1353 replies to this topic

[hauntfreaks]

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

 

 

-Mike 

  

they only give him computer access once a week and he has to get it all out.... 
avenging his old dev buddy that took his ball and went home....

Edited by hauntfreaks, 04 September 2016 - 04:30 PM.

[toxie]

• park position back to where it should be 0.1667 as explained by mjr earlier in the thread
• apply park position to plunger even if mechanical not enabled (enables the animation of bounce after release instead of dead stop)

 

 

 

Done and done! 

[Shockman]

I knew what he said. For someone to want that is crazy. For a table builder to defend it is stupid.

 

Either those few that have those plungers need to use the option to make theirs unrealistic, or those that don't have to use the option to make it realistic. If I had that plunger I would still want a realistic plunger action and go in and set the park position over.

 

Historically it is the cab guys that don't care how the function works for desktop use, and getting to know you guys, probably other cab users either. 

 

And I can't speak for desktop users, Only myself. I just want the desktop function to quit being fair game, or the code nothing but a starting point for cab support.

[gtxjoe]

I prefer 0.01 for the record.  But any default is fine for me, since I can change the parameter to any value I want

[freneticamnesic]

Can you change it so that if you select an object, right click then add to collection, if it's already in the collection you select, it removes it from that collection?

Currently the only way to remove an item from a collection is through the collection manager

and also, to keep it on topic, change park position of plunger back to an unreasonable value, just for fun

[Drybonz]

I was thinking it would be useful to be able to select a collection and then have it highlight, on the table all the elements that were already in that collection.  Maybe there's already a way to do that?

[hauntfreaks]

I knew what he said. For someone to want that is crazy. For a table builder to defend it is stupid.

 

Either those few that have those plungers need to use the option to make theirs unrealistic, or those that don't have to use the option to make it realistic. If I had that plunger I would still want a realistic plunger action and go in and set the park position over.

 

Historically it is the cab guys that don't care how the function works for desktop use, and getting to know you guys, probably other cab users either. 

 

And I can't speak for desktop users, Only myself. I just want the desktop function to quit being fair game, or the code nothing but a starting point for cab support.

 

it should be set to how the dude that designed the VPX plunger designed it to be.... so MJR should have the final say where the setting to be put back to.... and not out of respect or any silly $h!t... just because he would know best... 

 

this line is best:

Historically it is the cab guys that don't care how the function works for desktop use, and getting to know you guys, probably other cab users either. 

us moron cab guys and are silly realistic plungers
there nothing like those hi-tech button i'm sure you're using
 

[sliderpoint]

That is a shiny red button!  Very candy-like red button...

[Shockman]

I didn't know MRJ had anything to do with the new physics. This was first in Mukustes' Physmod.

[hauntfreaks]

every Rev of VPX includes a "New Plunger Documentation.pdf"

 

this explains what it all means

[BorgDog]

I didn't know MRJ had anything to do with the new physics. This was first in Mukustes' Physmod.

 

No where in any of this discussion of the plunger object was there any talk of physics, as much as you claim to follow along you totally missed the whole point of the discussion if you thought it was about physics.  the things that toxie said done and done to are what this is about, having a park position so the plunger moves backward AND forward like a real plunger, and having that apply to desktop mode as well whether mechanical plunger was enabled or not.  why you keep having to drag Mukuste into every discussion is beyond me.

 

And had you actually read the discussion you would have seen mjr's posts on the matter.

[cyberpez]

I wish I had a fancy plunger so I could argue about it 

[gigalula]

When you talk about "shiny red button!  Very candy-like red button..." I wasn't so sure if you were talking about my wife or my cab LOL

[sliderpoint]

LOL , nope.
I'm talking about SPACE MADNESS!!! John K. Big influence in my artistic youth.

-Mike

[freneticamnesic]

I was thinking it would be useful to be able to select a collection and then have it highlight, on the table all the elements that were already in that collection.  Maybe there's already a way to do that?

If you check the box in collection manager for that collection "group elements together" or something, it will select all on the table

[Shockman]

 

No where in any of this discussion of the plunger object was there any talk of physics, as much as you claim to follow along you totally missed the whole point of the discussion if you thought it was about physics.  the things that toxie said done and done to are what this is about, having a park position so the plunger moves backward AND forward like a real plunger, and having that apply to desktop mode as well whether mechanical plunger was enabled or not.  why you keep having to drag Mukuste into every discussion is beyond me.

 

And had you actually read the discussion you would have seen mjr's posts on the matter.

 

 

I know what it is about.  overextending the spring is physics and the ball pressing it down a bit when it hits it is physics. The discussion is about physics. 

Edited by Shockman, 05 September 2016 - 05:20 AM.

[toxie]

Yet, it was all coded by mjr.. SURPRISE!

[Drybonz]

I wish I had a fancy plunger so I could argue about it 

I was thinking about getting a fancy plunger but now I'm scared.

[hauntfreaks]

 

I wish I had a fancy plunger so I could argue about it 

I was thinking about getting a fancy plunger but now I'm scared.

 

 

nah dont be (none of the talk here is a deal breaker)... you already have a pinscape setup, so you're there .... if you can solder ger the optical sensor , if not you can do the linear potentiometer....

I've done both and both work perfect... and also the best reasonably priced option out there.... a  linear pot costs I think $5 or less , you just need the plunger its self, that can be had for $5-$10

Edited by hauntfreaks, 05 September 2016 - 03:20 PM.

[DJRobX]

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

 

It works perfectly fine on my analog plunger.  As MJR explained earlier, you're experiencing some sort of bug with your plunger hardware that ought to be fixed in its firmware.

 

Instead of removing the ability for everyone's plunger to move forward by setting park to 0.01, a better VP workaround would be for VP to optionally filter out forward movement from analog plungers that have this issue.   This is effectively what you're doing by setting park to 0.01.   Then when/if the firmware gets fixed, you can just turn the filter off and return to a natural simulation, without having to edit tables. 

Edited by DJRobX, 05 September 2016 - 04:22 PM.