1394 replies to this topic

[kiwi]

 

 

Why you don't use a 3d mesh for that? For me the old primitive is more or less deprecated sorry i know you don't want to hear that but you can do so much more with meshes than with those simple primitives that I would remove it in the next major release (VP10)

 

Please do not deprecate the basic primitives in the next release of VP as the performance of the 3D ones still is way more hard hitting than using the basic ones and it would be a shame to lose so much of the performance gains achieved in the last few months due to wanting to abolish the basic primitives from the program just because it seems that the 3D ones can do more or are superior in some contexts.  There is still a lot of uses for the first generation / basic primitives (even with the side mapping glitch as Kiwi demonstrates and I have also enountered) and some very basic 4 sided models still have a wide use for various features. 

 

The other important consideration about replacing the "old" primitive for only using 3D ones is that it will separate a large portion of VP users / authors and / or force them to learn complicated 3D modelling software programs as opposed to only having to work with more common graphics applications (PS, gimp, or even paint) when needing only something like a flipper logo or mainly top view item which can be easily accomplished using the basic 4 section grid for a basic primitive graphic mapping.  The time needed to do quality work in VP is already quite high and pushing this further, by requiring authors to also learn additional 3D 3rd party tools by removing the more basic options, may dissuade some contributors.

 

What I wanted to say has already said Jimmyfingers, it's a shame to delete the primitive objects that are very practical and easy to use, but I understand that the 3D mesh are the best choice on which you want to concentrate for the development of VP.
 

@ Toxie : You thought about adding also the control Panning via script ?

 

Thanks

 

Max

[toxie]

Oh, great idea with the pan! Didn't think about that.. Should be easy..

[toxie]

..and is in with rev 720 

from the changelog:

 

- add additional (optional) parameters to PlaySound to set the pan and/or randomize the pitch of the played sound effect: Instead of  PlaySound "name",loopcount,volume  one can now use  PlaySound "name",loopcount,volume,pan,randompitch
  pan ranges from -1.0 (left) over 0.0 (both) to 1.0 (right)
  randompitch ranges from 0.0 (no randomization) to 1.0 (vary between half speed to double speed)
  so f.e. PlaySound "FlipperUp",0,0.5,-1.0,1.0 would play the sound not looped (0), at half the volume (0.5), only on left speaker (-1.0), with varying pitch (1.0)

Edited by toxie, 12 November 2013 - 08:42 AM.

[fuzzel]

Hehe cool stuff...we should send it over to Dolby to get a certification label

[Herweh]

Don't know whether this issue was/is already addressed. I'm playing around with some primitive bumper caps (got a cool sample from Unclewilly; thanks a lot, Scott). Here is a "primitive" bumper cap under an alpha ramp.

Left picture: Primitive isn't set to "Static rendering". Cool is the ball is visible under the cap but parts of the cap aren't visible.

Right picture: Primitive is set to "Static rendering". The look is fine but of course the ball isn't visible under the cap.

 

 

 

Awesome work, guys, thanks so much for all you're doing.

[jimmyfingers]

I didn't say that I remove it in the VP9 branch, but with VP10 we are trying to jump to a new render api and that is going to have a big impact in nearly every aspect how the player works and behaves today. I know that it's not easy to handle all the tools for creating good looking tables but if you want to create realistic looking tables you have to learn advanced stuff to realize that.
The big question is when we are starting with VP10 because this is something that will take a lot of time. For now we are restructuring VP to make the porting less painful and try to support any feature you guys are using today

I did see that you had referred to the VP10 release / branch but I still don't see why removing a simple primitive option / aspect would be necessary, being that it is not nearly as much of a legacy component like the majority of the other table elements, considering it seems to already have 3D / newer elements and be more prepared for future use then other older VP objects. I know first hand that it’s indeed not a trivial matter to handle all the related VP tools or maybe better said as the time dedicated to learn them as I would suggest that some of my mods have lighting that is up in the top ranks of any VP authors or modders and in being able to do so, have already dedicated a significant portion of my life over the last 3 years to the time it took to learn Photo Shop that was entirely undertaken for VP purposes. So it's not out of a case of laziness or a lack of ambition that I draw attention to my initial point but the point being that it is not regarding the effort (and time) spent to create realistic looking tables in VP, but arguably unnecessarily having even more added to an already full plate of tasks and knowledge to do so.

 

Maybe we'll have to disagree on this aspect and you're the developer(s) so it's ultimately your guys final decission what you do with the program not discounting either the hugely notable aspect in how much you both listen to and solicit feedback from the community.  However, I'm expressing my (modder / author) opinion, from someone that is not averse to learning, hard work, or time spent, that adding yet further aspects to build a table, that could still be done arguably in a simpler way, seems like something that can tax the authors more than needed and may ultimately have an impact on an already low pool of table builders.  I know you guys spend a huge amount of time and effort as well for a product that is free and don't want to trivialize that any more than the time and effort of authors being trivialized.  If you have to do this with the primitives for major reasons like DX9 support, eventual physics updates, or for reasons of what you’ve seen in the code from your depth of work in it already, then so be it.

Edited by jimmyfingers, 12 November 2013 - 09:43 AM.

[fuzzel]

Hmm out looks like the ramp intersects the bumper cap on the left image. If you use static primitives you can't use transparent textures if something under the static object is changing e.g. the ball won't be visible.

[koadic]

Make sure you send the primitive to the back behind the ramps, I have found you need to mess with the layering much like when working with multiple alpha ramps.

[Herweh]

Make sure you send the primitive to the back behind the ramps, I have found you need to mess with the layering much like when working with multiple alpha ramps.

 

F...... awesome, Koadic, thanks a lot. Send them to back did the trick.

[Tropi]

? That is weird...the only changes in rev 646 are the convertion of the texture coordinates if you import a 3D mesh. I suppose that's more of a coincidence, did you test below 646?

Yes, I tested all versions from 600. This was the first one where the issue appeared and it can be reproduced in all newer releases.

[koadic]

F...... awesome, Koadic, thanks a lot. Send them to back did the trick.

Glad I could help.

[unclewilly]

Any luck with the plunger Fuzzel.

Btw, the images I sent you were originally created by noah

[fuzzel]

Ok guys, please try rev 721! I updated the modern plunger to support texture mapping or using a single color. I attached a screenshot and an example table.

The table has two texture maps for the plunger: one map is a mask or example map which hopefully helps you to place the plunger texture. The green area is for the plunger head/tip, the blue area is the metal ring between the head and the basic plunger stick and red is the area of the plunger stick. The other map is a scaled version of UncleWilly's alpha plunger image (thx Scott ) The scaled map has a size of 32x256 the mask map has a size of 128x256. I got the best results with the scaled plunger map (32x256) but perhaps some else can create even nicer images

Happy plungering...

 

Any luck with the plunger Fuzzel.

Btw, the images I sent you were originally created by noah

 

Ups ok then...thx Noah
 

Attached Files

•  plungerShot.jpg   4.21KB   8 downloads
•  plunger.vpt   108KB   17 downloads

Edited by fuzzel, 12 November 2013 - 03:15 PM.

[toxie]

awesome! i would replace the plunger in the "new" table this evening then, and from then on it's feature freeze time for 9.1.6?!

Edited by toxie, 12 November 2013 - 03:38 PM.

[fuzzel]

Yep...I vote for a new version number. What about 9.2 or even 9.3 because of all those massive changes

[unclewilly]

Sweet
Sweet

[toxie]

9.2 sounds cool.. and fair enough given the ton of changes..

[fuzzel]

So then...let's celebrate the feature freeze

[unclewilly]

Sweet plunger

[toxie]

okay, i replaced the plunger in the default table and increased the version number to 9.2.0..

 

time to test for the final release..