29 replies to this topic

[wrd1972]

So I did some testing with mass of 1.

 

The 3rd and 4th trajectories (middle two) were slightly more backhand side by about 4 degrees...not a lot there. The other trajectories were the same, and there was no increase in backhand power at all. So I dont think the mass of 1.7 is disrupting flipper trajectories.

 

Just seems to me that if the flipper speed were increased (independently of the other settings), then the entire trajectory range and the velocities would shift more toward the backhand side to better mirror what happens on real pins.

 

I really think if we can get this missing link addressed, gameplay accuracy would increase in a very major way.

[Reaper802]

wrd1972 keep up the good work!  I also feel this is one of the most important things that can be addressed going forward in VPX.

[Ben Logan]

Just my perception here — I’ve always felt that center shots in VP could use a bit of a power-up, especially when attempting one as ball travels down the inlane fast.

[nFozzy]

I've noticed the issue gets worse the steeper the flipper angle. When I was analyzing this I had the most problems with the Sega/Stern flippers (super steep flippers), less problems with Scared Stiff's (the steepest end angle of any WPC that I know of), T2's were less wrong than that (pretty typical WPC angle), and Space Station's angles were the closest to perfect (really flat Sys11 flippers).

 

I'm not crazy about increasing flipper speed though, overall flipper speed is pretty close to the real thing. Maybe a little slow at 1 ballmass but not by much. I wonder if it's some missing component of rubber friction.

[wrd1972]

Just for discussions sake. How are you coming to the conclusion that speed is close.

[nFozzy]

Just from messing around with high framerate video

https://webmshare.com/Zjx0d

[wrd1972]

Well I must agree that it looks pretty accurate in that vid.

 

So I played around with rubber friction on the Roth's test table and once you reach .6 or even higher, the test results appear the same. Seems like the friction setting is not doing much here at all. I even cranked it up to 1 and the results were no different than .7 or so.

 

Are you seeing the type of results with the test table?

[sliderpoint]

Just from messing around with high framerate video

https://webmshare.com/Zjx0d

 

great vid!   The more I watch the more differences I see.   can you give the rest of the setup?  Gravity, slope, elasticity/ fall off, etc?

[fuzzel]

I already tried adding the flipper speed to the flipper physics but it has side effects and it didn't work completely as expected. Toxie has already made a physics tweak/update but it needs more work. So I guess we can't do much here at the moment because we are close to a 10.4 final release.

[nFozzy]

 

Just from messing around with high framerate video

https://webmshare.com/Zjx0d

 

great vid!   The more I watch the more differences I see.   can you give the rest of the setup?  Gravity, slope, elasticity/ fall off, etc?

 

I was only trying to capture a flipper speed comparison, it's not 1:1 because the ball on the real recording comes down the inlane a bit. I'm using pretty normal settings, I think slope was 6.5, flipper friction 0.3, table friction 0.1. You can tell my flipper elasticity isn't high enough.

(e. also 2500 strength is going to be throwing the ball a little too fast at 1 ballmass, demonstration purposes only )

 

Well I must agree that it looks pretty accurate in that vid.

 

So I played around with rubber friction on the Roth's test table and once you reach .6 or even higher, the test results appear the same. Seems like the friction setting is not doing much here at all. I even cranked it up to 1 and the results were no different than .7 or so.

 

Are you seeing the type of results with the test table?

Yeah exactly it doesn't do that much in the code. I figure if there's something missing in the formula, it'd be the friction. Can't say for sure though.

Edited by nFozzy, 14 December 2017 - 05:28 PM.