tiltjlp
PN co-founder
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 3,403
- Reaction score
- 145
- Points
- 65
- Favorite Pinball Machine
- Flying Trapeze 1934
Future Pinball is still shiney and new, and there's no lack of enthusiasm for our newest toy, which is only normal. In light of a discussion about huge files sizes elsewhere, I thought I'd conduct a bit of a survey study, since I enjoy number games. Using only the original tables at VPO and the 2 flipperless ones here at PN, I found some interesting facts and figures. I'll present the raw facts, voice my own conclusions, and then stand aside and watch the resulting discussion. FP tables at IRP weren't included, mainly because they aren't rated, and I'm too lazy to go through my FP tables directory weeding out the IRP stuff for the file sizes.
There are 22 tables in my study, 21 at VPO, and one of those is also hosted here at PN. There have been 5607 DL at VPO for 21 tables, and 151 DL for the two recent additions here at PN. The average file size is 8.9 MB, not including three tables under 300 KB. 2 were over 22 MB, 4 over 15 MB, 8 over 10 MB, and 11 under 5 MB, this time including the 3 extremely samll tables. Of the 8 tables over 10 MB, I wasn't impressed by them as a whole any more than I was with the 11that were smaller than 5 MB.
Now for the ratings. Some of us feel that ratings don't mean a hill of beans, and these facts and figures might just prove us right. Only 12 tables received ratings at VPO, with 91 votes cast, with the lowest rating a 7 and the highest a 10, for an average rating of 8.9! Now, if perfection is unattainable, which most of us might agree is a valid point, at least only 1 table was rated 10. But 5 were rated 9 or above, with one at 9.8, and 4 more were rated 8 or above. I found it odd that none of Sphere's tables were rated, draw your own conclusion.
As for my observations, bloated file sizes don't make for better tables, maybe all they do is indicate bloated egos or self-opinons by the authors. While I could let a few names slip, again, draw your own conclusions. And yes, I'm a proponent of music packs, so larger size tables have to really impress me to be justified, and very few seem to deliver on their promise.
Now on to the ratings. 15% particpation for an enthusiastic audience is fairly poor from where I'm sitting. The fact that none of Sphere's work has been rated is no real surprise, although I do wonder how many folks didn't rate his tables simply because there seems to be a mystique about Sphere. But anyone who belives that an average FP table is worth a 8.9 rating suffers from "stinkin thinkin" IMNSHO and would DL a bag of sawdust. But I like to think something else influences all of this, both in FP and VP.
Since this is a hobby, we tend to be more accepting, and much too forgiving, in our judgements, and at least our public opinions. That's all well and good, except that authors won't strive to improve if they're constantly told how wonderful they are. Not even when deep down they know it ain't true. I could name authors and tables that I feel suck eggs, but why be unkind? All I ask of authors, even me, is that you listen to yourself, rather than all the glad handing. And even if you are convinced you're as good as they come, you should try to make every table just a bit better than your last one. Challenge yourself to ignore all the BS.
John
There are 22 tables in my study, 21 at VPO, and one of those is also hosted here at PN. There have been 5607 DL at VPO for 21 tables, and 151 DL for the two recent additions here at PN. The average file size is 8.9 MB, not including three tables under 300 KB. 2 were over 22 MB, 4 over 15 MB, 8 over 10 MB, and 11 under 5 MB, this time including the 3 extremely samll tables. Of the 8 tables over 10 MB, I wasn't impressed by them as a whole any more than I was with the 11that were smaller than 5 MB.
Now for the ratings. Some of us feel that ratings don't mean a hill of beans, and these facts and figures might just prove us right. Only 12 tables received ratings at VPO, with 91 votes cast, with the lowest rating a 7 and the highest a 10, for an average rating of 8.9! Now, if perfection is unattainable, which most of us might agree is a valid point, at least only 1 table was rated 10. But 5 were rated 9 or above, with one at 9.8, and 4 more were rated 8 or above. I found it odd that none of Sphere's tables were rated, draw your own conclusion.
As for my observations, bloated file sizes don't make for better tables, maybe all they do is indicate bloated egos or self-opinons by the authors. While I could let a few names slip, again, draw your own conclusions. And yes, I'm a proponent of music packs, so larger size tables have to really impress me to be justified, and very few seem to deliver on their promise.
Now on to the ratings. 15% particpation for an enthusiastic audience is fairly poor from where I'm sitting. The fact that none of Sphere's work has been rated is no real surprise, although I do wonder how many folks didn't rate his tables simply because there seems to be a mystique about Sphere. But anyone who belives that an average FP table is worth a 8.9 rating suffers from "stinkin thinkin" IMNSHO and would DL a bag of sawdust. But I like to think something else influences all of this, both in FP and VP.
Since this is a hobby, we tend to be more accepting, and much too forgiving, in our judgements, and at least our public opinions. That's all well and good, except that authors won't strive to improve if they're constantly told how wonderful they are. Not even when deep down they know it ain't true. I could name authors and tables that I feel suck eggs, but why be unkind? All I ask of authors, even me, is that you listen to yourself, rather than all the glad handing. And even if you are convinced you're as good as they come, you should try to make every table just a bit better than your last one. Challenge yourself to ignore all the BS.
John