Table Information/The State of VP9

[tiltjlp]

Today’s question for authors is this: Are you ashamed of your tables? The reason I ask is that there are so many tables are bare naked when it comes to figuring who made them. It’s surprising to me that so many tables don’t at least display the author or authors’ names somewhere on the table as you play. But just as bad, or worse, as this old writer sees it, is that so many people put so much time into making their tables, and then don’t fill in the Table Information.


Now not all of us are good at writing, but it can’t be too difficult to at least add the name of the table, the author or authors, the release date, and contact information. And the bonus is that you just might get an e-mail or two from a fan of your work. But just as important is writing out a set of rules/features, so a player knows what the goals of the game are. I’m a fairly lousy player, so I need all the help I need.

I realize that your gem of a table is so fantastic that you want to get it out there as quickly as you can. But rushing means you don’t fill in the Table Information, and more than likely, don’t test your table nearly enough to assure that it’s not full of bugs. None of us are perfect, so I’m not pointing my finger at anyone in particular. But what is so hand about identifying your table as yours, and giving me an idea what your wonderful table is about. Remember, we don’t have to download your table. I know, because those bagatelle I make aren’t really that popular; but then, I make them for myself, and to preserve pinball history.

 

[bob]

I don't like to see the authors name on the screen while I'm playing a table. I use to remove all of the IRPinball credits from the screen back when they were creating tables. I don't mind a subtle avatar or a well placed small image to identify the author, such as Papa Smurf for JP.

If someone creates more than 5 tables, you can usually identify the table just by their style of building.

I usually fill out the table info, but I rarely look at the table info in other tables.

I'm superficial. I judge the table entirely on the Release screenshot, want me to download your table, it better look damn nice.

If there's one thing I've learned about VP, if you want downloads, build VPM tables. If you want comments, make WIP threads and give a daily report and a screenshot of your progress and mention your favorite beverage early on in the WIP. If you want to have fun, be creative and create oddball tables, such as Bagatelles and Originals.

I'd like to liven this place up John, but this topic didn't stir the pot years ago when you first posted it. :) People never really gave a crap and they even give less of a crap now.

There are some unbelievable tables being released, but VP9 isn't made for a cheapo pc anymore, so someone discovers VP, tries to get tables working, if successful, they then may have graphic problems, stuttering problems, display aspect problems, missing table objects, they eventually just get pissed and put VP into the Recycle bin. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Welcome back John.

 

[tiltjlp]

Doesn't surprise me that I covered this before Bob, and sad to say, everything you say is true, especially about VP9 and outdated computers. Mine is a 2nd hand, 7 year old relic, and there are a number of VP9 tables that are so slow to load on my antique I don't even try playing them, I just close them out. So I'm glad I still have VP8, because I haven't found a table that won't play on my computer using VP8. Luckily bagatelle and the other odd games I sometimes make are simple and basic enough to work with VP9. So give me time, I'll come up with a hot topic yet . . . ot maybe I won't. But I'll keep trying.

 

[Shockman]

I think it has turned into a hot topic. To touch on it's initial query, I doubt that shame has anything to do with the signature or lack, on re-creations. I think more plausible explanations would involve
- modesty, probably least, but maybe more than shame.
- respect, for the true and original creators of the product.
- fear, probably not, thinking in terms of copyright, yeah, probably not, could have
motivated a person or two though.
- most likely in my opinion is to recreate the presentation closer to it's original form.

As to the turn of the topic. I agree. VP has advanced more in it's target than it has in it's base. It can never have the popularity that it once had if it looses focus on it's base, no matter how advanced it gets. Unfortunately, it seems to me that instead of expanding it to the target, that it is more like it has been re-engineered to the target, loosing a lot of it's base. Computers are greatly advanced, but in comparing the two VP majors on a mid range system you would think computers are going to pot. This should be unacceptable in my opinion because it is not the case. VP9 just makes it seem so. I wore out my welcome at VPF.org for saying this, but nothing should be accepted as advancement in VP if it is going to come at the cost of breaking it's long standard or any part of that. Nothing has been done that would break backward compatibility as a rule, other than break the backward compatibility in favor of setting it up to focus on the new features instead of the new features being the ones that need the setting up. In my opinion again, having to set it up for the long standard of features is stupid. In this way VP is changing, not merely improving. I say this because the new features it does have, as cool as they are, will never be the standard unless they are the only supported features, at which point VP is dead outside of the niche.

The next releases will in my opinion shed much light on the future of VP. Is it going to work as easy as it once did on a fair to mid. computer, or at least show signs of that being the focus, or is it going to cater to another, a third monitor and run LED leads and tilt bobs.

I support advancement, including hardware support, but I think it should be in it's own build. It should be obvious that using one build for two environments is a major chore, and one that has not even been proven doable yet. If the next release shows different, then I would be happy to have been proven wrong.

 

[sleepy]

The best way to serve the high and the low is to put both versions in the same .exe and control it by system Default (by the CPU specs./DX ver./OS/system RAM size as the determinants, not the video card) or, less appealing, by a user preference setting.
The file size for the current VP909 is 1.2 Mb./ and the combined .exe would still be ~ 2 Megs.
Have the older systems determine the performance settings by the .exe but offer a manual override menu just like many PC video games that offers high / low legacy settings.

 

[sleepy]

The best way to serve the high and the low is to put both versions in the same .exe and control it by system Default (by the CPU specs./DX ver./OS/system RAM size as the determinants, EDIT: And the video card) or, less appealing, by a user preference setting.
The file size for the current VP909 is 1.2 Mb./ and the combined .exe would still be ~ 2 Megs.
Have the older systems determine the performance settings by the .exe but offer a manual override menu just like many PC video games that offers high / low legacy settings.

 

[sleepy]

For that matter, if new VP 9 tables included an I.D. flag to determine whether to play the table in VP 9 mode or legacy VP 8, then...
Any table without the flag would be initialized by the .exe to be pre-VP9, but I would include an override switch just in case it isn't so.

 

[Shockman]

I don't know anything about that sleepy. I didn't know that was done. You are talking about an exe. that would run either of the two .exe files? A build with double sub routines, one for each system with common ones? I don't get that either. I agree that any output especially, or hardware support should be in their own routines, which does not seem to be the case, but must be the case for the most part. If I knew all this I would have a VP release of my own.

What I was getting at is to just stop the pretense and have a new build for the new features. We have builds that play the existing tables, and backwards compatibility is all but gone, and that is the point where you have a new program, not a new revision. This is not like a word processor where all work is basically a new start on a project, like most other software is, this is a player that needs to maintain a 100% compatibility solution because of the installed base of projects. Besides the new version should be focused on taking VP to the next level, unencumbered by something that supported by a existing solution. Like tape and disc for example. VP8 is that solution, not VP9.

The problem is that the new direction is not focused on the same type projects at all. The best VP for the most people at this point, giving the features that are available in various versions, would be VP8 with the higher res graphic support and little else.

Much, most even of what in new in VP9 is of no use to anyone wanting to run VP on a standard desktop computer, as most of us do. Compatibility is gone, the devs don't care for VP8 therefore desktop VP usage, they are making it worse, so they should as I put it drop the pretense and run with it. I think if they were to do this then there would be a great chance that a new dev group would form to keep VP on it's intended track and take the good and useful from the state of the art and install it into a dedicated desktop build void of the niche bloat, niche settings, and consequential bugs.

The tragic thing is not that VP9 is not backwards compatible with VP8. The tragedy is that VP is becoming less compatible with the standard configuration of our display and control hardware. The argument is that it is not, but instead can be tweaked to work on a standard desktop setup like 'you can still force it to show a tilt with a keyboard' or 'you can add strength to the plunger if you happen to use a keyboard to play' etc. Does this make sense? That the virtual all of us have to tweak it instead of the few?

VP8 may be dead. Stagnate might be a better term, but dead just as true. Desktop users will some day realize that VP8 is dead even if they are still using it. Unless and until the VP devs realize that cabinets are not the future, no matter how big the niche becomes. With a desktop build with desktop settings that has all the non cabinet features the cabinet focus build does, the cabinet niche will never hit .2%. With no easy desktop solution it could reach 1.5%. It will never amount to much though.

One thing that I am certain of is that this is going to change at some point. The devs are going to have to fix the bugs the new features left behind for desktop setups, fix up VP8 for desktop with some of the features, or face the day when it becomes obvious to everyone, not just me, that VP for the desktop computer is on the fast track to extinction. Talking about revised of course. They can not take VP8 away. Either way, VP8 should get the flipper fix and highres graphics, or VP9.newer should drop the niche hardware settings because it will NEVER be backward compatible, no matter how much work goes into it if we do not get the standard settings back as default.

Of course they can come out and admit if they don't care about either the user base or product base. Honesty goes a long way, and I could accept that answer and conclude that all the installed base will have to be reworked. It's just not necessary in my opinion. One of the first features of VP9 was the flipper fix. If they can do that to VP7 and call it VP9, then they can do that to VP8 and call it VP8, same with the high res graphics.

I'm writing this with the assumption they do care and I am trying to help. Not that they don't and I am bitching. Always has been so.

I'm not angry, as it reads. I'm just talking sense here.

 

[tiltjlp]

I'm not sure how my initial post about Table Information turned into a discussion about the direction the VP Devs are taking it, but that's fine with me. The bottom line for me is that many VP9 tables won't play on my tired old computer. If worse comes to worse I'll go back to making tables with VP 8.1, even if it ends up nobody else wants to play them. Very few people play my tables now, so it's no big deal. I make tables that I like to keep busy, and to challenge my creativity.

 

[Shockman]

I thought you and Bob did in posts 2 and three. I was just giving my opinion on things mentioned.

Even if worse don't come to worse, or even if better comes to better, I wanted to touch on something you said at VPF when you said that the bagatelles seem to work ok in VP9. While it's true that anything so far can be made to work in nine, keep in mind that with bagatelles you have to be careful to inspect the distance between each pin and test if they are close. If there was just enough space between in 8 then the ball will certainly get stuck in 9. There are some nice physics changes in 9 but the ball is still not correct. However with 9 you no longer have to create a pocket with a invisible wall as the ball will not fall through the nails. This makes 9 actually better for those types of tables as you don't need to destroy the ball at rest in a pocket of nails. You do not even have to capture them in kickers. Just let them stay there and bounce around when you nudge. It makes these tables infinitely more realistic. If'n your machine will handle 10 or so active balls.
I did this with your Trumps and it was nice. I did it in 8 though and don't have it any longer. I have tested this in 9 though and it works. 8 handles more active balls than 9 does on my system, because 9 does more look ahead analysis. I even had Trumps reloading the balls by changing the slope at the end of a game, with a key, in effect turning the board upside down.

PS. Work continues on He Man but I have also been working on a Tac/Scan re-creation that I'm going to call Tac/Scan 360.

 

[tiltjlp]

Whatever the reason Phil, you helped turn this into a more interesting topic, so thanks. I'm working with 9 now, and like most of what I see so far. I'm still waiting for the documentation for 9, because the old Visual Guide isn't much help these days. A lot of authors might know some or most of this stuff off the top of their heads, but not me. I cut abd paste and when needed, guess my best and hope I can figure out the mess I've made.

 

[StevOz]

Tables info is just something I feel is just overlooked for the most part, I know I've done it myself, you build a table and when you have it all working, you just want to release and totally forget about details like table info.

I totally agree with Shockman, VP9 was actually a commercial hack of VP7, the code was handed back to Randy and he did try to incorporate the changes into VP8. He was unable to fully add those changes due to the fact VP7 was modified to work with the specific hardware they had used, mainly the Nvidia 7600 they used in their hardware. Being a commercial venture they had no concern as to whether the changes would work with other hardware, thus the ATI problems and other anomalies that do occur.

The revisions of VP9 have tried to address many of those issues, never the less given the base to work from, many issues do remain. Until those with the skills and drive to make those extensive fixes can fully fix those anomalies and problems, they will remain.

 

[Itchigo]

I didn't think vp8 was dead? Of course I only learned to use a computer 2 years ago and I still like my vcr so I'm probably a little slow on the uptake. My machine will run vp9, even my old ibm a31 runs vp9 at 7 years old, even some fp. There are some tables done in vp8 so well redoing them in vp9 doesn't make sense to me. F-14 Tomcat is one that comes to mind. As for the table info, point taken it's easily overlooked.

 

[StevOz]

Whilst you may indeed be able to run VP9 on some older hardware can you do so utilising all it's features, HD render on and run tables with images over 1024x1024?

Whilst some may argue this is a limitation of older hardware and be correct to some degree, this still does not address the fact that such limitations exist on many newer computers running graphics cards and CPUs that should not have such limitations or driver problems that is due to the hardware/driver specific coding of VP9.

 

[Shockman]

I didn't think vp8 was dead? Of course I only learned to use a computer 2 years ago and I still like my vcr so I'm probably a little slow on the uptake. My machine will run vp9, even my old ibm a31 runs vp9 at 7 years old, even some fp. There are some tables done in vp8 so well redoing them in vp9 doesn't make sense to me. F-14 Tomcat is one that comes to mind. As for the table info, point taken it's easily overlooked.

I don't think VP8 is dead either. I would also say that if VP continues on the track it is on that VP8 will actually again be the flagship one day, revised or not. Not because it works better, but because it works.

The only sense in redoing those VP8 tables that are so well done to VP9 is to fix the ball through the flipper problem. Something that the devs should in my opinion put into every version of VP that is offered on their home site, VPF, including VP8.1. As I said, it was the first thing fixed when 7 was turned into the product that became 9 and should have been released before any hardware support was added, as a base, and a courtesy. There was full knowledge from the beginning that the rest of the alterations was going to be proprietary, and that an agreement was made to release back to the community. At the time the community was not interested in the niche hardware, it was interested in the improved physics and the ball/flipper fix. It seemed shameful to me that the release back to the community was a build that Randy could do little with.

There was however some good programming done that turned that 7 into a working solution (8), but for some unkown reason, without the ball through the flipper fix, so the problems with 9 have to be attributed more to the current devs than to UC. History needs to repeat it's self and 9 become the stable version that 8 did.

 

[Itchigo]

I run with HD render off at 768x1024 on that computer.