49 replies to this topic

[StevOz]

Fair enough, we agree to disagree..

That said really the best and only inclusive option is to have both VP8 and VP9 .exes in your VP setup and use the version that works best for the table concerned.

[Noah Fentz]

I can't argue that!

[destruk]

Maybe SteveOz can make a lit of all the games that work in VP8, but don't work in VP9, with the reasons why? ie - move wall x 3 units to the left to make room for the larger ball collision model? That would be a lot more useful than having a list of games that might work with vp9.

[Harakiri]

Usually tables from VP8 that require multiple files to run are incompatible with VP9.

In my opinion, VP8 is total obsolescence and all the tables deserve to be revised in order to be totally compatible with VP9. World peace should be mandatory and it's not, Oil shouldn't be a primary source of fuel, etc.

[Bob5453]

I think we should stick with telling people to play VP8 tables with VP8 and VP9 tables with VP9 and throw this thread in the trash.

There are enough VP9 tables now for the average Joe to play, without telling them to play VP8 tables with VP9. The forum is already full of threads where people can't make a certain table work properly, so why would we want more of those types of help threads?

If we were owned by Coca Cola, we would have VPclassic and NewVP.

[Noah Fentz]

May as well delete half the board, then, since it would be confusing to more than half of our members.



This topic is about VP8 tables that don't require modding to play in VP9, and I think that's a good thing, personally. The tables mentioned herein are greatly improved by doing so.

[Shockman]

I have no doubt that many VP6 or 8 tables would run in VP9, but what to do? The flipper speeds are different in 9, the plunger strength is different in 9, so even if a 8 table works without getting the ball stuck, it certainly would not be the same. I find it very hard to get a 9 table to play like a 6 or 8 table, but that is not necessarily a bad thing, because 9 will play better in the end, but that end only comes in my opinion when settings are tweaked for nine, and it seems more pain staking to me, but that may just be me, as I have studied VP6 settings for so long. Mr. & Mrs. PAC-MAN works on 9. I really don't know why I made a 9 version. I think it was to play with scale and to have the solid flippers. It is not as good in my opinion, but I have no doubt that I could tweak it to be so. The only problem with mmpac and 9 that I could not work out is the rubber colors. It has two sets in the same place and in 8 works nice when either color is brought to front, but in 9 you, or I anyway, see both colors blotched.

So the point is that I am satisfied with VP9, but I am not satisfied with mmpac in it's VP9 version, nor it's 6 version when played in 9.

I have always beat the drum as you know, for having no thought of backward compatibility for VP.new. It would limit it's development. I would not hesitate to try a 6 table in 9, and if it does not require extensive remodeling, will give it some tweaks to play more as it was. I use the number 6, but use the version 8. I think 6 was the most stable build we ever had and consider 8 to just be the backward compatible 9. That's just rambling, but we do have a version of VP that runs every table in the database, and I hope we always will. If one person in the whole world plays a VP<9 table today, using version 8, then VP8 is not dead. If that happens 10 years from now then VP8 will not be dead then either. I happen to like VP6 and therefore 8 physics. I like nines physics as well. But I have not yet seen a table designed well with 6 or 8 greatly improved by running in it VP9, but I agree with Noah that they have the potential to be made to play better with 9.

Personally, as far as physics actually go, I don't see a great difference in nine as opposed to any previous versions. There is no doubt, and it is obvious that ball is more solid, so the outcome of collision is improved, by the physic set is pretty much the same. As I like VP6 physics that is not a complaint. But I remember the talk about VP8 when UC had it, not even to mention VP9, and from members here, not only from UC that it was real. Of course I took that with a grain of salt, actually less than a grain, but did expect, after hearing that that the ball would have spin and weight and such things, and that the kickers would not have the 10 gigawatt electro magnets that they have always had at the bottom of them. Rambling again, but with another point. I don't see enough difference to expect less than 100% backward compatibility yet. For this reason, I think it was too early to increase the size of the ball, as physics-wise that is the only issue.

In one very important respect, version 6.1 has the best physics of any version including 9. When a ball was trapped under the flipper in 6.1 the flipper would stop and hold the ball. After that (8 and 9) it's like neither one is solid and the ball will go through the flipper when against elements like walls, and through elements like plungers. Funny I should know that I know, But I tend to test everything.

[faralos]

and the easiest fix for the ball thru the flipper is to adjust the downward speed of the flipper making it come down faster so that is more closely matches the ball speed alleviates the ball-thru-flipper thingy. I agree keeping both vp8 and 9 on my desktop is easy and I just add a 9 to the table name in front (i.e. 9Cirqus Voltaire.vpt) keeps them seperate for me. I have shortcuts for both for my tables folder and Rom folder on my desktop so when I DO have to make a download I can just save it to my desktop shortcut, knowing it is going to the correct area.

Edited by faralos, 18 July 2010 - 12:26 PM.

[Shockman]

I agree with your statement about the easiest way to avoid balls through the flipper. I hope you understand that it is not necessary with 9 though.
I don't have so many tables that I have to worry about forgetting which version of VP to play, But if I get to that point would just have the table file set to open with the version it needs. (open with)

I have VP9.08 named VPinball (shortcut Visual Pinball) and VP8.01 named VPinball8 and so on. All tables in the folder default to open with 9.08 and the common .8 ones are set to open with 8.1 but I usually just open the correct editor first (so I could adjust if/when needed. It's not as complicated as it sounds.

At this point I am hoping that we would will soon be doing this same routine with at least 3 versions, because I am still hoping for a VP update that would be so improved that backward compatibility with even 9 would be out of the question, not to mention 8. Each version, at least the new ones should be tagging the tables files with the version not just Visual Pinball, and using their own registry entries (unless backward compatible and old tables forward compatible). It's really up to the program (backward compatibility) not the older tables (forward compatibility). Tables may be forward compatible for the most part at this point, but new tables are not backward compatible.

What I really hope though, is next time there is a new VP that is not 100% backward compatible that it is named Visual Pinball II 1.0.0 and can exist beside VP without sharing anything, and gets rid of all this hassle and confusion.

[ThomasVP]

What I find odd are folks that are saying, "to heck with backwards compatibility" or are advocating having multiple versions installed. From a programming perspective, having multiple versions is a recipe for a future disaster. Reading "to heck with..." makes me sad. I think it goes counter to the root purpose of this group, no? Isn't part of the mandate to preserve existing works for future use? What future generation is going to bother with previous tables if it's more work than play. That said, I'd love to see someone convert all tables to work with the current version. As an aside, I've 30 years working with comps, and let me assure you, I had difficulty figuring out the install and relationship of the various programs involved (which again will only get worse with every new release - assuming lack of backwards compatibility). I can only imagine how many folks new to tinkering have simply given up and will not get to experience the joy and hard work of all those involved in this project.

My apologies if this horse has been flogged already, as you can tell, I'm new around here

[destruk]

Yeah, I think Future Pinball should be backwards compatible with VP.

[MeatBundle]

I'll second that.

[Bob5453]

But Black never called his new version of VP, VP7, he named it Future Pinball.

[Shockman]

What I find odd are folks that are saying, "to heck with backwards compatibility" or are advocating having multiple versions installed. From a programming perspective, having multiple versions is a recipe for a future disaster. Reading "to heck with..." makes me sad. I think it goes counter to the root purpose of this group, no? Isn't part of the mandate to preserve existing works for future use? What future generation is going to bother with previous tables if it's more work than play. That said, I'd love to see someone convert all tables to work with the current version. As an aside, I've 30 years working with comps, and let me assure you, I had difficulty figuring out the install and relationship of the various programs involved (which again will only get worse with every new release - assuming lack of backwards compatibility). I can only imagine how many folks new to tinkering have simply given up and will not get to experience the joy and hard work of all those involved in this project.

My apologies if this horse has been flogged already, as you can tell, I'm new around here

I'm certainly not advocating added difficulty. But I could be seen as advocating multiple versions. But if VP can continue to develop, and have backward compatibility worked in, and at some point it would have to be worked in (not just ability to convert, but ability to play exactly as it was), that would be great.

What I find odd is peoples' wish lists, and the fact that they would include backward compatibility. We are not talking about backward compatibility to just a last active revision, we are talking about backward compatibility with a decade old standard. .PNG could be implemented while maintaining .jpeg and .bmp, that would be an expansion, Importing 3D models that are primitives might also work as an expansion, but custom models would be a change. Variable perspective within the same render, something that VP is now crying for as it supports full screen and multiple screens otherwise so well, would be another compatibility killer, or require it worked in. Even fixing the scale and offset to use the same geometry would make it not backward compatible with even 9.

Also, to avoid your concerns, ThomasVP, as others share them as well, I think it would be a good idea for new releases of VP to include a version of VP8 that plays tables as default, and have VP9 open tables built with it, and tables made with it open and or play with it, until the lions share of the tables are converted. It seems obvious that backward compatibility is a concern to the devs, because it is mostly there, and support in conversion is a large part of this forums support practice, so perhaps the issue will be muted. It is only my personal opinion that progress trumps backwards compatibility. Both would of course be best, if unlimited and worth the time and effort.

The Amiga computer. Not only could new programs not be played often on older computers, but old games often not on new computers either. This lack of backward compatibility as a rule was a pain in the ass, but it made the Amiga a better computer.

I think VP is in good hands, and I expect great things. And great things have came, are here, and are coming. I also believe that it has already came further than I ever thought it could while having conversions of older tables as easy as it is, but backward compatibility, and convertibility are two different things, so in my mind, backward compatibility never existed anyway, since 9, and porting a matter of not so important degree, unimportant meaning the amount of work involved, not the benefit.

[faralos]

imo the tables that exist in vp8 are being converted as i write this! it seems every day there is a new one or two that have made the 'switch' to a vp9 table! it takes time to convert a table you must check everything and look everywhere to ensure the ball has clearance! Moving ramps, lane walls, outside walls, gates, kicker holes etc, is tedious and time-consuming. Then it must be tested and tested over and over to make sure that the changes work!
So, yes, in due time (fingers crossed) all the vp8 tables will have been converted over to vp9. at least that's what the fine print says...

[ThomasVP]

The Amiga computer. Not only could new programs not be played often on older computers, but old games often not on new computers either. This lack of backward compatibility as a rule was a pain in the ass, but it made the Amiga a better computer.

WRT the Amiga, the hardware was more the determining factor, not the software. With VP, it's all software. FWIW, I've owned a CDTV, 500, 1000, 1200HD, 2000HD & 4000. Still have the 1200HD in a trunk somewhere, along with a huge box of software )

[matty sexy pants]

I just wished that the V9 tables had a different logo to the V8's Like a Gold ball instead of the silver just something small like that would have been real handy because now having my V9 and V8 tables in the same folder is a nightmare knowing which will run in the version of VP that i have open.

[ComputerSpaceFan]

Hi there, I am still rather new to the forums and to the whole Visual Pinball thing but this post is of interest to me for two reasons which I'd like to ask the experts about.

First, I am only running VP 8 because the machine I am running it on is an old computer and I have read that VP 9 has slightly higher system requirements. Is that true? Really old VP 8 files run great on this machine so I am very happy with this version but admittedly more recent files (for example the newer Tales of the Arabian Nights) are okay when running on my machine until I get multi-ball and then the whole thing lags and gets unplayable.
No biggie, I have the PS3 version of Williams Collection so I can always play TOTAN on that.
But is it correct that if I install VP 9 on this same computer, I will get even more lag?

Secondly, until Rollergames comes to VP 9 I have no interest. Big 80's hair for the win!!!!
Or is Rollergames available for VP 9 now? What about Future Pin? Hyperpin? Sorry to pester but I've lokked and can't find it and it's one of my three top favorite tables. Heck I'd buy the machine if I had the space.

[tiltjlp]

For what it's worth. every one of my bagatelles that I've tested play fine in VP9. I know there aren't that many folks who play bagatelle and flipperless, but at least they work. I'll check out my flipperless tables which have other objects besides merely pins, cups, and kickers, and see how they do.

[faralos]

the only one of my pins that I have problems with in vp9 when it was made in vp8 is legends as the ball skips over the top kicker holes missing them entirely.
but another thing i liked about vp9 was now i could export sound and image files. you could not do that with vp8. so that helped me greatly at first until i learned how to get stuff (google everything by name) still at times i snitch a cool sound cjhanging it up a bit in wavepad to make it my own, though...and transparent ramps!!!

Edited by faralos, 16 October 2010 - 12:16 AM.