Tutorial Physics/XML "XML" Arguments and Explanations

[Popotte]

And the main reason, for me, is I think with that, we can produce more realistic spinners.

 

[AnonTet]

You know, even with a real pinball, if you change the sloope, you have big changes.
And the sloope is not the same for Em's, SS's or DMD's.

The materials properties don't change with the slope. FP takes care of that by taking into consideration the value we use. But we need to keep in mind that just because we can have slope from 1-10 that all will work. Common sense should be used and hopefully 1 template can be used from 6-8º which I think is a reasonable interval.

 

[Paolo]

ok, apparently we are in a waiting state.....

what seems feasible in certain terms, has turned out to be a very long job to be able to do, and perhaps this prevents us from doing it ....
if I knew what to do and how to change the value other objects , based on certain aspects, as in this case of the mass ... I would try to do it myself ....but how to do? maybe the only way is how popotte(JP) thinks, or just everyone does what he believes.

all the more reason I think this, because I see that even George, despite having spent many years in physics / xml, does not have a clear picture of the situation, so I think he too has many doubts now, I know it is not easy, maybe he finds all this boring, or not to give it too much weight ... but I don't see him very involved, I see that he still doesn't have answers to my questions.

Ok, I asked Rav .... if it is possible to have an instruction "for example" Create Ext for all "as Jp suggests, so as to be able to possibly take other steps below ... I hope so

for the moment, other hypotheses are open

 

[GeorgeH]

11) now I ask ALL you, is it possible to create optimal physics that can be used in all tables? IS a dream of mine in technicolor, or is it possible?

I agree with JP you can get close. You might try the values in the following tutorial and see what you think. I think it plays well on ~90% of the tables. You may need to make some adjustments to get the ball to traverse ramps.

Tutorial - Physics/XML - A Simple Way to Add Physics to Any Future Pinball (FP) Table with Original Physics

This tutorial can still be used although there is a new tutorial for FizX Lite Edition that you should consider using that is available here. It does require a little more work to add to your table. Note: This tutorial requires that you have Better Arcade Mode (BAM) installed. I wrote...

pinballnirvana.com

 

[Paolo]

You might try the values in the following tutorial and see what you think. I think it plays well on ~90% of the tables. You may need to make some adjustments to get the ball to traverse ramps.

as JP pointed out, your xml has errors, for other objects regarding the mass....if I'm wrong, correct me, I'm ready to apologize

 

[Paolo]

I repeat, everyone can do the xml, as he believes,everyone is free....
I have never interacted with the xml, and know that if I put the mass at 30 or 50 80, and then the other masses are left behind, or they are left as in the standard version of fp ... then I understand that it doesn't work as I think ... therefore I don't use it

the purpose of my thread is to try to create an optimal configuration, a state of the art xml ..... and if need astronomical math to do it, I'll wait .... if it serves as JP it suggests,I wait, for me it is useless to just change mass and gravity ... or some other parameter that is easy to understand and do ..... and leave everything else as it is .... I did some examples before. ... if you change mass and gravity, gates don't work as well as spinners like kickers and diverters ...

 

[GeorgeH]

some questions .... you have been making "mods" for many years, in your tables you always change physics or xml configurations right? are you satisfied with the gameplay you ultimately have at that table?

I have never noticed that the values for mass are not consistent for one parameter to the next until JP brought it up. ...But in the end, it doesn't really make much difference when you consider the trial and error method that you have to use to make changes. If the mass is low, you raise it until it plays the way you want.

in xml, you, configure everything?

I start an XML file where I have made adjustments over the years. I make changes to it from there. There are some parameters I almost never change from the start file. I nearly always change the ball parameters.

did you ever know that in xml there are wrong values such as mass of objects?

sure it is all trial and error. If you like a change you make, you keep it. If the table plays worse, you change it.

have you ever noticed that when you do your xml configurations such as mass and gravity, some objects no longer work well?

do you think your knowledge in this matter can be of help here?

It might help somewhat. Mass and gravity affect each other is something I added.

you know each line of the xml, and what it is, and what it refers to, and above all the values?

No. You can find definitions of many of the terms on the internet. If you think it will help, you can try it. I tried it. It didn't help me as much as increasing a value and observing the effects when I play the table.

 

[GeorgeH]

as JP pointed out, your xml has errors, for other objects regarding the mass....if I'm wrong, correct me, I'm ready to apologize

I think JPs point is that the values for mass are not consistent from one listing to the next. I suppose you can call them errors but it plays the way I want so I am satisfied.

 

[Popotte]

as JP pointed out, your xml has errors, for other objects regarding the mass....if I'm wrong, correct me, I'm ready to apologize

It's not an error. Well, it's an error considering real physic. But not for FP. Original .xml have the same errors.

 

[Paolo]

Ok thanks for your answers, @GeorgeH they help in context...
I can express my opinion?

I think JPs point is that the values for mass are not consistent from one listing to the next. I suppose you can call them errors but it plays the way I want so I am satisfied.

Yes of course they call them errors, if they are not consistent, to the mass that a person imposes, what would you like to call them?

I am happy you are satisfied, the years in this subject allow you to find your own personal physics to be satisfied, but it is not necessarily correct .... I am not judging your work, I do not allow myself ..... my interest is common, to find a configuration that could benefit everyone, and for all tables.it is possible, it is not possible this is to be seen.

what I hope is, to collaborate together and to find an optimal configuration for everyone and not only for personal satisfaction .... I am also satisfied with my tables, but I cannot say that you or another like it, the physics in that table of mine

 

[GeorgeH]

It's not an error. Well, it's an error considering real physic. But not for FP. Original .xml have the same errors.

It could be a reason why some folks don't like Newtonian physics.

 

[GeorgeH]

Yes of course they call them errors, if they are not consistent, to the mass that a person imposes, what would you like to call them?

You could say that Newtonian physics is messed up. ...Or maybe the values for mass in different parameters were never intended to be compared with each other.

 

[Paolo]

It's not an error. Well, it's an error considering real physic. But not for FP. Original .xml have the same errors.

ok, I agree with what you say, call it whatever you think best, error or other name ... it doesn't matter ... what is important is that: IF you manage to have an "instruction", such as " CreateExt for all "to set all xml in an optimal configuration, right? with cheat keys .... we can have the possibility of having an improved xml, therefore a much better gameplay than what the standard fp xml offers, (the one I put on the front page)

 

[Paolo]

It could be a reason why some folks don't like Newtonian physics.

I don't know, this I !!! how can I know!!! I don't know what it is!!!

i just know that when i play at any vpx table, i always find it good in gameplay...do they also use xml for physics ???
what physics does vpx have? why do i get the feeling that it is much better than fp?

 

[GeorgeH]

Newtonian physics is the physics engine that FP uses. I have found there are quite a few people that say they don't like it although I haven't seen many explanations as to why. There are other physics engines available but I don't know anything about them.

I don't know anything about vpx.

 

[Paolo]

I don't know anything about vpx.

you have never played at any vpx table?

 

[Paolo]

Newtonian physics is the physics engine that FP uses

ok...it could also be a Martian for me ... instead of Newtonian, but that's not the point .... the point is: can we improve the physics of fp, via bam, which is based on the xml file ....? according to JP, yes.....and can't wait to see it if Rav allows it

I admire your effort to improve the physics in your "mods" through your xml ..... but unfortunately it stops there .... I can't use it for my table .... (and let me say also for other tables), because it is different from my vision of that table of yours .... I don't know if it's clear

instead if we find an xml, then a physics suitable for all tables in general, it is a great start .... without making any particular changes, difficult to conceive and that at that moment one does not know what he is doing

 

[Popotte]

Don't forget that FP was launched by 2005, so development has surely begin by 2003.
And, at this date, I don't thing they are many free products avalaible (for physic).

 

[AnonTet]

Even worse worse the physics engine continued its development but FP did not so it does not have the most updated physics engine either.

 

[GeorgeH]

Even worse worse the physics engine continued its development but FP did not so it does not have the most updated physics engine either.

Rafal looked at upgrading the physics engine. He said the newer versions either didn't improve anything or made it worse.

 

[AnonTet]

One would expect updated engine would produce better results.

It's sad to read that.

 

[ravarcade]

I don't know if it would be .CreateAllExt, what I want is the possibility, in the script, to have (for example):
Bumper1.Impulse = "100"
LeftSlingshot.vectorramdomness = "5"
Spinner.angularDamp = "1.25"
...

I don't care about the name of the instruction to do that.

1. Bumper1.Impulse =...
Nope, it will not work. Maybe i will find way to chage strength slider from script.

2. LeftSlingshot.vectorramdomness = ...
Nope. Params like that are out of my control. FP.exe don't allow to change this param after it parse script. Also it is sharde for all slingshots, not for one selected.

3. Spinner.angularDamp = ...
That may work. I'm not sure.

4. anyObject.mass = ...
This one is not that simple. It is easy to change object inertia (inertiala is scaling linearly with mass), but it is hard to extract mass.
So, it may be easy to multiply mass by for example 0.1 or 10.0, but it you may not be able to set specific number.

Some params are generic for all physics objects, like linear or angular damping or inertial matix (~mass).

I will look at this next weekend.

 

[Paolo]

I will look at this next weekend.

@ravarcade
Many thanks Rav.....this is a great start, so we might think that it will be devised by you, for us, a better method for better xml, and therefore physics?

 

[Popotte]

@ravarcade
OK, thanks for the response.
In fact, I'm interested only by spinner and all his parameters because I think the only way to have a good spinner is to initialize parameters depending of the impact speed and then vary the parameters turn after turn.
Maybe with only spinDampX and SpinBackX. Maybe not...

<spinner mass="45.0" gravity="100.0" angularDamp="0.5" angularAccel="5.0"
spinDampLoose="0.325" spinBackLoose="2.850"
spinDampNorm="0.575" spinBackNorm="3.250"
spinDampTight="0.750" spinBackTight="3.500"></spinner>

 

[Paolo]

@Popotte
@ravarcade

why only the spinner? there are many values that are wrong or that don't work, when I generate the xml ..... with Bam

slope in xml does not work takes precedence in editor

if I change the characteristics of the ball mass and gravity, the other objects do not work well as gate, spinner, kicker and etc.

what I would like to have correct parameters in standard xml, when I generate it with bam, then I make my changes that I deem appropriate

EDIT;
the focus of this thread is to try to have a better xml of all origin, with correct parameters, then with the abilities of popotte or the modifications that Rav is willing to make, based on the idea of popotte,for have an xml that could be used as a base for all tables