- This topic has 22 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
First of all I want to thank Hauntfreaks for the “older guide” on how to setup BackDrop settings over at VPF.
ref. http://www.vpforums.org/index.php?showtopic=35139&page=1I’ve adopted this technique and I simply love the outcome. In general what I do is I’ve stolen the settings that Senseless posted. Starting off with setting inc to 3, fov to 30 and layback of 74. Then “reset” the rest to 1. Max out Z scale and adjust it with Y to fit. Leave X scale at 1 and inc Y scale to fit.
I’m pretty pleased with the outcome – but, god damn, every time that damn graphic genius posts his POV settings, I seem to prefer his over mine.
So, my question is first of all to Hauntfreaks, do you have some updated info around this subject ? Would love to hear if anyone else has some input on the subject too.You need to login in order to like this post: click here
2 users thanked author for this post.
funny you bring that old post up, I noticed that some of the builders that at one time didn’t take it serious or believed it didnt make any difference , now using the 1:1 technique…
now with how great the camera mode is in VPX, it is so much better and easier how we get to the end result… as for any new techniques, its not new but when i’m getting my POV where I want it, one of the main things i’m looking is the height of the posts and the bumpers… in FS IMO you need to see some of the bumper skirt, but too much skirt means the bumpers are too high, seeing no skirt would mean too short… this also goes for the posts, and sometimes, you just need to find a happy medium
the two settings that seem to affect the height most are the layback and field of view….
lately I have been using 0 (zero) inclination on EMs and early SS with no ramps, this works out nice on 16:9 TV and Monitors…. also 99% of the time I use my design computer to set my POV since both my cab and puter use 16:9 ratio displays…. some guys worry about the Y scale being stretched, sadly I don’t think there is any way around it sometimes…. I’m a display whore and I want it filled edge to edge… but thats a personal preference… but then again in reality, its ALL personal preference, use a POV that make your eyes happy… thats always the best one….  Â
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
3 users thanked author for this post.
Great topic and a good read, I think it’s time to start tweaking the tables POV more often. I guess I’m just lazy and leave it, but nowadays i’m just looking to add more depth. Some look good and some look 2D. Thanks for the tips
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I been doing the same on my setup also. But I give them a little more depth so they look correct on my setup  I also manage my moms mini cab and just copy my tables to a google drive folder and then copy them to hers.  The problem, well not really a problem. I guess more of an observation. The tables do not look as good on hers as they do mine. But our monitor angles and depths are different. That has a huge impact on what see on each of our screens.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
So for the Simpsons Pinball Party, did you change the layout to your liking already? Â I am working on every table changing to my liking to my liking and I’m just trying to understand your beautiful/scary mindÂ
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
@hauntfreaks So for the Simpsons Pinball Party, did you change the layout to your liking already? I am working on every table changing to my liking to my liking and I’m just trying to understand your beautiful/scary mind
I think the POV used in the last link i posted is my POV… so if you were looking for mine its already there…
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Yeah that’s it haunt, from now on you should post your tweaked POV xml in every support topic on every tableÂ
 Chop-chop.All kidding aside I do think you POV values look fantastic in my cab. I thought I had Family Guy pretty dialed in and then saw your settings.. then mumbled some four-letter word under my nose and never went back to mine. So please keep’em coming..
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Agreed I also use haunts pov’s.
********************************************************
Messing with the VPinball app and push notifications.
So if you haven't downloaded app yet what are you waiting for!?
for IOS and Android********************************************************
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
and I still see builders using landscape FS Â X scale over “1” Â …. I guess old habits are hard to break… Â Â :(
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I’m gonna throw a counterpoint in here just for the hell of it. HF’s views look great and I think his rules on bumper height are spot on but there is an OCD part of me that doesn’t like deviating from 1:1. I don’t like my movies stretched to fill my screen either. A little black on the edges of the screen seems fine to me if I’m seeing a 1:1 representation.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I’m gonna throw a counterpoint in here just for the hell of it. HF’s views look great and I think his rules on bumper height are spot on but there is an OCD part of me that doesn’t like deviating from 1:1. I don’t like my movies stretched to fill my screen either. A little black on the edges of the screen seems fine to me if I’m seeing a 1:1 representation.
no you’re 100% right some guys will for sure want to do Xscale “1” Yscale “1” for the truest view 1:1
I’m a screen whore, I want all my gaps filled… Â ;)
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
here’s an example for anyone not understanding what we’re saying….
on the left the Yscale is  1.158 to fill the screen   (how i would run the table on my cab)
on the Right the Yscale is  1 so the table it at the 1:1 scale/aspect ratio  (what borg is saying)
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
To me the 1:1 scaling doesn’t look right. The bumpers look a bit ob-longed. I set 8 to 10 for inclination on newer tables with ramps, and 3 for all single layer tables. Â 35 for field of view and 70 for layback. Set the x to 1 and then use z scale to fill the length of the table and adjust y as far until the the bottom of the table is touching the edges. usually looks pretty good for my minicab setup.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
As I said. If hf posts his POV, I can’t remember once I’ve decided on keeping mine. But, I feel I’m leaning very much towards bord’. I try as best as possible to not scale Y. If I pass 1,25 I normally stop there. But, then … like I said. HF fuckes me all over by proving me wrong. He always have found some setting being it layback, or something that just makes it look great.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Personally I like as close to 1:1 as i can but like haunt I like my screen filled all the way up. Â I noticed lately I’m really playing with the lay back and POV more, usually because I’m looking to get a real good depth look. Â My Monitor is mounted flat and i seem to lose my heights/depth of a table when playing. Â I’m still waiting for Haunt to post all his xmls so i don’t have to do every table lol lol I kid. Â But lets face it, in his file folder OCD he probably has different views saved for different height of people.Â
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
New to VP and been adjusting my view lately. I’m a bit confused how most tables are set by default.
Sorry if this is pointless and call me retarded if you wish but:- Why do most tables have so much inclination? You get that skew naturally in cabinet mode. I understand that if your screen is positioned so that it’s basically the glass of playfield you would want that but most cabinets that I’ve seen have screen nearly flat (as the actual playfield under the glass) or at least with back a bit deeper than the front, like I do (back is 5 cm deeper than front) so I only need very little inclination to get some of those walls in picture. Usually just enough to fit all ramps in.
- There was this old thread about POV in vpforums where a well known board member told how bad idea it is to stretch the table with X,Y scale compared to Z offset. Well yeah if this would be real world, real table and real camera it would make a difference in playfield sharpness (because of average variable focal length lens flaws, not because of zooming itself as it’s optical, not digital and as such doesnt affect the quality so real world lens comparison is strange too) but this is computer graphics and it doesn’t really matter which way a plane in 3D world is told to be drawn in 2D (for your monitor), textures will scale the same.
- It was also brought up by someone that bringing camera closer will distort the view compared to scaling but this argument was for some reason overruled. I made a comparison of Z offset of 400 and screen filled with scaling vs minimum scaling and negative Z offset. While the result wasn’t 100% same fill you can notice from the goal net how you can see more of it on right side image with negative Z offset and by switching between these pics other distortions are clearly there too, so it’s quite obvious that Z offset moves the actual virtual camera instead of some other witchcraft. Is the distortion large enough to matter? Probably not but didn’t quite get why this was ignored and said it doesn’t make a difference.
- What is this Z offset? What’s the zero point? Does table creator freely choose default camera position or is the whole table scale more or less up to designer (would be weird)?
- If the whole geometry would be possible to set with simple geometry (like in Future Pinball) it would make whole more sense.
- Why do people change these settings per table? Scaling and/or Z-offset yes, but why change inclination, FOV and layback instead of finding values that give realistic/wanted result and use that for all tables with same base (biggest difference of course with EM and modern SS tables). For me, without having real world reference close by, I took AC/DC as a template and calibrated it so that jukebox chart geometry matched my cabin backglass (visually) and everything looked somewhat ok from my viewing height. With inclination 6 this gave me FOV 30 and LB 55. I then used these for about all SS tables, only changing scaling so it filled my screen nicely.
Left side: Positive Z offset
Right side Negative Z offset
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I see absolutely no difference between either pics POV wise. Â My wife says I’m blind, maybe she’s right???
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
4. z offset is basically how close the camera is to the table, zero is calculated using black magic within vpx based on the physical constraints of the table and the objects used to make it.
6. because the same settings don’t work on all tables even of the same era/manufacture/size because of how the table was actually made and #4 above.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Loafer, listen your wife ;). If you separate those pics, open both in pic viewer and alt+tab between the two you’ll see the distortions.
BorgDog, so z zero is dependant on highest point on the table or something like that, not the playfield surface?
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
hi, Ive been trying to use some POV files, and used a couple of the ones from Hauntfreaks archive. I noticed that scared stiff looks a bit narrow at the top of the table and was trying to change it. , without much luck. Does anyone have a .POV for Scared Stiff on a 1080p layout they could share?
thanks
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Forums are currently locked.
