868 replies to this topic

[fuzzel]

Yes true but it's not really clear to me if dx10+ gives you better performance. It would simplify things in the code here and there and the multiple monitor support is easier in dx10+ but that's it more or less. I guess the performance boost from dx9 to dx10+ wouldn't be as high as it was from dx7 to dx9.

[freezy]

I think I remember some Farsight people over at TPA fans saying that DX11 is mainly faster because gfx card manufacturers put all their effort into optimizing perf for DX11+ nowadays and DX9 gets more and more neglected because most games use DX11...

[fuzzel]

Well I don't say that we never switch to DX11. There are changes in the API from DX9 to DX10 to DX11 that could complicate the porting process but nothing too fancy I guess. As always time for doing the porting is the main problem

[freezy]

Well maybe Mukuste stumbles in here again after a drunk night and nothing immediate to do

[fuzzel]

I doubt it...

 

anyway rev2614 is up:

 

- fix flipper rendering issue

[toxie]

To cite one of the presentations back from the day:

'A naïve DX9 to DX10 port will cause problems'

 

So as said before, its not just about using DX1X, but also using it right and actually using some of its new features.

(and currently we do not need it yet)

[Drybonz]

Well I don't say that we never switch to DX11.

 

Not that I am debating or disagreeing with anything you guys are saying... I trust your judgment... but something to consider is, if you switch to DX11 when DX16 is out, it could be a whole new set of problems... same with still using XP when Windows 22 is out, I guess.

 

Again... not trying to debate, just something to think about.  

[fuzzel]

Understood but we do that in our spare time so if are in the mood to port VP to DX-what-every-version then we do it or another guy with enough time comes around and ports the code like Mukuste did with DX9...just something to think about

[Drybonz]

Understood but we do that in our spare time

 

That's definitely understood... and you guys do what you want... I get it.  This is just open discussion... thinking out loud.

[Shockman]

I understand the spare time, don't have to do it mentality, and agree with it for the most part. However this has been around for a very long time, and has a big following. That don't mean you have a responsibility, I'm just saying I would feel that I do in that case. Nothing should be made to work worse, half way, or illogical.

[PilzTom]

I also gave the true full screen a try after a lot of reading here. And with all the known tricks setup it works well also from PinballX using all of my 3 screens. For me it is as much an improvement as the step from Dx7 to Dx9. There is not only the fps gain which enables my rig to run the tables with bruteforce 4xAA now (absolutely awesome compared to FXAA quality). Also the microstutters completely disappeared.

I tested it deeply with latest MM Redux version which is one of the most demanding tables at least for my rig and suffered under microstutters - perfectly smooth, I was able to push my highscore up easily.

Thx to the devs for this.

...but now time to configure more tables for this...

[kiwi]

A kicker with a large radius as 55 units, where catching the ball always at the center?

 

Max

[fuzzel]

Yes. The kicker is far from perfect especially when you try to scale it that much

[kiwi]

Yes. The kicker is far from perfect especially when you try to scale it that much

Thanks,
I would add a magnet that helps to catch the ball.

 

Max

[wrd1972]

Feature request.

Can we get the choice to use "round" rubbers on the flipper elements? Currently, only square ones are available.

 

I have an EM table that uses an old 2" flipper prim, but the prims does not have a rubber. I modeled the flipper up using a square rubber, but obviously, that does not give the desired visual effect. Round ones would address the issue, I think.

 

Thanks

[ICPjuggla]

Hey all what's the trick to get the kicker cup to not show above primitives?

I've tried all kinds of things but can't seem to figure it out! I'm sure I'm just missing something small here.

edit: I should note I'm using the latest beta

Edited by ICPjuggla, 17 May 2016 - 02:01 AM.

[hauntfreaks]

set the opacity of material that the prim is using to active... and if the prim is opaque set the # to 1

Edited by hauntfreaks, 17 May 2016 - 02:16 AM.

[ICPjuggla]

set the opacity of material that the prim is using to active... and if the prim is opaque set the # to 1

Right, totally forgot about that and didn't try it yet! Good call thx hauntfreaks. :-)

[fuzzel]

Another way is to uncheck static rendering btw.

[toxie]

yes, that can be a bit faster than setting the opacity, too..