3889 replies to this topic

[randr]

@ fuzzel latest build will not run any table but starter table and smurf on my office computer. It's in board Intel graphics small form factor. Old build from last week works fine.

[Shockman]

Yes I could do that, but an option for an option isn't that great

 

 

Agreed. I'm thinking 2 separate builds.

 

I just don't think the majority has thought it through.

 

It is unfortunately one feature there should be an option, if not a mandate, to take a pass on though..

Edited by Shockman, 09 March 2015 - 08:11 PM.

[lio]

>> You have to know what is a collection to even want to shift click on it.

That is also what bothers me the most - you wouldn't know something is a part of a group unless you shift-click on it for whatever reason.

Also I see the primary use of grouping in say moving a peg that has a rubber wrapped around it and a screw on top of it all in one piece (if you grouped these objects first)[or even a group of such elements like a complete slingshot setup] instead of having to re-align them if you move a single element of that group accidentally, or moving some complex ramp construction out of the way to get to what is underneath quickly or whatever.

So maybe apart from the idea of using it as a performance helper for VP at some point it would be good to have an additional feature that does what some consider "grouping" - or just revert back to the old way.

Edited by lio, 09 March 2015 - 08:13 PM.

[toxie]

toxie,

 

Are there plans on having a 64 bit and or mutil core compiled version of VP? Wondering if that would help with those trying to get above 60fps with 4x AA setting on.

 

VP can already be compiled for 64bit at the moment (i did the changes quite a while ago). But its of no great use as VPM is still bound to 32bit for various reasons (so the two cannot work together like that).

Multicore is also not of great use (yet), as the bottlenecks in VP are pretty much known currently, and these won't profit from multicore.

[Talantyyr]

@Shockman: Thanks! Now i got it right. Theres a template image in the default table and all spinner images must have back and front side at them I've done it that way now and it works perfectly! 

[fuzzel]

@ fuzzel latest build will not run any table but starter table and smurf on my office computer. It's in board Intel graphics small form factor. Old build from last week works fine.

hmm do you have some more details? What OS do you use and do you get some error messages?

btw. I reverted the left-click handling of grouped collections in the next build.

[chas]

 

 

 

btw, at all table authors: always adapt the ball mass, too, if changing the ball size!! (see new core.vbs, changelog at the very beginning of the file)

 

 

so ballsize = 55 would be ballmass = 1.1 ???

 

 

Nope, the formula is mass=k*(size^3) (k seems to be 1/125000 for the default VP ball), so mass=(55^3)/125000=1.331

 

This feels heavy........

 

  if the ball is bigger the ball will have more mass or more heavy.....

1..... if ball default is 55 would it be correct to lower the default ball mass less than 1 to (EX: 0.9) to allow for the bigger more heavy ball? 

 then increase the ball mass more than 1 if the ball is less then the default 55? 

2.....has the ball default size in the new test phase vp10 pinmame changed from 50 to 55?

3..... why did the dev team decide to not keep the new programs compatible with the older programs?  

    

the program is getting way to much work to follow.. ....you might lose more and maybe newbees.....its too much work.

alot of people come here to play PB....they want to load and play.....its getting to be too much work to keep up.....you need to make the program user friendly.....alot may not have time to work then get on the forum for hours......some might drop out.....you have seen it.....people come here, post the problems they are having then maybe give up......ive been here 5yrs since the begining of vp9 in 09.....just my opinion.

Edited by chas, 10 March 2015 - 12:53 AM.

[Shockman]

50 is the default size and 1 mass is correct. The only reason balls are made bigger than that is to make up for a table that was made too big. 55 was apparently a mistake on my part. The table was not made big enough to warrant that.

 

This is all behind the scenes to people that come to play pinball. If they look behind the scenes and see difficulty they are making it difficult on themselves. There are release versions of VP and plenty of tables to play. If they want to try VPX it's as easy as following the first post. If they are interested enough, they can keep updating, still from the first post. If they post problems and give up, I think it would be rare that the reason is not getting answers.

 

Involvement in the process takes time and work, but that is what involvement is.

 

 

3..... why did the dev team decide to not keep the new programs compatible with the older programs?

 

They made a decision to make it so much better that they had no choice. It's a good thing, not a bad thing. Even after release and .VPX files are associated with Visual Pinball 10, the .VPT tables will run by clicking on them..

 

Besides, I think incompatible is a strong word from a table builders side. Most of the nice playable VPX betas are ports of older programs. I only had to erase a line, rework the pop bumpers, and change the flipper code to get action out of it, and the full port was a pleasure, with the first nice looking (though pinkish), fair playing table in less than a week. A shorter time than VP8 to VP9, for me at least, and shorter than VP9 to Physmod, and they are very similar aside from editor settings.

Edited by Shockman, 10 March 2015 - 01:48 AM.

[chas]

50 is the default size and 1 mass is correct. The only reason balls are made bigger than that is to make up for a table that was made too big. 55 was apparently a mistake on my part. The table was not made big enough to warrant that.

 

This is all behind the scenes to people that come to play pinball. If they look behind the scenes and see difficulty they are making it difficult on themselves. There are release versions of VP and plenty of tables to play. If they want to try VPX it's as easy as following the first post. If they are interested enough, they can keep updating, still from the first post. If they post problems and give up, I think it would be rare that the reason is not getting answers.

 

Involvement in the process takes time and work, but that is what involvement is.

 

 

3..... why did the dev team decide to not keep the new programs compatible with the older programs?

 

They made a decision to make it so much better that they had no choice. It's a good thing, not a bad thing. Even after release and .VPX files are associated with Visual Pinball 10, the .VPT tables will run by clicking on them..

 

what about my Q #1 in the above post? ignore the 55default.....use 50 default .....correct or not correct?

 

if i remember correct the talk for along time was to keep it compatible.....

 

shockman>>>>>This is all behind the scenes to people that come to play pinball. If they look behind the scenes and see difficulty they are making it difficult on themselves. There are release versions of VP and plenty of tables to play. If they want to try VPX it's as easy as following the first post. If they are interested enough, they can keep updating, still from the first post. If they post problems and give up, I think it would be rare that the reason is not getting answers.>>>>>>

chas>>>>>i think you missed my meaning....alot out there dont have the pc skills.....the ones that are more experienced might make it here.....ive seen it happen....they posted for some help, got real fustrated then dropped out.

Edited by chas, 10 March 2015 - 02:03 AM.

[Shockman]

If you want to use the default you don't have to do anything. There is only one default and it is 50. The only time I have read 55 was after I wrote it. Like I said I used 55, released it (I get antsy that way) and others found it too big and I was convinced they were right.. My table is 1000X2000 and is less than 100 either direction bigger than a real 80's Bally. That's the only reason I needed a bigger ball. I would have liked to have adjusted the table instead, but if you understand the relationship and the final scale, it would have been tens of thousands of times more work for the exact same effect.

 

I recall talk about early VPX being compatible too. I did not like the sound of it. It sounded too stifling. We should thank the lucky stars that the road led them too far forward. Like I said you will have working VP9 and VP9 tables for as long as you keep them. Same for VP8, but they could become obsolete any new Windows version now. Same would have been true for VP9 if the last thing did not involve a DX upgrade.

Edited by Shockman, 10 March 2015 - 02:45 AM.

[sliderpoint]

 

 

what about my Q #1 in the above post? ignore the 55default.....use 50 default .....correct or not correct?

 

if i remember correct the talk for along time was to keep it compatible.....

 

shockman>>>>>This is all behind the scenes to people that come to play pinball. If they look behind the scenes and see difficulty they are making it difficult on themselves. There are release versions of VP and plenty of tables to play. If they want to try VPX it's as easy as following the first post. If they are interested enough, they can keep updating, still from the first post. If they post problems and give up, I think it would be rare that the reason is not getting answers.>>>>>>

chas>>>>>i think you missed my meaning....alot out there dont have the pc skills.....the ones that are more experienced might make it here.....ive seen it happen....they posted for some help, got real fustrated then dropped out.

 

 

 

Without changing anything the default ballsize is 50.  It seems like Ballsize is a parameter and  so is ballmass?  I know Toxie gave the formula, but are they tied together in VP if you change the ballsize is it automatically changing the ballmass?

 

I believe they did keep them compatible as long as they could, but reached a point were advancement required a separation.  Even with that, the supporting files are maintaining backwards compatibility which enables you to have the .exe's in the same folders.  I understand you said you were away for about a year or so.  Based on what I've seen in the last year, it has been the year with the most significant changes to VP software and VP10 is a reflection of that.

 

I do agree this software can be pretty damn confusing if you're just coming to check it out. I think it took me month just to figure out all the moving pieces, and that had nothing to do with trying to make a table.

 

-Mike

[Shockman]

Yes,  ball size is as constant. So is mass I think but I have only used the editor to set that. Altering one does not change the other.

 

I can imagine things that would make the process easier, but I can't imagine anything that would make it easy, and still have any flexibility that really mattered, or artistic value. Easy would be select from a visual menu, drag it onto a table, maybe give it a value or two , select an image (creating one might be too hard), and play what you get. I would have forgotten VP existed by now if it was ever like that.

[Shockman]

Beta6 up in sig. and the testing thread.

[chas]

shockman and slider

sorry if  i was not clear.....in post 1407 above a someone wanted to increase the ball mass with increased ball size    (so ballsize = 55 would be ballmass = 1.1 ???)

what im asking if the ball size is increased the ball mass will increase....so a bigger ball should be changed to a smaller mass. .....not a bigger ball mass  EX: (ball size=55 ball mass = 0.9)

then increase the ballmass for a smaller ball ....EX: (ball size=45 ballmass 1.1)

Edited by chas, 10 March 2015 - 05:52 AM.

[mpad]

Becsuse it's a law of nature. What you trying to do is magic.

[toxie]

Without changing anything the default ballsize is 50.  It seems like Ballsize is a parameter and  so is ballmass?  I know Toxie gave the formula, but are they tied together in VP if you change the ballsize is it automatically changing the ballmass?

 

Both size and ball mass are separate, mainly to allow for different balls (f.e. TZ, VND have different balls). If you look at the very beginning of the file of core.vbs, there is a changelog.

And you can also create different balls via Kicker.CreateSizedBallWithMass (see commandreference.txt), or just change the ball mass for each ball via Ball.Mass (and of course size via Ball.Radius()).

[chas]

 

Without changing anything the default ballsize is 50.  It seems like Ballsize is a parameter and  so is ballmass?  I know Toxie gave the formula, but are they tied together in VP if you change the ballsize is it automatically changing the ballmass?

 

Both size and ball mass are separate, mainly to allow for different balls (f.e. TZ, VND have different balls). If you look at the very beginning of the file of core.vbs, there is a changelog.

And you can also create different balls via Kicker.CreateSizedBallWithMass (see commandreference.txt), or just change the ball mass for each ball via Ball.Mass (and of course size via Ball.Radius()).

 

the last update for the ball size was maybe 2yrs ago  EX:   const ballsize=45 in the script

did that change too for ball size and mass?

Edited by chas, 10 March 2015 - 07:01 AM.

[fuzzel]

rev1834 is up:

 

- fix default material color handling
- reverted the changes for grouped collections from revision 1819
- fix deleting an element doesn't switch back to table
- fix trigger paste-at issue
- SciLexer.dll updated to latest rev
- minimal optimization
- extend comment on calculating ball mass from ball size -> check the core.vbs file
 

[Shockman]

About ball mass,

 

I was confused when I said I set that in the editor. It was flipper mass. I haven't set ball mass.

I did not set it in the script either. The point of my enlarging the ball was cosmetic and proportional. The table was a bit big and the ball appeared a bit small. The intent was to get a normal sized ball, and I would certainly want a normal sized balls' physics.

[toxie]

This is the "problem" though: The mass changes were introduced with physmod, and due to this the size is nowadays coupled with the mass, so the size is not just a pure rendering option.

But you can experiment yourself by using a "Const BallMass = ..." in the script.