- This topic has 34 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Gottlieb’s 1976 Card Whiz. This 2 player table was also made in a much more common 4 player version, Royal Flush. I’m partial to 2 player machines, so made Card Whiz, but it would be a fairly easy conversion to Royal Flush if there is enough demand for the 4 player as well (I don’t have that many friends). As far as I can tell this truly em scripted version of royal Flush or Card Whiz has not been made in vp before, although there was a couple versions that used the 1983 Royal Flush Deluxe rom with this playfield (no I don’t know the gameplay differences), and there is an FP version as well.
the playfield started with Popette’s FP version, and has been much modified/upscaled/stretched etc to more accurately match images of stripped playfields I found as well as better match the playfield map from the Royal Flush manual which I found online (don’t tell Steve @ PBR). Most if not all the insert images were replaced with better copies I found on line.
The image for the backglass came from a collection by Scott Amus on flickr.
Couple things I’m not sure on, the first is the ball return gate. The rollover on the right opens the gate so the ball can return to the plunger lane. I’m fairly certain that once it does the trigger in the plunger lane closes the gate and also fairly certain the kick hole on the right side of the playfield also closes it, just not sure if those are the only things?? The rollover in the plunger lane would also be triggered and close the ball return gate on the next plunge. The other thing that I’m not sure of is that post on the left side that deflects balls coming down from the upper left joker rollovers. In watching videos there seems to be some wide variety in how that deflects, and actually a lot of times it seems to not get hit at all which happens very rarely on my version. I’m pretty sure I have it in the right spot, but I think something above that may be causing the ball to miss it.. again not sure, having never actually played on in the wild that I can recall.
Directb2s included, hold down left flipper before starting a game to get some options.
As usual thanks to everyone for everything, blah blah blah..
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Thanks for the table, Borgdog… I think that is how the ball saver gate worked on Smart Set, if I remember correctly, but I will have to look at it again.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I have the schematic as well and can definitely see it tied to the kick hole, but I thought I saw in a video once where the rollover lane that opens it also closes it, but I can’t find it again to make sure, and frankly can’t read schematics worth a darn.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
1 user thanked author for this post.
Forgot to mention, but I need to add more DOF stuff to this before the final, there is some in there but not everything. and there is no config for it in the configtool either.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
1 user thanked author for this post.
Wow great looking table. Thanks borgdog!
********************************************************
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
I can live without DOF – it’s down due to HW problem anyway.
Thank you so much Borg – i’m sure it will play great like the other EMs you have released !
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
You’re on a roll, BorgDog. Love the layout of this one. Fun shooter. Can’t wait to play!
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I just got this one set up and played a couple… another really nice table, BorgDog… thanks. Was this table a variation of Royal Flush? The art looks similar if I am remembering it correctly.
*edit* Never mind the question… I just read the OP… I’m an idiot. Sorry.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Hot damn! More EMs! Thanks, borgdog!
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Script Error
Line 1206
Subscript out of range: (i)
This is when i reach more than 100k points. Can someone tell me why I got this error?
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
hmmm, I dont think I scored that high in my testing, likely a simple fix I’ll look at it today. Thanks @Patrick2610
edit: yup, simple fix, change the i in that line to player that’s what I get for copying code from table to table. that whole section really isn’t necessary since this table doesn’t have 100,000 displays on the backglass, but I usually leave that stuff in there as it really doesn’t hurt anything as long as I leave the old parts on the backdrop as well.
thanks again for catching that, I’ll do an update after I fix a few other little things as well.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
1 user thanked author for this post.
Looks great, thanks for sharing
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Very nice, though if I maybe so bold as to take off the velvet gloves can I offer some advise?
Looks great, though when the actual hidden physical walls do not match the primitives, physics just don’t work as they should.
Here is an example screen shot of why those out lane rail walls are wrong, the underling wall should not have a flat top, it should be rounded, thus when the ball hits it right of centre, with a rounded top it would tend to deflect the ball toward the in lane, as it is, it hits a flat top and goes into the out lane, makes any nudge attempt pointless.
Attachments:
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I don’t know of this specific case/table but shouldn’t it hit the vertical round post before hitting the wall?
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
What’s the advantage to using invisible walls instead of just setting the primitive to collidable in this case? In can’t be performance as that just seems to negligible in this situation. If I set the primitives to collidable and not the walls and up the elasticity just a tad it plays good.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Very nice, though if I maybe so bold as to take off the velvet gloves can I offer some advise? Looks great, though when the actual hidden physical walls do not match the primitives, physics just don’t work as they should. Here is an example screen shot of why those out lane rail walls are wrong, the underling wall should not have a flat top, it should be rounded, thus when the ball hits it right of centre, with a rounded top it would tend to deflect the ball toward the in lane, as it is, it hits a flat top and goes into the out lane, makes any nudge attempt pointless.
Maybe.
No need for velvet gloves, I put it here to get feedback, and that’s the kind that is helpful. I can see what you are saying and some of my tables have those rounded some do not, I have not noticed enough difference in how those play to put it on my list of things I have to remember to do. Easy enough to change and I will change those for the upcoming version with more complete DOF and a few other tweaks to the table. And to be honest I have not actually measured those rails to see exactly how wide they should be either.I don’t know of this specific case/table but shouldn’t it hit the vertical round post before hitting the wall?
The wall is the post, and the rail, just seems to be much more consistent physics action in VP to have that simplified, same reason rubbers have a height of 30 or 31 and a hit height of 25-27. vp physics just don’t work quite right when things are modeled exactly as in the real thing, hence the ball creep and such, and why some still use walls for all their rubber collisions. walls are a more simple interaction, don’t have as many properties (like elasticity falloff which I why I DON’T use them for rubbers).
Which brings another question to mind now that I’m thinking about it, how many points on a rounded post like this does it take for VP to accurately model the curve? It visually does not “smooth” the wall on things this small, does it do that behind the scenes? Does more points make for more demanding physics and slow things down? Same for rubbers, I see some with an insane amount of points on a curve around a post, others like myself have less. I don’t know how much vp interprets the “smooth” property, does “less is more” apply in this case and vp does the curve, or do we need to have way more points?
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
What’s the advantage to using invisible walls instead of just setting the primitive to collidable in this case? In can’t be performance as that just seems to negligible in this situation. If I set the primitives to collidable and not the walls and up the elasticity just a tad it plays good.
In this case I would want to more accurately model that rail (this one is stretched) if I were to use it for the physics, and I would basically not trust vp’s physics for the rail portion at the correct height, as it might lead to the ball creep that happens with odd rubber heights (like the real rubber height). Performance, maybe, may depend on your system, this just keeps is simpler.
@Daryl while you are here, you have a Buccaneer right? Does that have a 41″ or 42″ playfield? All the tables say that Gottlieb ems have 41″ playfields, but the 2 I have owned both have 42″. Admittedly they are both late em tables (Vulcan and Golden Arrow both from ’77), but I’m curious when exactly they switched, or if it was inconsistent. I sized Card Whiz to a 42″ playfield dimensions, but if anyone has one or a royal flush, and can measure I’d be glad to change it if 41″ is correct.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I’ll measure it up tonight .. so I lift the pf and measure the wood pf – right?
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Yup, measure the wood PF. Thanks
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I don’t know how much vp interprets the “smooth” property, does “less is more” apply in this case and vp does the curve, or do we need to have way more points?
I’ve always found the bare minimum is enough and leave VP to smooth out the details. Eight points for perfect circles seems fine…
Attachments:
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Forums are currently locked.
