess that's just the angle causing that with the lockdown bar blocking part of your screen?

 

IMO from the vid, I do think the newer screen looks better.  Works for me, but if you were to increase the apron size just a tad, it might be a bit better.  But the angle/depth looks great to me.

[randr]

Not cut off by my lock bar that is the way picture looks in above image but on his image on right it is different

[jimmyfingers]

Hey Ade, first off thanks for providing this new render and looking for our feedback.  I’ve loaded the image on 2 different screens as well as the cabinet and stared at it for quite some time.  I have a few comments but my general impression, personally, is that the first one was closer to what I think us cabinet users would like to see or at least somewhere in between what you have now and the first one (we’ll see what others have to say). 

 

This new one, in my opinion, is too stretched / distorted and the walls feeling to angled out at the sides mentioned earlier, hasn’t really seemed to have been adjusted.  I’m also having a lot of trouble visually with the assertion that the two images are of the same exact render / render settings as the heads in the full rendered picture (vs. your TV view) just seem much larger and elongated in proportion to the rest of the table / screen in the render where as the TV view the heads are quite different.  I know that might seem or be partially because that portion of the real TV screen is actually further away in the distance (in real life / space) but the proportions still don’t match as far as it looks to me and seeing the rule cards as well plus an extra bit of apron at the bottom on the TV view that doesn’t exist on the render just makes me sceptical of the exact apples to apples thing, sorry. 

 

The other “first” impression I had while viewing on the cab was that the flippers just felt a bit too small with again seemingly being out of proportion somewhat from the table but mainly when compared to the heads at the back in their overall size (height?).  Also, it seems like we’ve traded some compressed PF in the first render because of the apron space used for now some compressed PF in the 2nd by having the back of the table / table in general appear overly deep and really barely gained any PF real estate.

 

Here’s a way to maybe illustrate that the PF is still essentially just as compressed – measuring from the lowest point of the flippers to the back of the PF (visible best above the top right roll-overs):

 

 Mark-up for Pro Pinball Cabinet Render Comments.png   1.11MB   30 downloads

 

We’ve only gained on the PF size the amount shown in by the blue bar. I know perspective aspects would be relevant but assuming we’re trying to keep the general over view and help fill the cab 16:9 screens, it doesn’t seem much better than before.

 

I appreciate that it looks like you took some of my maybe my advice / requests to have the view lean back a bit more and show a bit more of the sides of the flippers from the player’s view (looks like you have done so or at least was a result of the rest of the changes between the 1st and 2nd render).  However, now that the apron is almost gone the original angle and shape and overhead view of the flippers would be more suitable as it’s close to the player.  Maybe also the attempt to set the view back a bit more has also elongated everything including the heads.

 

I think something closer to the first one but simply with the apron cut down and filled in by stretching the rest of the table would be better.  Here’s a mock-up I did of the first / original view with just the apron cut and table stretch into the free space (with comparison to the original – blue bar again showing the amount gained in the PF – NOTE: look how the back left flasher looks seemingly more natural and nicer in this new stretch out test on the left):

 

 Mark-up for Pro Pinball Cabinet Render Comments - 2.png   1.11MB   28 downloads

 

Lastly and back to the sides / back being angled out a bit too much seems like if maybe a type of Z-axis keystone could be applied, it would be better.  Stretching out the base of the walls / Z-axis more than the top.  I’ll try to illustrate again with a simple graphic:

 

 Mark-up for Pro Pinball Cabinet Render Comments - 3.png   946.54KB   29 downloads

 

I admit that this approach for the 3D illusion and using the sidewalk art as an example could yield some very cool results.  Also, that 2nd picture you posted (al beit seemingly different at least in some regards than the render) and the video posted by randr demonstrate some interesting aspects of the potential for the approach.  However, I believe that smaller screens may start to have problems with this approach as it might start to be too tied in with the exact size or even placement of the screens in people’s cabs.  Also, for the people that have chosen to mount there screen with some angle downward, the illusion could be outright off.  I personally believe in the parallel-with-glass / just- below-the-glass approach, but know there’s plenty of cab virtual pinball cab owner’s out there with a non-flush / angled view and trying to simulate 3D too much could lock in to an ideal - even effectively mandatory - set-up / size / angle that leaves other cab views / configurations with a poorer experience.  Seems like the type of thing that if you’re right in the zone, could / would be awesome, but if you’re just slightly out of it, could very much look off (also, there are people watching other’s playing on a cab, from the side, to consider and this overly single person view could leave them out a bit).

 

It seems you are fired up on the 3D effect of the sidewalk art and want to go with that moving forward from you comments, which is understandable seeing some of the potential.  However, I think it’s important to keep in mind that, although that effect might certainly have merit and be able to yield something really cool, the cab customers / supporters are likely to be more satisfied by a view that is at least somewhat reminiscent of what they’ve been used to and enjoyed playing on their virtual pin-cabs to date.  That is, too much change or an attempt at something more in the name of artistic illusion might dissatisfy some of the main people / customers, that the actual cabinet view is intended for – the current virtual pinball cabinet owners and future Pro Pinball software owners

 

All due respect of course Ade and kudos for thinking in new ways for how best to render the cabinet view for Timeshock!  I hope I’ve worded myself appropriately and provided some useful information / images or at least some food for thought.

Edited by jimmyfingers, 14 September 2013 - 06:29 AM.

[LoadedWeapon]

I added a little to the apron and my screen is even with the top..

Even with my crappy camera on my phone this looks awesome!

 P1020084.JPG   120.24KB   35 downloads

Edited by LoadedWeapon, 14 September 2013 - 05:47 AM.

[cottonm4]

Ade, yes, thanks for reading our feedback and acting on it. 

 

 

LoadedWeapon, I think you are going the right direction. How many pixels are there in your apron addition? 

 

 

Ade., Here is what I am seeing. First, the rendering on your 50" Plasma looks fantastic. However, when I put the same rendering on my display, I don't get that same view that you have. I have my 28" mini-cab set to 1920 x 1080 but I don't get that view.  With the latest rendering, the Time Machine seems way too tall. I don't understand this variance, at all. 

 

( I am not having much luck getting decent desktop pics with my camera, bit I will work on that tommorrow to better illustrate what I see).

 

What I see is the stretch jimmiefingers speaks of.  The apron is gone but the table is stretched and we don't get any more table real estate.

 

Here are some screenshots to try and show what I see. These pics are of full size print screens for my PC cab and transferred over to my Mac to prepared them for posting. They are similar what jimmiefingers is talking about ( I think).

 

In this first pic, the render on the left is of the 1st render,

This render is untouched at 1080 x 1920 pixels.

 

 

The render in the middle is a modified 1st render with some of the apron cut away. 

This render is modded to 1139 x 1920 pixels. There is nothing special about the 1139 count. That is just how in worked out. 

 

The render on the right is of the newest. 

It is also untouched at 1080 x 1920 pixels.

 

The amount of stretch is quite noticeable with the faces and the Time Machine in the latest render. 

As I said, if I could get the view that you have on your 50 " monitor, I would be all over that. However, as stated, on my cab, the Time Machine looks way too tall and the faces looked to be stretched. 

 

You will also notice that the middle render with my cutoff apron is a bit shorter than your two renders on either side, the difference between 1080 and 1139 pixels. I don't know how a pic with more pixels (1139) appears shorter that with with 1080 pixels, but that seems to be what happened by cutting off the apron. People with more graphics experience may be able to educate me on this.

 

The 2nd pic is just another pic of the first pic, but scaled up to see things better.

 

The last pic is the same as the first two, except the Mac "even sized" them.  In each pic, you can the difference in the stretch of the Time Machines. Keep in mind, when each pic is viewed on my cab they flatten out a little bit.

 

I favor my modded view in the center with the 1139 pixel count with the medium cutoff apron.  What would make this view, on my cab,  perfect for me is if the Time Machine was just a little taller with nothing else changed. 

 

I still have the same thoughts I offered in my earlier post:  The ball lock catcher appears  to lean backwards when I am at flipper-ready position and it feels like I am seeing too much of the tops of the heads. If that ball catcher could be made to lean forward and the faces tilted back a bit, I think it would go a long to reduce some of the helicopter view I mentioned in my earlier post. 

 

That said, these three details are minor. Very minor. And I do not see the need to waste time and resources to mod a rendering that I am guessing you have many hours invested in working up. 

*******************************

Now, jimmiefingers said a couple of things about the flippers. I agree with him on one point, and while I see where he is coming from, if I read him correctly he is suggesting a change I don't think I would care for (jimmefingers: I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so  if I am speaking out of turn, please tell me). 

 

His first point is the easy one: Now that he mentioned it, the flippers do look to be rather small. Do these scale up to a 3" flipper? 

 

His second point:  I have a real pinball machine here.  I'm not a tall person at 5'6". When I stand in front of my pinball and look at the flippers, I see a lot of the rubber on the backside of the flippers. And I suppose to get some of the layback view you would need to consider adding more rubber to the flipper backside. But, for me, in the Visual Pinball games I play, this added rubber to the flipper backside does not look right. It make the flippers look bloated. Now, maybe Barnstorm could add rubber to the flipper backside and make it work. Before I ramble on, I'll just say, "I don't know".

 

But continuing along with the flipper view, as I stand at my machine, I also see the rubbers on the back side of the sling shots and the hardware under the outline guides.  And as I just now think about this rubber business, it makes me realize that not seeing the rubber contributes to the top-down view of which we speak.  

 

Wait. Wait. Wait. I just took another look at my cab with my apron modded render. I see it now.  

 

It is the slingshots.  

 

1a) The lower inboard slingshot posts for the slingshot plastic angle out just a bit too far and and angle backwards a little too far.  Not much, but the angle is off. 

 

2a) While the lower outboard slingshot plastic posts are not visible at all. This give the appearance of the outboard slingshot plastic floating in thin air. 

 

1b)You need to add some lower outboard slingshot posts

 

2b) And tweak the lower inboard post to angle in and up more.

 

3b) And add some slingshot rubber. 

 

OK. I think I am done. I'll continue to study the renderings, full well knowing that the more I look at them, the more I could find to nitpick about. 

 

In closing, I think if you could get an apron like what Loadweapon put up (I think similar to what I have, as well)  and add some outboard slingshot posts with some slingshot rubber and jimmiefingers backside flipper suggestion (someway somehow) . I think with just four things you will go along way to having it nailed. 

 

Ade. At this time (2:40 am) US Central Time, I see your KS program only needs £1335 to make the XBox level. You are averaging £100 per hour and there is are 12 hours to go. You have been averaging £100 per hour for the last 14 hours. I think your Xbox objective is going to happen. 

 

Thanks again for reading our feedback. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attached Files

•  3 comparison small 1.jpg   188.79KB   11 downloads
•  3 comparison small 2.jpg   146.95KB   10 downloads
•  3 shot even sized.jpg   136.93KB   9 downloads

[adebarritt]

I prefer original image over new one. video of both below

Thanks for the video, it's really good to see. Can you put your finger on what it is you prefer about the original one? In your video it looks squashed to me compared to the second. 

 

Your vid seems to have the apron cut off more than the attached pic, I guess that's just the angle causing that with the lockdown bar blocking part of your screen?

 

IMO from the vid, I do think the newer screen looks better.  Works for me, but if you were to increase the apron size just a tad, it might be a bit better.  But the angle/depth looks great to me.

Yes, we tweaked the rule card position after taking the photo of the screen as we thought it would be odd to have just part of the rule cards showing on a cab. Glad you like the angle and depth.

I added a little to the apron and my screen is even with the top..

Even with my crappy camera on my phone this looks awesome!

P1020084.JPG

That looks cool to me. :-) What aspect screen do you have by the way? I'm trying to understand why you needed to add some apron. Thanks.

Edited by adebarritt, 14 September 2013 - 08:51 AM.

[adebarritt]

Lots of detailed things. ;-)

Thanks for all the feedback! :-) I'll try to give my feedback on a lot of it now, but to give a more detailed response and explain our thinking fully, it would be useful for me to put some other images together when the team's back in the office next week. 

 

Sorry if you've told me before, but I'm curious to know which size displays you've used? I think the display size and also the ambient lighting in the room can have a big impact. From our tests if you can see other things in the room the illusion suffers, but if the lights are down so all you can see is the virtual table the things that look stretched eventually stop looking stretched. I found pretending to follow an imaginary ball around the table really made the illusion come alive.

 

The reason the flippers might feel too small could be because Timeshock! is a widebody table. Would that help explain it?

 

I can certainly understand that the approach we are taking could be too radical for some, it is certainly very different from what's been done before. Also, on smaller screens I can appreciate that the illusion might not work so well. I am convinced that the direction we are heading in is a good one (at least for some screen sizes), but I also appreciate that people have different preferences, which is why the original version of Timeshock! offered four different viewing angles.

 

We'll keep gathering feedback and experimenting, but it's looking likely that offering two cabinet views might be the best way forwards. One view along the lines of the one I most recently posted and another closer to what the community is used to which would also be better suited to smaller displays.

 

Thanks again for the detailed feedback, I should have more to share some time next week.

[adebarritt]

Lots of detailed things too. ;-)

Many thanks for the additional feedback. I think I've covered a lot with my previous post but I'll try to give some addition thoughts.

 

iOur camera position is higher than 5'6", as 5'10" is the average male height in Europe and the US. That hopefully explains why you're not seeing as much of the back of things as you do on a real table.

 

Thanks for the feedback on the slingshots, we'll look into it. Though please note the slingshots are bigger than those found on most tables due to the fact that Timeshock! is a widebody design.

 

It would be great to see some photos of what you're seeing if possible. But next week we'll also try out our latest view on a 28" display. From what you're saying I think it's likely that we will see some stretching and distortion and that a less extreme cabinet view will need to be an option in addition the one we most recently rendered.

 

Thank for the feedback and the words of encouragement for the Xbox version. I think you could be right, we might just make it. :-)

[randr]

My setup is 47" screen. Cabinet is exactly the size of Williams wide body "play field" is 16x9 @ 1920x1080 res. 1/2" from glass at front and 2 1/2" from glass at back LG model 47LN5750

I will say they both are "ok" but i prefer 1st image if i had to choose between the two. I'm just trying to help by posting your images in a cabinet, i am a backer at a very high level so just helping in any way i can.

[adebarritt]

Sounds like a nice set-up! :-) Williams wide body is what we'd like to have too, so it's particularly helpful seeing it on your cab. If you can elaborate on why you prefer the 1st image please do.

Edited by adebarritt, 14 September 2013 - 02:20 PM.

[LoadedWeapon]

I have a williams standard body with a 40" LED screen.. 1920x1080.  This is the picture that I used in my cab I only added 100 pixels to the height of your last one so its 1700x900. Here is the image below. Now that I look at the pictures of the cab the flippers do look small..Thanks for taking our feedback.

 1.png   1.13MB   25 downloads  P1020086.JPG   141.86KB   19 downloads

 

Edited by LoadedWeapon, 14 September 2013 - 06:23 PM.

[randr]

Sounds like a nice set-up! :-) Williams wide body is what we'd like to have too, so it's particularly helpful seeing it on your cab. If you can elaborate on why you prefer the 1st image please do.

Second image seems stretched to much to simulate depth, apron cut off to small. To be honest i'd be happy with either but prefer first. i'm sure you have looked at future pinball? with BAM? i can provide some pictures of future pinball and bam as a few of those games have great depth and still maintain a good point of view. 

[jimmyfingers]

Thanks for all the feedback! :-) I'll try to give my feedback on a lot of it now, but to give a more detailed response and explain our thinking fully, it would be useful for me to put some other images together when the team's back in the office next week. 

 

 

Sorry if you've told me before, but I'm curious to know which size displays you've used? I think the display size and also the ambient lighting in the room can have a big impact. From our tests if you can see other things in the room the illusion suffers, but if the lights are down so all you can see is the virtual table the things that look stretched eventually stop looking stretched. I found pretending to follow an imaginary ball around the table really made the illusion come alive.

 

The reason the flippers might feel too small could be because Timeshock! is a widebody table. Would that help explain it?

 

I can certainly understand that the approach we are taking could be too radical for some, it is certainly very different from what's been done before. Also, on smaller screens I can appreciate that the illusion might not work so well. I am convinced that the direction we are heading in is a good one (at least for some screen sizes), but I also appreciate that people have different preferences, which is why the original version of Timeshock! offered four different viewing angles.

 

We'll keep gathering feedback and experimenting, but it's looking likely that offering two cabinet views might be the best way forwards. One view along the lines of the one I most recently posted and another closer to what the community is used to which would also be better suited to smaller displays.

 

Thanks again for the detailed feedback, I should have more to share some time next week.

 

Hey Ade, indeed my screen size is of the smaller type as I have a mini-cab (23") and also tested it on my old mini-cab screen which is still only a 24".  I also, tested it on my projector which has about an 80" image but considering the aspects of the wall view and not really being able to get in a position from a pinball playing stance, ambient lighting issues from the projector image, etc, it was more just to see if somehow the distance to the heads projected image would seem better still standing at the left (it didn't feel that way).  Sounds like we're both of the same camp now that indeed a smaller screen size will likely not yield the desired result for the illusion that is attempted with the 2nd rendered image - makes sense really as there's only a couple feet of distance to the back of the table and larger objects back there in the 2nd render, whereas on a 42" or 47" there's almost 4 feet.  I did test in a dark room as I'm a lighting fanatic and with my light / GI8 MODs my goal is to have lighting be a big part, which means in a darkened / lower level lit room for full enjoyment. 

 

I would say that the sweet spot / possibly necessary screen sizing for the method used in your 2nd render would be probably in the 42"-47" display / TV size.  I am very relieved to here you say that you will likely be doing a 2nd cabinet view and that "two cabinet views might be the best way forwards".  I think this is hugely important as between screens outside of the "right" size range, angle mounted cabinet screens, and other FS / cabinet styles, there is / was going to be a decent enough segment of the target "cab" audience more likely to be disappointed - especially now that you've shown us some other / earlier view ideas   I'll be honest, when I saw the second image, my excitement for this project and my (reasonably large) backing / anticipation for the final released dropped a decent amount.  So, I'm glad you're taking the time to hear us out and very happy to read and fully agree that the investment in a 2nd cabinet view is likely and feel it would be key for the final product being well received.

 

The flippers I guess definitely will look small(er) considering this is based on widebody dimensions - that's actually a fact that is good for everyone to be reminded of when we're all talking about the proporitons of the screen and the "squashed" playfield - should fit a 16:9 screen nicer in the end though!  But, regarding the smaller appearance of the flippers, they actually looked reasonably better to me (at least in proportion) in the first render and didn't catch my eye in a displeasing way as they did from the second render.

 

A quick story going back to the 3D illusion and screen size, we have relatively recently seen the addition of software based stereo 3D rendering with Visual Pinball - this yielded for me one very interesting finding.  I had my mini-cab up for a couple years before / without using this feature and with it using an X-Arcade Tankstick the width of where one still pressed the flipper buttons seemed to help the "illusion" / feel of playing a full size table.  It seemed that - and my friends agreed - the small size of the screen wasn't noticed nearly as much as one might think once playing and we could fathom how the flipper buttons distance helped at least partly in this regard.  However, when I swapped out the monitor with a new 3D capable one and enabled the 3D VP options for the first time on a suitable table, the extra depth surprisingly drew attention now to how small the flippers were.  I was quite intriqued by the fact that once being able to render, somewhat decently, the table in a stereoscopic 3D, my small screen size now started to matter and stood out (out of place).  It was actually a topic amongst my friends, a couple of which are pinball enthusiasts, who were impressed with the simulation on my mini-cab / initial non-3D monitor.  Switching back to a non-steroscopic 3D but perspective aware view (layback, FOV, incline, etc.) became much easier again to be lost in the game and not notice the small monitor / virutal playfield. 

 

I don't find it a coincidence that, when depth perception of the render approach is becoming close to a "true" 3D illusion, that this feeling with smaller size monitors is now actually once again underscoring their considerable descrepancy with actual pinball table playfield size / dimensions.

Edited by jimmyfingers, 14 September 2013 - 06:01 PM.

[TedB]

I have made 2 pictures from my mini cab. One standing  (left) and one sitting view (right). Sorry for the bad quality. 

I hope at least the difference is noticeable between the two views. Flippers in the sitting view are cut off, but the view seems very nice. Standing view does seem to be a bit stretched. 

Usually I sit playing pinball, so my view angle is pretty low and then the latest render seems to be very good. Only the apron is then cut of too small.

 

 standing-sitting.jpg   96.85KB   22 downloads

 

I do agree that the flippers seem a bit small. 

Edited by TedB, 14 September 2013 - 08:51 PM.

[Arcade4]

Original image is Sooooo much better.

I do not care for the stretched look at all. 

[cottonm4]

Ade.

 

I have to spend some quality time with the girlfriend. It will be Monday when I can offer up more details.  

 

Congratulations on your KS campaign.  

[cottonm4]

Well, back on a Monday and ............

 

Ade, if you had not told us this was a widebody view, I would never have noticed. I don't see the wide body. I see the smaller flippers.  It is not a very big deal. If increasing the size of the flippers fouls up the coding of your table, perhaps an optical illusion of making the outlane plastics a little more narrow could be a possibility. 

 

1) If the choice is for either the 1st render or the 2nd, I will go with the 1st.  However, I find myself favoring LoadedWeapon's view. My cutoff view that I posted created the problem of the view not covering all of my play field. My view leaves a 5/8" black bar across both the bottom and the top of my monitor in 16:9 view. My view costs me 1 1/4" of lengthwise screen space. 

 

 

Try as I might, I can not get you any good pics of my monitor in action. The camera views distort the pics and the stretch we speak is something I cannot reproduce for viewing. I believe you mentioned procuring a 27' or 28" monitor to see for yourself. I strongly support that you invest a few pounds to get a firsthand look.  You may need to consider a couple of different cab views.

 

2) The apron size:  

 

a)My first pic of of the apron on my Bally Playboy. The distance between the (reverse?) apex of the apron and the forward edge of the lockdown bar is 2.75 inches. 

 

b) 2nd pic is a comparable side view of the 1st render to the lock bar. In this view, your apron measures 2 inches. At the same time, the aft of my monitor measures 2.5 inches from the forward edge of lock bar. This places the apex of your apron 4.5 inches forward of the lock bar. And this distance will vary depending on how a cab builder constructed his cab and whether they used a Pinball Wizard controller, or not. I believe the Virtua Pin cabs that Noah sells have a greater distance between the aft of the monitor and the forward edge of the lock bar. 

 

c) 3rd pic is of of your 2nd render. Here the distance measure 2.5 inches from monitor to forward edge of lock bar. This the same dimension as my Bally, it leaves the view looking stretched. 

 

d) 4th pic is of my cutoff view. It measures 4.0 inches from apex of apron to forward edge of lock bar. Caution: Reference the red line as I did not get the bubble placed correctly. You will also see here the screen space my view has caused me to lose. 

 

Lastly, here are some pics of the slingshot  and rubber views I mentioned. 

 

e) 5'6" player viewing slings. 

 

f) 6 foot player viewing slings ( me standing on a 6 inch box).

 

g) 6 foot player. Rubber removed to show relationship.

 

 

Stats;

 

 

My monitor is a 28" Hansspree. I have it mounted at a 6 degree slope and parallel with the glass. It lays one inch below the glass.

 

At my Bally Playboy, my eyes are 21 inches above the lock bar. When standing on the box, my eyes are 28 inches above--equal to a 6'1" player standing at flipper-ready.

 

At my mini-cab, my eyes are 27 inches above the lock bar--equal to a 6 foot player. 

 

As jimmiefingers has alluded to, it looks like the view is going to be dependent on the size of the monitor.  

 

In closing, in this thread as well as another thread, it seems more favor your first render, with a few of us wanting a shorter apron sort of like LoadedWeapon's. Not many like your 2nd rendition--it appears too stretched. 

 

Consider two views.  Look at the flippers. Look at the slingshots. And watch out for the stretch. 

 

I can't say any more without turing this into a confusing morass.  

 

Thanks for listening. 

 

Godspeed as you work to get your website setup and proceed to work on your/our new Pro Pinball. 

 

Regards.  

 

 

 

Attached Files

•  D 1st render cut lock.jpg   175.57KB   13 downloads
•  C 2nd render lock..jpg   138.02KB   13 downloads
•  B 1st render lock.jpg   135.09KB   9 downloads
•  A Bally apron.jpg   273.12KB   11 downloads
•  E 5'6%22 SS.jpg   216.67KB   9 downloads
•  F 6' SS w:rubber.jpg   226.21KB   8 downloads
•  G 6' SS rubber missing.jpg   221.15KB   9 downloads