47 replies to this topic

[blur]

tnx rob for promoting my core.vbs

here in my sig you can find link to my core.vbs also

i was also planing to add possibility to have:
1. preferred angle for left right and front nudge (just like front nudge is translated to go down instead of up - left and right can be changed also - so whatever angle i get i check in what range it is and put my direction - this is usefull cause some tables have only +5 and -5 angles for left and right nudge, while most prefer +90 and -90.
2. preferred strength - whatever strength is asked - i use my own strength
3. for both things angle and strength - there should be override option so that you can still change direction from table but using some new variable - meaning editing table by hand, all defaults will work without editing

i'll check what you got in your tuned version and make sure all that is in next release

Edited by blur, 05 July 2012 - 07:14 AM.

[rob046]

I can pretty much say it does not give you any thing like the VP8 nudging, the only way to get that is to reintroduce the original nudge code from the VP8 source into the VP9 source or modify the VP9 nudge code by possibly adding a third vector to address the ball vs table movement, thus for cabinets where the ball needs to move for visual reasons, that can be refined and for desktops it can be adjusted so the ball doesn't move at all in the first instance.

It's a sterling effort to try and correct the VP9 nudge, though the ball should not move at all by any perceivable amount when nudged if it does not come in contact with any table objects, let alone change it's direction, which does occur now, just moving or VP9 nudging the ball back again a few microseconds later is not anything like the VP8 nudge.

Like I said, its the best option I know of without having to edit every table individually, & its the closest to VP8 nudging that I know of. I'm not sure what you are talking about here though. It sounds like you are saying that in VP8 the ball doesn't move at all when not touching objects, but it absolutely does for me. VP8 has counter force just like this vbs does, & the direction doesn't change on this core.vbs either when not in contact with an object, or if it does it is extremely minimal as I have 100% counter force on side nudging. So I'm not sure how you can say it is nothing like VP8 nudging. I suppose the forward nudging might be a little off but even there it seems fine to me since I use low strengths. If nudged ball movement seems more exaggerated to you, maybe try lowering the nudge strength in the tables themselves, like an even 1.

Even in real life the ball moves on the PF when nudging then snaps back unless it hits an object (since the table moves under the ball), so I actually think it is pretty accurate to have the counter force that simulates this as well.
I would like more thoughts on this vbs though. 16 people so far grabbed the attachment. Would be nice to hear from a few more.

The table moves under the ball, the ball having a mass, vector and velocity, counters any friction and is not effected to any perceivable degree on a almost frictionless surface, this is basic physics 101..

Also you have real pinball machines and I have played at least as many games as you have on real pinball machines, they do not defy the laws of physics as the VP9 nudge does.

The best option is to fix it in the source code.

Although as I have already stated this fix is as best can be done with the entirely flawed VP9 nudge as it is.

I agree with all that. With my comments I might of misunderstood what you were saying before.
I absolutely agree that something needs done to the source code & I'm not sure why it hasn't been done yet, we are up to 9.12. This, blur's vbs code, or something similar, should at least get thrown into the official VBS files. Yes it is just a band aid, but way better than default nudging, even with the noah/jp nudge systems. I know this has been talked about & there were some semantics as to why it hasn't or won't be done. But one of those things should be done ASAP, I think. So many aspects of VP physics are getting fine tuned, yet of all things it is nudging often keeping games from being as realistic as they could be.

[blur]

The table moves under the ball, the ball having a mass, vector and velocity, counters any friction and is not effected to any perceivable degree on a almost frictionless surface, this is basic physics 101..

I'm not sure i understand this. I don't agree that the ball can't be moved in the center of the field. Actually i think ball should behave same in center and around center. Physics are the same in the center of the field and in corners. Physics forces don't know if you are in the middle of the field or not.

First part is correct - table moves, second part is also correct - ball "doesn't move" because of it's mass and low friction with the playfield. But conclusion is wrong.
Let's say So you have ball moving in one direction and then you move table under it back and forth - because of low friction ball will continue to move the same way, only table will slide under it back and forth.
If you are looking at your table from the front of the table you see table moved, ball just continued on it's path.

BUT - if you are looking from coordinate system of the table - the ball that moved freely in that system had a twitch on it's path, it was not moving on straight line - it went off from that line and then got back again (nudge force and nudge counter force). - That's what my core.vbs does (if you configure counter force around 1) and that's what physics does in real life.

It is not true that the ball does not twitch if it is in the middle of the table - it will twitch if you are looking at it from coordinate system that moves with the table - and when you play on pc your coordinate system really is attached to the table. There was a time in vp history - during vp8 - when ball would stay on it's path and table would move under. You could say that coordinate system was attached to the earth then. Lot's of people mourn for this time - to me both ways are ok - you can have coordinate system attached to table or to the earth, doesn't matter if you can fine tune them, and if you understand that it is just a difference in standing point of observer, not real difference.

Edited by blur, 05 July 2012 - 09:34 AM.

[StevOz]

BUT - if you are looking from coordinate system of the table - the ball that moved freely in that system had a twitch on it's path, it was not moving on straight line - it went off from that line and then got back again (nudge force and nudge counter force).

That's what my core.vbs does (if you configure counter force around 1) and that's what physics does in real life.

It is not true that the ball does not twitch if it is in the middle of the table - it will twitch if you are looking at it from coordinate system that moves with the table - and when you play on pc your coordinate system really is attached to the table.

There was a time in vp history - during vp8 - when ball would stay on it's path and table would move under, you could say that coo system was attached to the earth then. Lot's of people mourn for this time - to me both ways are ok - you can have coordinate system attached to table or to the earth, doesn't matter if you can fine tune them, and if you understand that it is just a difference in point of view, not real difference

That twitch is just that, nothing that effects the balls vector or velocity, exactly that, though by applying a equable nudge back a few milliseconds or so later, this negates the whole nudge even when it does come into contact with a play field object rendering the exercise purposeless and in no way reflecting real world physics. Applying a slightly lesser nudge back just exacerbates the current flaws in the VP9 nudge.

Edited by StevOz, 05 July 2012 - 09:48 AM.

[JAM0]

If you have a table, topped with a tablecloth and glasses on it, and you rapidly jerk the tablecloth, the glasses will move very little. If you pull the tablecloth more slowly, the glasses will move a lot. That is why if you hit a machine to the right (from the left), a ball (which is not touching anything) will slightly move to the left (overall). It is less affected by the initial jolt to the right than it is by the slower recoiling of the table to the left. Do you guys agree with this?

[StevOz]

No your synopsis is completely flawed, pinballs do not have tablecloth nor is their surface in any way shape of form similar.

Edited by StevOz, 05 July 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[JAM0]

No your synopsis is completely flawed, pinballs do not have tablecloth.

The tablecloth represents the playfield in my analogy. The glasses represent the ball

[StevOz]

No your synopsis is completely flawed, pinballs do not have tablecloth.

The tablecloth represents the playfield in my analogy. The glasses represent the ball

A clean playfield should be almost like glass and nothing like tablecloth...

[JAM0]

No your synopsis is completely flawed, pinballs do not have tablecloth.

The tablecloth represents the playfield in my analogy. The glasses represent the ball

A clean playfield should be almost like glass and nothing like tablecloth...

Agree totally that the less ball/playfield friction there is, the less change there would be in the ball's vector. I used the word "slight" when referring to vector change.

[StevOz]

No your synopsis is completely flawed, pinballs do not have tablecloth.

The tablecloth represents the playfield in my analogy. The glasses represent the ball

A clean playfield should be almost like glass and nothing like tablecloth...

Agree totally that the less ball/playfield friction there is, the less change there would be in the ball's vector. I used the word "slight" when referring to vector change.

I'd use the term not perceivable myself, in that microsecond and not worthy of attempting to emulate for accuracy over realism.

[blur]

That twitch is just that, nothing that effects the balls vector or velocity, exactly that, though by applying a equable nudge back a few milliseconds or so later, this negates the whole nudge even when it does come into contact with a play field object rendering the exercise purposeless and in no way reflecting real world physics. Applying a slightly lesser nudge back just exacerbates the current flaws in the VP9 nudge.

True, twitch of the ball to the side and back (if counter force is exactly 1) doesn't change anything but you see that you did something and that ball moved.
However if somebody configures zero counter force it will be big difference cause twitch will be just in one direction, and ball will not get back to previous path.

Edited by blur, 05 July 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[StevOz]

That twitch is just that, nothing that effects the balls vector or velocity, exactly that, though by applying a equable nudge back a few milliseconds or so later, this negates the whole nudge even when it does come into contact with a play field object rendering the exercise purposeless and in no way reflecting real world physics. Applying a slightly lesser nudge back just exacerbates the current flaws in the VP9 nudge.

True, twitch of the ball to the side and back (if counter force is exactly 1) doesn't change anything but you see that you did something and that ball moved.
However if somebody configures zero counter force it will be big difference cause twitch will be just in one direction, and ball will not get back to previous path.

You illustrate the case exactly the ball should never deviate from it's original path by any appreciable or perceivable amount in the first instance when it does not come in contact with a play field object, if anyone sets this modified nudge to zero then it will behave as VP9 nudge flawed physics dictate, defying the laws of physics as the hard coded VP9 nudge does it will also do the same again at a setting of 1 negating almost any effect at all, also any setting in between will be and is equally incorrect.

[JAM0]

That twitch is just that, nothing that effects the balls vector or velocity, exactly that, though by applying a equable nudge back a few milliseconds or so later, this negates the whole nudge even when it does come into contact with a play field object rendering the exercise purposeless and in no way reflecting real world physics. Applying a slightly lesser nudge back just exacerbates the current flaws in the VP9 nudge.

However it would allow for "slap-save" emulation if the twitch would momentarily bring the flipper closer to the ball (as the ball was passing by the flipper). If you hit the nudge button and flipper buttons simultaneously or almost simultaneously you could save an otherwise doomed ball via a "slap-save" as happens on real tables.

[StevOz]

That twitch is just that, nothing that effects the balls vector or velocity, exactly that, though by applying a equable nudge back a few milliseconds or so later, this negates the whole nudge even when it does come into contact with a play field object rendering the exercise purposeless and in no way reflecting real world physics. Applying a slightly lesser nudge back just exacerbates the current flaws in the VP9 nudge.

However it would allow for "slap-save" emulation if the twitch would momentarily bring the flipper closer to the ball (as the ball was passing by the flipper). If you hit the nudge button and flipper buttons simultaneously or almost simultaneously you could save an otherwise doomed ball via a "slap-save" as happens on real tables.

No the slap save works via the table moving left to right underneath the ball, the ball continues upon it path whilst the table is abruptly moved left/right or right/left, moving the flippers with it as they are attached to the play field and works in with the VP8 nudge just as it should.

Edited by StevOz, 05 July 2012 - 01:01 PM.

[blur]

You illustrate the case exactly the ball should never deviate from it's original path by any appreciable or perceivable amount in the first instance when it does not come in contact with a play field object, if anyone sets this modified nudge to zero then it will behave as VP9 nudge flawed physics dictate, defying the laws of physics as the hard coded VP9 nudge does it will also do the same again at a setting of 1 negating almost any effect at all, also any setting in between will be and is equally incorrect.

I don't know what you are talking about, 0 counter force is bad, ok it is bad vp9 style nudge, but the other part - "setting of 1 negating any effect at all" ??? it doesn't negate anything - ball goes back and forth and that's it - if it hits something on the field it will bonce from that and that is added as extra force to the ball

when you say source needs to be changed - i don't know what you expect from source to be changed - what do you think you can add to the source - you can have one movement in one direction, then other in opposite, you can tune times between them and their strength, maybe percent of counter force, angles, and that's it - there's nothing more to the nudge theory. I don't know what you expect from the nudge if 0, 1 and anything in between is not good enough for you??? circular nudge maybe, or golden ratio nudge??? crypton nudge?

Edited by blur, 05 July 2012 - 01:32 PM.

[StevOz]

Ok try this in the VP 9.12 editor > File > new > play > now just press the space-bar a few times...* tip you won't need to use the plunger.

The fact of the matter is the hard coded hack added to VP7 called to this day VP9 is fundamentally flawed without any change log documentation to go with it, thus the flaws I point out are real I'm not belittling your attempts to fix such via vbs scripts, I'm just stating it is not fixable via such methods..

Edited by StevOz, 05 July 2012 - 01:51 PM.

[blur]

that is solved in my core, instead up ball is directed down, i don't know what was with everybody when they made front nudge push the ball up

more funny is when i see people that really know how to make tables like groni and bob - make also left and right nudge go up by +5 degrees and -5 degrees???

with those nudges you can juggle the ball without ever using flippers, and you can keep it in the center of the playfield all the time

but i don't see that as vp fault, people put wrong angles in table code

Edited by blur, 05 July 2012 - 01:52 PM.

[StevOz]

I use...

CODE

    If keycode = LeftTiltKey Then
        Nudge 30, force
        Bump
    End If
    
    If keycode = RightTiltKey Then
        Nudge 330, force
        Bump
    End If
    
    If keycode = CenterTiltKey Then
        Nudge 180, force
        Bump
    End If

Then again I do originals so I guess that doesn't really matter much?

Also to reiterate...

The fact of the matter is the hard coded hack added to VP7 called to this day VP9 is fundamentally flawed without any change log documentation to go with it, thus the flaws I point out are real I'm not belittling your attempts to fix such via vbs scripts, I'm just stating it is not fixable via such methods..

Edited by StevOz, 05 July 2012 - 01:57 PM.

[sacredgaming]

I tried the new core last night and first thing i noticed was that my led toys stopped working. Perhaps this was mentioned and i may have over looked it. Is there something i can do to check or was this designed specifically for desktop users?

[blur]

yup steve your numbers look much better
some people use 90 and 270 for side nudge
but really both nudges 30/330 and 90/270 are possible on real pin - it is a difference between bumping the corner of the pin with palm of your hand, or side slapping it

i saw that you edited previous post, tnx for explaining, i also think c++ code would be quicker then vbs, for example my counter force - you can tune how fast it will kick in but it will not work if you set it under 30 ms or something like that, it will just not do counter bump, that's why i put it to conservative 200 ms

I tried the new core last night and first thing i noticed was that my led toys stopped working. Perhaps this was mentioned and i may have over looked it. Is there something i can do to check or was this designed specifically for desktop users?

if you added something to your core to enable leds you have to add it to this core.vbs also, probably same code would work in both cores.

Edited by blur, 06 July 2012 - 10:49 AM.