62 replies to this topic

[viktory2k1]

Did you like the way it turned out? gonna do the whole thing or is it fine now?

[Shockman]

beta 19 already had the pacman lights done, but Haunt's turned out better.

 

most of the lights have just a bland insert, so I will go with a solid color on them. I just want to get it done.

 

You can probably tell by the photo that light inserts can have any graphic where the reflections actually lay ( top slices of the pac man lights ), for some reason it is the ones that would have nothing reflecting on them anyway that totally disappear. It's an obvious bug, or poor coding and unique as far as a claim for acceptable results.

[hauntfreaks]

I want the point here to be taken as this, all this newer stuff isnt rocket science, its just a little different than the old way

in the old days, it could take up to 8 or more images to add GI, inserts, and lighting effects, where now all we need is one good PF scan or photo, thats it, then all we have to do is lay in the lights, tell them what to do and how bright to do it, then that part is done... so more time can be dedicated to coding or 3D modeling.... less repetitive PS work.... this also helps cut down on file sizes only having one PF image

 

look i'm all about fighting the system , damn the man,,, blah blah blah.... but VPX isnt the man... nether are the devs that are giving us the new tools to work with...

less time bitching about how it was done in the past, and more time learning how great the new stuff can be and is....

 

think about flubbers BK , BK owners are saying its to nice... its nicer than their real machines....lol   

[Shockman]

It needs to be fixed. And to say it would only benefit me is absurd. This may be new, but it is not great. Learning that you are limited to one graphic, and that it can only be at one elevation certainly is not great, or even progress.

 

What we are talking about here is not lights. It's taking advantage of the texturing feature that is for a separate part, a plastic insert, that they know is going to fail, if you take advantage of the texturing feature. It's not cool.

 

The image field should be filled automatically with the name of the playfield graphic, not make it seem like it could be anything. And this at the very least, if they really don't want to fix the problem. The only other option would be for them to provide a block of the reflection routine the authors could use.

 

I can see problems before they occur a lot of the time, but that's not going on. I did design parts of a Zena table that had a raised playfield in the back.

 

What is the new way to texture the light inserts there in a way that would work with something reflecting on them or not?????

Edited by Shockman, 17 July 2016 - 04:36 AM.

[hauntfreaks]

beta 19 already had the pacman lights done, but Haunt's turned out better.

 

most of the lights have just a bland insert, so I will go with a solid color on them. I just want to get it done.

 

You can probably tell by the photo that light inserts can have any graphic where the reflections actually lay ( top slices of the pac man lights ), for some reason it is the ones that would have nothing reflecting on them anyway that totally disappear. It's an obvious bug, or poor coding and unique as far as a claim for acceptable results.

 

look in the end does it work now?.... if yes,,, then there is no bug or error... its the way you were trying to do it that was wrong... just do it the new way, and you wont have this issue anymore... its really that simple

[viktory2k1]

Nice way to say that, I gotta learn VPX asap!

[hauntfreaks]

just so others can follow here is what I did:

the old PF image was void of inserts

after making the PF the correct aspect ratio it was 1:1 I made it 1:2

dropped the insert image on the the PF as a new layer

copy and pasted each insert on the PF (PAC  MAN)

hid the old insert layer 

saved as new PF image file

 

in VPX

I loaded the new PF file

assigned it as a the PF

highlighted the insert lights

told them to use the new PF as a passthrough

saved the table

 

doing this I believe VPX already knew what to do with the PF image, so it did the same when using it as the passthrough image

how would VPX even know what the insert layer is, is it a PF is it an insert? is it a plastic?.... it wouldnt know....

so using the same passthrough image as the PF Image it seems like it does understand, and doesnt try to use two different reflections on the same image.... 

[viktory2k1]

Off topic but where is the best VPX tutorial? The one on here? I need it to run with vp9 and under pinballx.

[Shockman]

just so others can follow here is what I did:

the old PF image was void of inserts

after making the PF the correct aspect ratio it was 1:1 I made it 1:2

dropped the insert image on the the PF as a new layer

copy and pasted each insert on the PF (PAC  MAN)

hid the old insert layer 

saved as new PF image file

 

in VPX

I loaded the new PF file

assigned it as a the PF

highlighted the insert lights

told them to use the new PF as a passthrough

saved the table

 

doing this I believe VPX already knew what to do with the PF image, so it did the same when using it as the passthrough image

how would VPX even know what the insert layer is, is it a PF is it an insert? is it a plastic?.... it wouldnt know....

so using the same passthrough image as the PF Image it seems like it does understand, and doesnt try to use two different reflections on the same image.... 

There would only be one reflection. And VP always has known that the light image field pertained to a graphic needed for , oh yes, I remember, that friggin light. Even VP would not assume I meant some plastic, just like it knows an image assigned to the plastic is not for a light insert. Not that spectacular, actually.

[hauntfreaks]

are you trying to hijack an already hijacked thread?... this for send the whole universe into a 5th dimension... all because you want to install VPX now...  lol   

 

 

There would only be one reflection. And VP always has known that the light image field pertained to a graphic needed for , oh yes, I remember, that friggin light. Even VP would not assume I meant some plastic, just like it knows an image assigned to the plastic is not for a light insert. Not that spectacular, actually.

 

 

oh??.... and what previous version of VP had reflections again??... yeah i thought so... stop being silly

[Shockman]

If what it takes to make it work the new way is a passthrough image, any image should have a passthrough flag. I think that is a light function though, not a graphic property.

No version had reflections. If you think I don't understand that, you are the weak minded one.

 

I'll repeat. I want to put a light on a raised platform. I want it to be textured (sorry), and I want it to function (sorry again), be there something reflecting on it or not (so sorry). What is the new way to do that?

[hauntfreaks]

look just because you're trying to use antiquated techniques and graphics in VPX does not mean it has a bug... its like you inserted a bug into a healthy system is more like it....

 

again where are the other builders to back up your claim of this bug??

 

i did it right and it works... not proof enough??

[Shockman]

I never said it could not be done in the case of mmpac. I just said I am not going to do it.

 

The light inserts I want to put on a surface other than the main playfield. I'm not saying there is no way. I am asking if anyone knows how.

 

I'll repeat. I want to put a light on a raised platform. I want it to be textured (sorry), and I want it to function (sorry again), be there something reflecting on it or not (so sorry). What is the new way to do that?

Edited by Shockman, 17 July 2016 - 05:17 AM.

[viktory2k1]

VPX! LOL!

[Shockman]

Or is it that nothing can reflect on a raised playfield anyway? 

[hauntfreaks]

show me the original table that has this (for reference)... if you're saying a second level.... its already been done many times already...

[Shockman]

But how is it done in VPX?

[hauntfreaks]

I know its late and you might be bit tipsy.... but I asked for a table as reference, not a VPX table, just a table... and where on the table

Edited by hauntfreaks, 17 July 2016 - 05:53 AM.

[Shockman]

I don't know that there is a single table that works. Black Night 2000 is of course one example. It has been called the best. It has a raised playfield with light inserts on it. It however has global reflections off and every element that supports it has reflect off. This is not defaults, global, which would have nothing reflecting anyway is not only off, but you would get none if you turned it on because all elements were set to, not default to, not reflect onto the playfield. Turn all this reflection crap on on this table and the inserts that CAN NOT FUCKING BE a part of the playfield graphic don't render. VP8, if it supported the high resolution could do as well as that.

 

You might not understand the problem, but it is real. What many call the best VPX table addresses the fact that reflections are not worth having with the problems they cause in that case (a very popular real and not totally atypical table), by not using it, and making it harder than normal to turn it on.

Edited by Shockman, 17 July 2016 - 06:31 AM.

[sliderpoint]

Reflections of objects on the playfield is only supported on the primary playfield at this time.  If you use a raised wall, you will not see the reflections on that raised wall.  Reflections on BK2K can be turned on if you want, but there are only a few objects that you would want to show reflections for anyways.  A lot of his primitive objects are grouped together into 1 object, if you enable reflections it would reflect things from the upper PF to show up on the main PF and that would look weird.  I'd guess it was easier to turn them off, especially since they can't work on the upper PF.

 

And, I have no idea what you mean by wanting them to be "textured".

 

I used the same image for the playfield and for the inserts on my Road Kings.  It has reflections enabled and they seem to work fine.  Do you see the same problem you are describing in that table?

 

-Mike