17 replies to this topic

[EalaDubhSidhe]

Now that the VP editor lets you actually see what you're doing as you experiment with layback settings, one thing that has always been apparent to me (and didn't look like it was ever going away) has now become easily fixable. How many FS tables - probably because the alternative was so much harder to find before - had settings for what looks 'right' on an overhead screen, rather than what you'd actually see while playing a cab? Most, if not all of them, appears to be the answer. Here's Nitro Ground Shaker, rendering using the settings provided by Cheapas soon after release yesterday, and the 'view' most FSers are used to:

 

 nitro.jpg   181.05KB   297 downloads

 

For a start, the fudge is obvious - it doesn't quite fill the entire screen, as the view has to be tilted back slightly to allow any visibily of the wall sides. So why, exactly, is this wrong? Well, those other developers who remember the bad old days when source material was more limited, will also recall the practice of taking whatever angled photos you could get, and distorting the perspective in Photoshop until they were 'straight' (ie., as flat a box-shape as you could make them). Remember how the objects closer to the top would become much more distorted and stretched taller? That's precisely the exercise your FS settings should be conducting now. Really, your plan-view should look much more like this:

 

 NGS cab layback 1.jpg   273.32KB   369 downloads

 

Wait, what? go the newbies, it's all squeezed in around the sides and totally the wrong shape and size around the top. Look how thick that arch rail is. How am I expected to play *this*?

 

What you have to remember is that the VP screen is, in essence, just like a photograph - a flat 2D plane. It *needs* that level of distortion and stretching to counter the same perspective effect, when the screen is placed at a natural angle to your eyeline. (Does anyone *actually* play FS tables on a desktop screen turned 90 degrees and viewed face-on? And if so, *why*?) If you take that same screenshot, and apply the reverse of the 'straightening' until it resembles that more natural view the cab screen will give you...

 

 NGS cab layback 2.jpg   285KB   316 downloads

 

You can tell the difference now? You can see the inner sides of all the walls, so all those nifty reflections and glow effects aren't going to waste, and everything has the difference in depth and height from front to back - the closer flippers look more face-on to your eyes than the further-away back wall does. It's simply much more *real*.

 

And the magic numbers to create this illusion? To give you the full idea of the extremes involved, the optimum settings for Nitro Ground Shaker from Inclination/Field Of View/Layback, through rotation and scale and down to X and Y offset, in order, are:

 

0, 75, 115 (greater than 90 degrees!), 270, 1.52, 2.22, -270, -535.

 

To any non-cab owners; kindly lend the others a hankie to wipe the coffee-spit off their screens.

Edited by EalaDubhSidhe, 19 April 2013 - 02:55 AM.

[The Loafer]

Don't disagree, the layback thread went some ways to show that having a more enhanced layback boosted the visuals considerably and IMHO that "narrower to the back" view doesn't hurt it for me at all but I know some don't like it,



Edit to compensate for horrid typing

Edited by The Loafer, 19 April 2013 - 04:14 AM.

[lizard]

I have just done similar to this on the 80 odd tables i have in my cabinet. I noticed that Gorgar looked a little better than most so i tried its layback settings on some tables ,instantly things look better. The main thing you notice is the pop bumpers now look better instead of looking like you are above them.

I start at 5,40,100 and go from there, some objects at the back of the playfield get way to distorted and the height of the associated walls needs to be decreased but i didnt find to many in the tables i have done. Tables with flippers in the upper area show the flipper as being to tall and i had to shorten them as well.

Overall these settings to me give more depth and i am very happy with the look of most tables. 

[EalaDubhSidhe]

Keep either the inclination or the field of view at zero - it's the *only* way you can evenly fill the screen with the entire table.

[htamas]

I think the player's view will also depend on how tall the person is. Shorter people may like more layback but taller folks (like myself) look at a table much more from above so the same settings may not be optimal for them.

Eala, thanks for the explanation... I see what you mean, but my problem with this is that what you are suggesting sort of tries to mimick how a desktop table looks which is not necessarily going to work for a cabinet.

I agree that somewhat more aggressive layback settings may benefit the overall view but your last screen shot is too much for me personally (and in this particular case, it still doesn't fix the rather weird shaped, too tall pop bumpers which would likely need a different image to look right).

[thewool]

Nice topic Eala and some good food for thought....

 

For me getting the authentic view of a table in my cabinet is a big deal, and is probably the biggest reason I don't play many (if any) FP tables on my cab. Sacrificing some space at the top of the monitor is well worth it. If you play real pins and get used to this view there really is no going back.

 

As htamas mentions it's a very personalised thing to get the right perspective. Other things to consider are where people have their playfield monitor mounted, whether it's on top of the cab (with the sides cut in), or recessed. By playing real pins I've found I get used to my bird's eye view so know what looks right for me... and the right blend still needs some inclination. In your shot, for me you can see far too much of the back of the flipper, this just isn't realistic. Unless I would be crouched down, which is the sort of view in a desktop tables.

 

This is from ipdb more of a typical view, even I think the dude has crouched down a touch to get as much detail in as possible:

 

 

I just entered my typical settings which work for me (my cab setup, my height, view I typically expect when playing a pin) and this is what I got. It's similar to yours but more 'stood over' the flippers. It's each to his own I suppose

 

Edited by thewool, 19 April 2013 - 09:40 AM.

[marauder]

Excellent observations! I've always wondered the same thing about keeping the inclination at 0 because the way I stand over the cab should compensate for that.

 

I do agree, however, with the comments above where your height plays a big difference on what the view settings should look like. I'm 1.89m (6'2'') and I tend to have a very overhead view of the table so I adjust the tables to look like that.

 

A couple of other things to take into consideration, in my opinion:

1. The physical size of the playfield monitor on a cab - I have a small 32'' monitor so, being tall, I still get a pretty good overhead view of the objects on the back. I guess if the monitor was larger I'd be further away from the back end and the objects would look more tilted. Does this make sense?
2. The angle of the playfield monitor relative to the playfield glass - The distance between the glass and the monitor near the apron is smaller than the distance at the back. I feel that this already creates an illusion of depth. Objects near the apron seem to closer vertically to me than the objects at the end. Again, does this make sense or is it just my impression?

[toxie]

Awesome thread!

All the cab settings investigations need to continue..

Cause the laidback topic was already very helpful, but i always thought one can get even better than that!

 

Apart from that i also contacted the author of the BAM mod for FP for some insight, and i hope i can port that code (i.e. the non-headtracking part) at some point in time directly to VP for easier table setups.. Unfortunately all the projection math is a bit scattered all over the place and it will take more time than planned..

[hmueck]

You can tell the difference now?

 

To be honest i was confused about the values, until i tried them in VP: you posted the pictures in the wrong order. After i knew that all made sense.

[EalaDubhSidhe]

Eala, thanks for the explanation... I see what you mean, but my problem with this is that what you are suggesting sort of tries to mimick how a desktop table looks which is not necessarily going to work for a cabinet.

 

Well, this visual effect is what layback was introduced for in the first place. You would never use layback on a desktop game, because it's a compensation measure - you might get the flippers and the back wall to appear the correct height relative to your eyeline - which is itself false on a desktop table - but then everything else is going to look wrong.

 

The other thing with desktop table views is they are habitually placed a lot lower than any adult's normal playing view, and we're perfectly comfortable with that. One reason is to utilise as much of the screen as possible so that the composition of playfield and background looks most appealing, but I think another reason is body posture - on your home PC, you're going to be sitting down to play the game, and the view reflects that better.

[luvthatapex]

Thats Eala, the table is lots of fun.

 

Making this one for the cab isn't as angle independent as it could be. Even though the settings work for the desktop, images and objects need to be changed for the FS view.

 

I took your settings, added new bumper caps and alignment, removed the decals on the rails, made the ramp rails black, removed the lockbar and adjusted the plunger area.

The spot targets would have to be redone along with the top arch for FS, but I think this view fills the screen more for the cab since you have rails/lockbar on your cab.

 

Not sure if you planned on a FS version, though I hope you do, but at least we can play it on the cab now, thanks!.

 

If you are curious, here are the settings I ended up with:

 

0
75
115
270
1.56
2.4
-270
-525

 

Next we'll have to make a B2S backglass (although for today you can use the UVP) to play this wonderful recreation on our cabs.

Attached Files

•  NitroGround.jpg   269.14KB   99 downloads

[chepas]

Those bumpers being straighter doesn't really match up with the table angle, looks funny on my eyes anyway.

 

To any non-cab owners; kindly lend the others a hankie to wipe the coffee-spit off their screens.

 

Haha, vintage

 

I will try the view with more depth, we could add in a bit of wall for the black? Bif of mdf or chipboard

[EalaDubhSidhe]

Yeah, this FS lark is turning out a shade more complex than I'd expected, and even with angle-independent ramp objects some allowances will always have to be made when the table is stretched to a different ratio between the X and Y axes to fit a 16:9 screen. It's going to look squashed in *some* way. In fact, while the bumper ramps look fine at the desktop view, they *are* stretched too tall when viewed from overhead, but a simple scale-down to 0.9 Y-length does the trick. Taking the feedback from the thread also into consideration, toning down the layback settings just a notch also makes an appreciable difference. As of now, the settings for NGS are 0, 65, 95, 270, 1.52, 2.23, -271, -475. Keeps the same basic effect, but the flippers in particular look just right to the eye, like the flippers in the iPDB shot are.

 

The other annoyance that seems to crop up more in coverting to FS is texture management and potential clashes from drawing priorities. The front decor textures on the drop targets keep popping in and out seemingly on a whim between games, and the plunger animation works on the desktop (it's just covered up for the sake of the scores), but doesn't move a muscle on the FS view. Haven't figured out why yet.

Edited by EalaDubhSidhe, 20 April 2013 - 12:46 AM.

[rob046]

Yeah, this FS lark is turning out a shade more complex than I'd expected, and even with angle-independent ramp objects some allowances will always have to be made when the table is stretched to a different ratio between the X and Y axes to fit a 16:9 screen. It's going to look squashed in *some* way. In fact, while the bumper ramps look fine at the desktop view, they *are* stretched too tall when viewed from overhead, but a simple scale-down to 0.9 Y-length does the trick. Taking the feedback from the thread also into consideration, toning down the layback settings just a notch also makes an appreciable difference. As of now, the settings for NGS are 0, 65, 95, 270, 1.52, 2.23, -271, -475. Keeps the same basic effect, but the flippers in particular look just right to the eye, like the flippers in the iPDB shot are.

 

The other annoyance that seems to crop up more in coverting to FS is texture management and potential clashes from drawing priorities. The front decor textures on the drop targets keep popping in and out seemingly on a whim between games, and the plunger animation works on the desktop (it's just covered up for the sake of the scores), but doesn't move a muscle on the FS view. Haven't figured out why yet.

 

When I've had weird glitches in FS, something that has worked for me in the past is adding just a little inclination, & yours is currently at 0.  Even just doing 0.1 inclination might help you out here.  As for the plunger animation, assuming they are ramp animations, I think I've had this issue when the bottom of the ramps are cropped a little bit off the screen, it can screw up the whole animation.  You need to fit those onto the visible screen area.  If you've done that, then this is probably just a code issue that needs sorted out.  Make sure you don't have double timers going on or anything like that.

[Pinhead22]

We should get this list going again!  http://www.vpforums.... setting&page=1

[toxie]

I started today (yet again) fooling around with some more extreme values, and this seems to work best for my setup (3D-TV aligned with playfield glass) on all kinds of tables:

 

Inclination 10.5, FOV 65, Layback 90

 

Thanks EalaDubhSidhe and others for bringing this discussion back up again, now the 3D looks better than ever..

[DedRok_V]

Problem with flippers also is where you stand when playing.

 

Your first settings would be good for me as I stand back and dont hover over the machine, plus use a 46" screen.

 

Others stand over the top looking down on the flipper like in the IPDB shot.

 

You will never get it right for everyone ..... the beauty is that it's angle independent so we all can change to suit ourselves.

Edited by DedRok_V, 21 April 2013 - 02:29 PM.

[Pinhead22]

Problem with flippers also is where you stand when playing.

 

Your first settings would be good for me as I stand back and dont hover over the machine, plus use a 46" screen.

 

Others stand over the top looking down on the flipper like in the IPDB shot.

 

You will never get it right for everyone ..... the beauty is that it's angle independent so we all can change to suit ourselves.

i agree, but layback settings are a BITCH!!  I wish there was something more intuitive.