103 replies to this topic

[blur]

startshake command works in a way that if you have it anywhere table will shake
it is not important if you have it in table or core.vbs
so if you have startshake only in core.vbs all tables will shake
but that doesn't mean they will not shake if you comment startshake in core.vbs - there could be startshake in table

however there is a command stopshake that will stop shake effect but no one really uses this command in a table script
if you put stopshake on proper place in core - it will neutralize startshake from every table

as for other settings, core.vbs doesn't override settings from tables, you can put any options in table script

Edited by blur, 04 April 2011 - 11:21 AM.

[Noah Fentz]

Hi Blur,

There is nudge function in the core, but not nudge 'routines', and that is the point I'm making here.

[cupid]

I think core.vbs and the rest of vbs files need an update for VP91x
Not only to fix bugs, like the flipper subs which don't work in VP9, they were written for older VPs.
There are so many things that could be added, like this nudge, tracking the balls, creating balls with an extra parameter: ball size, etc
The problem is that the new core.vbs won't be compatible with older VP, this is why I think a new set of vbs files should exist, like core91x.vbs, wpc91x.vbs, bally91x.vbs, etc. A pity I don't know enough to make them myself.

JP

At first i thought this:

CODE

Thumbs up.

I think this would be the right way to not break existing tables. Just use coreV101.vbs in your scripts. I disagree that there should be only one core.vbs. But i think that tables should not bring their own core.vbs... That would be bad. Only "accepted" corexxx.vbs should be used by the authors. IMO.

That's how most game consoles run today: The Games says - Hey, I'd like to run on a Wii-System 4.2 -> so a virtual machine for the game with 4.2 is created. Another game says hey: I'd like to have 4.3 If the Wii has no files for 4.3 it throws an error: Please Update the system.

I think that we should add some versioning to the vbs files, but someone has to manage this and start a "project" (with betas, testing and releasing new versions) for this.

But after looking at the core.vbs, I think I might disagree with myself:
Since the core.vbs are just classes, they maybe could be updated (without creating completely new versions) without breaking existing tables. The ballstack for example could have a public field for ball size. But i have to admit, that i don't understand core.vbs fully and that's why I'm not able to judge about this.

So this is really only a thought. Maybe I'm totally wrong here.

I think that updated vbs files should not update features, so that they change how they are working (like "core.vbs with better nudging"), but they should be updated with new features (like "core.vbs with more optional!!! options for nudging" or "core.vbs with a new public field in ballstack for sized balls").

I do agree the core.vbs could use an upgrade, but I'm strongly opposed to adding a nudge 'fix' in the .vbs.

As I mentioned earlier, the nudge needs to be fixed in the code of VP, not an external script, and here's why ...

Let's say the nudge does get fixed and the core.vbs includes the nudge workaround. This could create serious problems for those unaware what the core.vbs even is.

Let's try to keep things that are considered preference out of the core.vbs, and stick to just the very basics. That's what core means.

If you'd like to put together a script that can simply be called upon from within the VP script, I'd very much like going that route, instead. So, blur, your nudge script would be a welcome addition to the scripts section, but as a separate, optional script.

Would that be alright?

After I really thought long about this: I don't think that nudging has to or should be "fixed" in VP.

So I disagree here. If we "fix" the nudge system inside VP, all scripts/tables that now try to "fix" this current nudge system will not work anymore. Maybe we should get more options for controlling the ball, the physics table and visual table via script.

Maybe i'm also wrong here, but i personally don't think that nudging is very bad in vp (for playing on a computer). I might agree, that the current nudges are bad for cabs, but they should be using analog nudge systems in my opinion. I know that analog nudging with a gyro is problematic at the moment (calibration, configuration), jitter, but maybe it is the right way to change this at first. (but i don't know if it is possible with current physics and Windows implementation of joysticks (I'd like to have the raw values instead of crappy calibrated values))

Cupid

Edited by cupid, 04 April 2011 - 09:49 PM.

[Noah Fentz]

I do agree the core.vbs could use an upgrade, but I'm strongly opposed to adding a nudge 'fix' in the .vbs.

As I mentioned earlier, the nudge needs to be fixed in the code of VP, not an external script, and here's why ...

Let's say the nudge does get fixed and the core.vbs includes the nudge workaround. This could create serious problems for those unaware what the core.vbs even is.

Let's try to keep things that are considered preference out of the core.vbs, and stick to just the very basics. That's what core means.

If you'd like to put together a script that can simply be called upon from within the VP script, I'd very much like going that route, instead. So, blur, your nudge script would be a welcome addition to the scripts section, but as a separate, optional script.

Would that be alright?

After I really thought long about this: I don't think that nudging has to or should be "fixed" in VP.

So I disagree here. If we "fix" the nudge system inside VP, all scripts/tables that now try to "fix" this current nudge system will not work anymore. Maybe we should get more options for controlling the ball, the physics table and visual table via script.

Cupid

It would have no effect on any tables already available if it were to be done as I have suggested, oh I don't know, twenty or so times?

We only need to separate the shake from the force, and leave them set at default settings unless otherwise configured by the user.

Simple and done in such a way as to please any and all groups.

I guess I'll post something more specific about this in the dev forum, since it's seemingly not being understood.

[cupid]

It would have no effect on any tables already available if it were to be done as I have suggested, oh I don't know, twenty or so times?

We only need to separate the shake from the force, and leave them set at default settings unless otherwise configured by the user.

Simple and done in such a way as to please any and all groups.

I guess I'll post something more specific about this in the dev forum, since it's seemingly not being understood.

if you say we should seperate the shake from the force, you mean that "shake" shakes the table(and objects without the balls) and force "shakes" the ball?

I don't know if objects are shaked at all in vp. I think (but i'm not sure) that the only thing that is affected by a shake is the ball. Maybe because of the amount of calculation.

By "user" you mean the end user or the table author?

Cupid

[Noah Fentz]

See post in dev section for further discussion.

[Bob5453]

Cupid, maybe if you forgot about the core.vbs for a moment and forgot about the author's nudging script for a moment and studied the "New" table nudging in the vp editor, then you might see a problem with the VP9 nudging. If you studied the VP9 "new" table nudging and then studied the VP8 "new" table nudging, you might see why some old VP users have a hard time of letting this issue go...

The problem begins in the VP source, but we are trying to fix it the tables, this makes no sense to many of us.

[blur]

as i said before - i don't see any real difference between shaking and no shaking

it is virtual representation of the same thing

if you shake table moves up and down, ball stays
if you turn shake off ball moves table stays

it is totally irrelevant who is moving, ball or table, as long as their relative position behaves the same
it is not important who is moving (ball/table), it is important how it is moving

and only real difference between vp8 and vp9 is that in vp8 you have shake and table moves up and down (or left-right)
and in vp9 ball moves only up, or only left or only down - there is no counter movement of the ball
That's the only real difference and it can be fixed with script

the other difference is how much the ball moves - in vp8 - it is very little (table shakes a little) in vp9 it actually depends on force used in script but is usually much more then in vp8, but also can be fixed if you use force 1 instead of 2


one thing that should be fixed in vp9 is direction of shake in arcade render mode, it goes all in a wrong direction


it might even be good to put counter force in vp nudge function - but nudge with counter force should be strictly separated from nudge without counter force.

why?

because some devices like PBW or joystick with weight turned upside down will nudge on one side and then swing back - they should call nudge in one direction and then nudge in opposite direction (counter force) just by swinging back

speed and force of swing should give you nudge force and speed of counter force without any tuning - just reading signals from joystick

with nudge buttons however when you press left nudge button - you will not go pressing right nudge button right away to make counter force - you expect from vp to do that

in my last core.vbs version i even made that counter force zero so that nothing is changed for players, but you can easily set it to 100%

Edited by blur, 04 April 2011 - 10:53 PM.

[Noah Fentz]

as i said before - i don't see any real difference between shaking and no shaking

It makes a HUGE difference, blur.

I can't believe how talked to death this has become, yet nothing I've ever posted seems to have gotten through to anyone.

[StevOz]

as i said before - i don't see any real difference between shaking and no shaking

It makes a HUGE difference, blur.

I can't believe how talked to death this has become, yet nothing I've ever posted seems to have gotten through to anyone.

Oh I get it, I just don't believe it is a workable or best solution. As I understand it, your proposal is to separate the shake from the nudge, thus the Nudge will move the ball and the Shake will move the table, yes?

[Noah Fentz]

as i said before - i don't see any real difference between shaking and no shaking

It makes a HUGE difference, blur.

I can't believe how talked to death this has become, yet nothing I've ever posted seems to have gotten through to anyone.

Oh I get it, I just don't believe it is a workable or best solution. As I understand it, your proposal is to separate the shake from the nudge, thus the Nudge will move the ball and the Shake will move the table, yes?

Yep. Both configurable separately.

Of course you don't think it's workable or best. I suggested it.

Though, it's painfully obvious to anyone without prejudices that VP8's nudge just shook the table, cab users want only force, and it's fully customizable anywhere in between, so it is the best solution working with the physics engine we currently have.

Whether this is even possible is currently being investigated. Rewriting the entire physics engine just isn't going to happen, though a little counter-nudge would be great to see.

[OxACE]

See post in dev section for further discussion.

Noah,

I've been looking in the dev section for the continuation of this thread but cannot find it. Do you have the title or link handy? Which sub-section of the dev section is it in? "Ideas?" Or was the original thread moved and this is it?

OxACE

Edited by OxACE, 04 November 2011 - 12:46 PM.

[Noah Fentz]

See post in dev section for further discussion.

Noah,

I've been looking in the dev section for the continuation of this thread but cannot find it. Do you have the title or link handy? Which sub-section of the dev section is it in? "Ideas?" Or was the original thread moved and this is it?

OxACE

http://www.vpforums....showtopic=13558

[OxACE]

See post in dev section for further discussion.

Noah,

I've been looking in the dev section for the continuation of this thread but cannot find it. Do you have the title or link handy? Which sub-section of the dev section is it in? "Ideas?" Or was the original thread moved and this is it?

OxACE

http://www.vpforums....showtopic=13558

I get:

"The error returned was:
Sorry, the link that brought you to this page seems to be out of date or broken."

[blur]

Link to core.vbs 3.33 is updated in first post.

File is uploaded to mediafire since megaupload is closed.

[sacredgaming]

was meant for another post.

Edited by sacredgaming, 05 July 2012 - 02:03 PM.

[blur]

tnx for reminder - i added a link to rob's tuned version to the first post

[StevOz]

bob what is meant by vp8 like nudging is that you have 100% counter force that moves the ball back - that's why it is called vp8 nudging, since in vp9 there is no moving back

I'll say again that is nothing like VP8 nudging because the ball never moves at all with VP8 when it never comes in contact with any table objects. Also moving it back 100% when it does contact a table object is also totally incorrect and not what happens with a VP8 nudge or in the real world.

Though, it's painfully obvious to anyone without prejudices that VP8's nudge just shook the table

With real pinball and real physics what happens? Yes that's right, you can only shake the table.

Edited by StevOz, 12 November 2012 - 11:59 AM.

[Noah Fentz]

Ya know, I've been a HUGE advocate for fixing the nudge for everyone in VP, so for the comments about me forbidding it ... HOGWASH.

Let me put it the best I can, so you can grasp what I'm after ...

Desktop users would like to have shake with no effect on the ball ... correct?
Cabinet users would like no shake, so the effect must be applied to the ball ... correct?

Therefore, the separation of the shake and nudge force effects is the optimal course of action to provide each type of user the best possible solution. For cab users, this would mean there would have to be a counter force implemented to simulate the table returning to the rest position. You don't want shake in a cab.

Me, personally, I would have a little of both in my Desktop releases. The best players in the world I've talked to all agree you can change the direction of the ball without it hitting an object, and I'll take their word for it.

Last known, cupid was having difficulty finding it in the source (which is open to anyone, btw, and found on SourceForge), so if anyone else would like to have a looksee, please do.

[StevOz]

Last known, cupid was having difficulty finding it in the source (which is open to anyone, btw, and found on SourceForge), so if anyone else would like to have a looksee, please do.

I've always been curious about this, if correct and I'd say it is, it indicates to me there is no and never was a change log documentation created or provided with the changes that were made to VP7 to create VP9 (as it was incorrectly named). Yes that's right VP9 was a hack or mod of VP7, VP8 was Randy's attempt of assimilating the changes made and I gather he had no change log to work with either.