1353 replies to this topic

[arngrim]

i hope it is not only for you and other authors will follow, and maybe have a more generic way if it is more used

[Ben Logan]

I'm out of "likes" for the day, but thank you Fuzzel and Arngrim for recent updates. You guys rule.

[BorgDog]

nice update guys!

 

can we get the plunger back to reasonable values?

• stroke of 80!? no regular plunger that short 135-155 more reasonable
• park position back to where it should be 0.1667 as explained by mjr earlier in the thread
• enable mechanical plunger by default
• apply park position to plunger even if mechanical not enabled (enables the animation of bounce after release instead of dead stop)

any comments on my slingshot on rubbers idea? 

 

Thanks.

[fuzzel]

Slingshots on rubbers was discussed multiple times here. To be honest I don't have a clue how to add this to the current rubber implementation.

[BorgDog]

That's cool, I don't recall reading about them, but I miss a lot.

[fuzzel]

I think it was asked in the 10.0 thread when the rubber object was added.

[ClarkKent]

Park position is better at 0,01 as with 0,16667 an analogue plunger produces a quick unexpected movement forward at first usage.

[toxie]

can we get the plunger back to reasonable values?

• stroke of 80!? no regular plunger that short 135-155 more reasonable
• park position back to where it should be 0.1667 as explained by mjr earlier in the thread
• enable mechanical plunger by default
• apply park position to plunger even if mechanical not enabled (enables the animation of bounce after release instead of dead stop)

 

i'll leave it to you guys and especially mjr to settle on all of this, as i do not have an opinion here..

so is this good with the rest of people that know how plungers should work? (except for the 'unclear' park position value)

[RYSr]

 

can we get the plunger back to reasonable values?

• stroke of 80!? no regular plunger that short 135-155 more reasonable
• park position back to where it should be 0.1667 as explained by mjr earlier in the thread
• enable mechanical plunger by default
• apply park position to plunger even if mechanical not enabled (enables the animation of bounce after release instead of dead stop)

 

i'll leave it to you guys and especially mjr to settle on all of this, as i do not have an opinion here..

so is this good with the rest of people that know how plungers should work? (except for the 'unclear' park position value)

 

 

1. stroke of 80!? no regular plunger that short 135-155 more reasonable.

 

     No opinion, I don't see what problem this causes, or why the change is necessary.

 

2. park position back to where it should be 0.1667 as explained by mjr earlier in the thread.

 

     Add a editable global entry in the editor/preferences/keys/global options ( where all the other accelerameter adjustments are ) to set a default override setting for the Park position so the end user can adjust it one time. Instead having to edit it on every table that is released to make their plunger work correctly?  Then the new table default could be set back to the .166667 default as it used to be.

 

3.  enable mechanical plunger by default.

 

    Agree, or also add it to the global defaults section as a check box.

 

4.  apply park position to plunger even if mechanical not enabled (enables the animation of bounce after release instead of dead stop)

  

     Agree,

[gtxjoe]

I like the idea of a global over-ride park position but I doesn't the park position physically actually move the plunger object location.  If so, some tables might require plunger object to be moved before table could even be played

 

From what I understand, correct me if I am wrong but for park position:

- Nanotech, VirtuaPin and Zeb plunger users want .01 because the auto calibration pushes the ball up the shooter lane

- Pinscape users don't experience this auto calibration launch so they are happy with .16667

- Non plunger users probably happy with the .16667

[sliderpoint]

I Don't like the global override. People place the plungers position based on this setting. So you would still need to edit each plunger object anyways to suit your preference.

I like the .16667 as it is more realistic like MJR stated.


-Mike

[gtxjoe]

Sliderpoint - what plunger do you have?

[RYSr]

I Don't like the global override. People place the plungers position based on this setting. So you would still need to edit each plunger object anyways to suit your preference.

I like the .16667 as it is more realistic like MJR stated.


-Mike

 

If the global overide is left blank, then shouldn't the table default .1666667 setting prevail?

 

I suggested a global option and the table default be set back to .1666667 default, to satisfy all concerned!

Edited by RYSr, 04 September 2016 - 03:11 PM.

[sliderpoint]

Heh, I'm biased I have a a pinscape.

With or without the global override defined, I would still need to go move the actual plunger object. If it wasn't set up to use my preferred setting. I thinking of it overriding already created tables, right?


-Mike

[hauntfreaks]

nice update guys!

 

can we get the plunger back to reasonable values?

• stroke of 80!? no regular plunger that short 135-155 more reasonable
• park position back to where it should be 0.1667 as explained by mjr earlier in the thread
• enable mechanical plunger by default
• apply park position to plunger even if mechanical not enabled (enables the animation of bounce after release instead of dead stop)

Thanks.

 

Borg hit the nail on the head, everyone of these settings makes the most sense to me... 

[BorgDog]

I actually have a zebs plunger, and I want the default at 0.1667, because that is most realistic value and all the desktop users of which I'm guessing there are more don't care if our plungers don't work right. I also have a thread going on zebs site for some firmware changes to hopefully get it more realistic at the possible expense of the way his palm smash works.

The stroke length I don't really care but just threw it on there since I was here and doing a lot of plunger playing.

Basically just want all the defaults to be the most true to reasonable realistic values, and not biased towards any particular hardware or end user needs. (The ”new” table is another topic like this)

[RYSr]

Heh, I'm biased I have a a pinscape.

With or without the global override defined, I would still need to go move the actual plunger object. If it wasn't set up to use my preferred setting. I thinking of it overriding already created tables, right?


-Mike

 

LOL, Mike

 

Ya a global override would affect all tables, but if your adjusting all tables anyway, it saves you the step. But you could leave it blank and the devs can reset the default  for new tables to .1666667 where it used to be.

 

Rich

Edited by RYSr, 04 September 2016 - 04:02 PM.

[Shockman]

I agree, except for desktop users not caring if the plunger works right or not. That is actually crazy talk.

 

And a new default does not change what existing tables are set at, only what a new one will  be set at, so whoever is calling setting this back to the way it was programmed an override, or thinks an override is the way to go is obviously not building tables.

 

This dev team did not program this plunger and had no right to fuck it up.

Edited by Shockman, 04 September 2016 - 03:52 PM.

[gtxjoe]

The dev team did not fuck it up.  Someone requested a change and they accommodated the request.  

 

If you need to blame someone, then we ALL fucked it up by not saying no to the request back then...

[sliderpoint]

I agree, except for desktop users not caring if the plunger works right or not. That is actually crazy talk.
 
And a new default does not change what existing tables are set at, only what a new one will  be set at, so whoever is calling setting this back to the way it was programmed an override, or thinks an override is the way to go is obviously not building tables.
 
This dev team did not program this plunger and had no right to fuck it up.

You clearly have problems following along. He said desktop users would not care if cab users mechanical plungers didn't work right, not that the plunger object didn't work right. Therefore desktop users would probably prefer it be set back to .16667 as it is more realistic.

And your last statement is just rude and makes no sense.


-Mike