868 replies to this topic

[markrock76]

I may be reading between the lines here but what I think is being said is VP is very rewarding for those who follow, participate, and contribute.  Thanks devs and table builders for a great first half of 2016 and very bright VP future!

[ScottyVH]

I personally like seeing all the beta releases and don't mind a little quirkiness here and there. I keep multiple beta releases and switch back-and-forth sometimes. it is fun for me to see how the different beta releases change things and how quickly the software gets developed and changes can be made.

Edited by ScottyVH, 28 May 2016 - 04:26 PM.

[jimmyfingers]

After more then 4 months of clowining around it really is time to make an official release of VP 10.1. 

...

That's not a very respectful first sentence / way to start any attempted point with hopes of a post being deemed "constructive criticism".  The dev team works too hard and spends too much of their free time, constantly trying to improve VP, to ever be referred to as "clowning around".  Pretty sad to see that type of sentiment.

[hauntfreaks]

 

After more then 4 months of clowining around it really is time to make an official release of VP 10.1. 

...

That's not a very respectful first sentence / way to start any attempted point with hopes of a post being deemed "constructive criticism".  The dev team works too hard and spends too much of their free time, constantly trying to improve VP, to ever be referred to as "clowning around".  Pretty sad to see that type of sentiment.

 

 

I hear that JIMMY that statement is nothing but 100% DIS-respect.... I believe everyone should have aright to there own opinion... but christ... that was DISrespect to anyone involved at all in the hobby.... IMO
maybe he needs a new user name like "i'm-a-lazy-taker" or a nice badge under his name  

[randr]

I like moocher for that badge please. Lol

[Shockman]

I would expect the next official release to be 11

 

It's common as dirt to have an official and experimental, or beta version available, and it's not hard to know which one you should use. I don't see much sign of any reason to increment even the minor yet though.

 

What I worry about is the "taking out of hacks''. It at least seems that they are talking about programming enhancements, also known as hacks if a certain someone did them, that got VP to where it is now.

 

A new physics set would be starting at the beginning, and the set we have now is still being analyzed, experimented with, tweaked and dialed in, and all the complaints I have read is something that doesn't even have to be worked around, just set better.

 

Gravity, mass, effect of slope, friction, and other physics seem to me to be close to real world. Taking out hacks is not going to make it better. Only making them better is going to make them better. The hacks made it better. We watch that kind of stuff. The mass, the speed related elastically, the plunger, nudging,spinning and sliding, First set of flippers worth a f***, etc. Without these hacks there would be no point in VPX. 

[arngrim]

agree for a vp11, it would be less confusing for the users, and that could be a moment to start developping about integrating backglasses ?

[hauntfreaks]

agree for a vp11, it would be less confusing for the users, and that could be a moment to start developping about integrating backglasses ?

 

arngrim, in the latest 2644 (newest controller.vbs) on my rig i'm getting this error when go to play any EM... and if i replace it with an older version of the VBS it fixes it...

 

Attached Files

•  Capture.PNG   26.97KB   18 downloads

[arngrim]

hmm ok i will check it later today
and if you add dim controller on top of the script of your table?

[hauntfreaks]

no I have checked that.... man that would suck having to fix all the EM's in the library

[arngrim]

no it's just a test, sending the fixed controller.vbs now

the dim controller in the controller.vbs was in comment, don't remember why, it has been uncommented and it works now

 controller.rar   3.59KB   26 downloads

[hauntfreaks]

no it's just a test, sending the fixed controller.vbs now

the dim controller in the controller.vbs was in comment, don't remember why, it has been uncommented and it works now

controller.rar

 

 

thank you sir 

[toxie]

So, with the new rev2644, is the physics back to normal again? (cause some very minor tweaks i did left in from my experimental changes)

 

Thanks guys for testing!

 

As for VP11: I think it all boils down to if we have to substantially break any backwards compatibility IMHO. Cause historically in VP, a major version change always meant loosing backwards compatibility.

And this should not be the case in the next half year or so (again IMHO). So why confuse users with a VP11, if all VP10 tables would still work without problems? Does not make sense, i think.

[toxie]

What I worry about is the "taking out of hacks''. It at least seems that they are talking about programming enhancements, also known as hacks if a certain someone did them, that got VP to where it is now.

 

A new physics set would be starting at the beginning, and the set we have now is still being analyzed, experimented with, tweaked and dialed in, and all the complaints I have read is something that doesn't even have to be worked around, just set better.

 

Gravity, mass, effect of slope, friction, and other physics seem to me to be close to real world. Taking out hacks is not going to make it better. Only making them better is going to make them better. The hacks made it better. We watch that kind of stuff. The mass, the speed related elastically, the plunger, nudging,spinning and sliding, First set of flippers worth a f***, etc. Without these hacks there would be no point in VPX. 

 

I heard the same things when VP9 appeared, and again when the PMX series started. 

 

And if you could see some of the hacks in the source, then you actually wonder how all this can work stable at all overall. One example is that there are some hacks that will simply 'teleport' the ball by small amounts, without considering any of the actual physics. And this is different for different table elements, that all should behave the same.

 

Also i do not say that the physics are bad in the tables or in VPX in general. Because they are not.

 

But going forward, some of this lunacy has to go, to make life easier for the table authors and the developers. And in the end we will have a better program.

So why not have a secondary mode as a start? Let people experiment with it. Lets see if it can make VP even better physics-wise?! And if it fails, then one can still use the 'primary' mode, same as before.

[arngrim]

but if the physics change and affect all previous tables, it's kinda not backwards compatible? and if we collect all the backwards not compatible changes to prepare the next major releases, vp11?

[Shockman]

I don't have any problem with the way it is going. I figured you would build 10.x up to the last that it is backward compatible, that being the official VPX update, and continue 10.x beta up to 11 release.

 

I don't know about two sets in the same program, which is what it read like.

 

I don't care about hacks taken out, as long as the desired effect is done up another way. I not surprised at all that there would be 'teleportation' of the ball, but I would be surprised if it was anywhere else than the flippers, and of course to move outside an object.

 

It would be nice to see the bugs , and incomplete features, of this cycle, and last, worked out in this cycle. Things like the cups that take too long for the ball to settle in, some control of the bumper ring texture like the base has, and using light insert graphics and reflections at the same time, or at least not erasing elements just to have a surface to reflect on.

[toxie]

but if the physics change and affect all previous tables, it's kinda not backwards compatible? and if we collect all the backwards not compatible changes to prepare the next major releases, vp11?

 

thats why we -could- have two sets of physics, the second set basically being the experimental playground that is in flux (kinda like PMX series, but way less dramatic, as it will only be about minor tweaks).

I don't care about hacks taken out, as long as the desired effect is done up another way. I not surprised at all that there would be 'teleportation' of the ball, but I would be surprised if it was anywhere else than the flippers, and of course to move outside an object.

 

actually its in various places, not just the flippers, and yes, it is to move things out of objects, but thats not how physics nowadays should work, especially if this code is triggered all the time on contacts.

[jpsalas]

So, with the new rev2644, is the physics back to normal again? (cause some very minor tweaks i did left in from my experimental changes)

 

Thanks guys for testing!

 

I was testing some tables and I found an error in one table due to the latest changes. The table is Hextech http://www.vpforums....&showfile=12041 (nice table Neo )

If you run the table in 10.0 the captive ball keeps in place, but in rev2644 the ball goes through the walls/rubbers and it is drained.

[hauntfreaks]

i'm also finding in 2644 that the odd ball behavior if light contact with the rubbers where it wants to ride up again, just not as bad as it was many revs back... 

so 2644 does feel like we went a bit in reverse... i guess thats why there betas 

[toxie]

will look into it, thanks!