Shockman said:
You broke my table, as far as I am concerned, and you had no right to do that.
So you are using slow speed upswings on your table?
We all agreed back then that the fix for the problem was worth it.
And I'm saying removing the cause of the problem is just as valid as band-aiding the cause so it no longer causes it. Why not remove something that is defective and does not do what it was intended to do (which was to make the flipper move SLOWER on the downswing than the upswing) rather than force it to do something that is completely opposite to its intended effect (i.e. the fix was making it force the flipper to a fixed FAST rate, which could make it move faster than the upswing on a table using a slow upswing, which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the code was there to do in the first place, which again was to make the flipper move SLOWER than the upspeed.
If you remove the code, you have a flipper that moves up and down at the SAME rate, which is preferable to a faster downswing. I used a rate that matched my upswing (so I'd neither get the BTTF effect or have a faster moving downswing) and removing the system produces the exact same effect, so there's no difference at all to me.
THAT"S WHY YOU EMAILED THEM YOURSELF AND SAID YOUR NUMBER WAS BETTER and that it should be put into the .VBS like I was saying before that.
That's simply not true. I never said my number was better and that's a blatant mis-quote or even a LIE, really. I did tell him it had to be corrected in the VBS file and using a number like 0.137 would fix it. I used that number because it's what I use and I didn't want the downswing to be FASTER than my upswing. Some people like PK argued that 0.137 was TOO SLOW and that a much faster number should be used, but that would look even more ridiculous if my 0.137 upswing was accompanied by a 0.500 downswing (whereby the flipper would move upward and then instantly downward and look visually WEIRD to say the very least).
But this way, that's not an issue because it will simply match your upswing. And the SAME is better than faster on the downswing.
AGAIN, the purpose of having a separate downswing was to have it LOOK more realistic by having a SLOWER downswing. By forcing a HIGH number in the VBS CORE, the true purpose of even having that code in the first place was DEFEATED. Thus, I say that code doesn't even need to be there anymore.
I did, however, keep the forced power downswing, but lowered the number to a power whereby it can't hit the ball with any force (as a spring loaded flipper isn't going to do much of anything to a ball beyond its rubber value).
You broke many tables everyone that does not use a fast enough speed is going to get balls through the flippers.
Give an example and then ALSO tell me how realistic it looks to have the flipper move up slow and move down fast. Why not tell those authors to use a more realistic upswing instead? Because it will look silly to have the downswing go faster than the upswing.
was wrong. To take out my fix that fixed it for every one is childish, and very wrong, evil and stupid, as well as
Oh, you mean sort of like your own behavior every day on these forums????
disrespectful to the community. You had no right, it's as simple as that. There is nothing you can say short of 'it's back' to change that fact.
I had every right. I'm the maintainer of the VBS files and I removed a bug that was there since inception and CAUSED the problem in many tables that would otherwise not ever have had the problem (i.e. ones with reasonable realistic flipper settings would STILL have had the BTTF problem with the original VBS Core, but no longer have it without that code). As for tables that have SLOW upswing values, it's not my job to fix individual tables that are using unrealistic values. Forcing a high downswing limits the author's choices and may make their flippers look silly as well. They should fix their upswing so the downswing doesn't look ridiculous with the old FIX and to prevent the BTTF with the new fix. Thus, EITHER WAY, those authors should STILL fix their tables! Becauwe EITHER WAY, it either LOOKS WRONG or BEHAVES WRONG or BOTH.
STFU about what caused the problem, that's just trying to draw attention away from the issue.
The real issue is you acting like psychopathic nutball. I want nothing to do with ANYTHING you have done with VP when you act like that and thus my decision to eliminate the bug rather than patch it.
It don't matter what caused the problem.
Sure it does. The purpose of that code was defeated when it was patched. Thus, it was no longer needed in the first place. I also had several authors tell me they didn't want an arbitrary fast value in there and I was defeating hte purpose of the code to make it LOOK realistic. I had to argue that you either had it look fast or balls would drop through. There's no difference now because again it either moves fast or the ball drops through.
Even if the team did not slow down the back swing we would still have the problem.
Only on tables using slow upswings. There is no reason to use a slow upswing. Real flippers move fast (they are kicked into place with a solenoid action).
Some of us want realistic action as best as they can get, and some of us are just happy with something that works I guess, me, I had both imo. You had NO right.
It doesn't LOOK right (and therefore unrealistic) to have a faster downswing than an upswing. If your table uses a slow upswing than it's already unrealistic. Forcing an even faster downswing will only make it look even more unrealistic.
The ONLY viable solution for BOTH situations is to use the SAME value for both. At least then it doesn't look FASTER (which looks odd) and it won't cause the BTTF with a proper upwsing speed either.
Most tables that feel right use flipper settings with speeds greater than 0.1. Those tables should play the same regardless. I'd expect any table using some odd flipper setting that has a speed less than 0.1 to aim weird anyway (or could be corrected with lower strengths and more speed).
Of course, if you had not acted like a complete nutjob, I wouldn't have bothered to change it in the first place. Actually, I thought about adding a new call whereby you could specify the speed and strength of the downswing right in the call itself, but you'd probably bitch about that too saying you invented it so I figured why bother.