Interrogation about the real advantages of a CRT over a low-lag LCD today?

[Vigo]

For me, the 'purpose' of having an arcade cabinet is so I can stand up while playing some of the funnest games ever made (old-school stuff, like the ones I mention in my OP), and also to be able to play two player games with my buddies and/or wife (who is also, technically, a buddy )... It makes the games much more intimate, if you like. And for me, there is absolutely, positively no religious zealotry associated with arcade cabinets;  they are simply another way for me to enjoy video games, and in my case, that might/will include FPSes.

But the real draw of a cabinet is simply that: It's a cabinet. It looks great, and if built right, is tremendously comfortable and pleasing to interface with. I guess that is the true 'authenticity' aspect of it I was referring to in my OP.

You got the right outlook. I got the feeling you will realize that FPS's are not a good fit for a cab, a lot of people think that "couch games" fit well for cabs until it gets to the practical side of using the cab and those games go unplayed. Light gun games on the other hand, those can be a blast. My personal opinion is that you would be just as happy saving some coin on a non g-sync monitor and doing a cab that focuses only on arcade games, but draw your own conclusions and do what you think is best. 

Not sure why you'd say a cabinet is not a good fit for an FPS, given a high quality LCD monitor, but if it's simply because of the standing position, I must say that I work at a computer all day long at a standing desk, and I also play FPSes on that same computer, again, standing. So I'm quite comfortable in a standing position. I also have a walking treadmill at my standing desk, and thus walk while I'm working (for at least a couple of hours a day). The only issue I can see with playing FPSes is that the kbd/mouse tray may be too low (it will be under the X-Arcade TankStick, after all), but I should be able to come up with something to remedy that.

Tracking down a good RGB CRT monitor feels like a way bigger job than I'm willing to take on. I would have to order one from eBay or somewhere, and that freaks me out. Not to mention the seeming degree in rocket science I would need to administer such a monitor through my PC. Makes my head hurt thinking about it.

This is just one man's opinion, but from all the projects I have seen over the years, I have never seen anything that looks fun to play a FPS on. I guess I am a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to arcade cabs, so that sways my opinion, but I think a lot of people here prefer to separate their cab gaming from their modern gaming. You can bring an excellent FPS gaming experience on a living room TV, or a nice PC rig and there just seems to be no real world advantage to having it in a cabinet. And in the sense of a machine being for social gatherings, you can go to anybody's house and hit up some splitscreen or online action. Making a cabinet is an attraction for your house, because you can offer an experience that others can't even with a PS4 or a $2000 gaming PC.

Another part of it is the controls. I have never seen any arcade cabinet where keyboard and mouse is pleasing to use or even looks like it belongs. Most setups, keyboards are there for an admin function. If a keyboard tray isn't hidden, a cabinet tends to turn a cab into more of a glorified computer stand. That being said, I am brewing an idea in my head for a C64 bartop that would feature a keyboard control panel, so if make something that looks like it belongs on a cab, I'd love to see it. 

Most veterans here are pretty selective about the games they feature on their cab(s), feature heavy cabinets tend to be cumbersome.

And yeah, standing is a factor for me, I do like to be comfortable. Standing might not be a bother, but one thing to also consider is other comfort factors. At a desk, you have a place for a drink, can multitask with other things like email, and even do other task such during downtimes like when a game is loading or waiting for an online match. An arcade cabinet is very much for "in the zone" gameplay, and playing something that requires wait times might get irritating.

Like I said, that is just my opinion. You might feel completely different about it and that is fine. 

[yotsuya]

...Verbal awesomeness...

Well said! I feel the same way, and it's all based on experience.

[opt2not]

blah blah blah, completely all subjective points...

All I saw was "standing desk" and I checked out of the last few posts. 

[zebidia]

blah blah blah, completely all subjective points...

All I saw was "standing desk" and I checked out of the last few posts. 

LOL!

Your subjective opinion of standup desks is very childish. Sorry, I didn't mean to make you cry.

[opt2not]

I cried from laughter. 

But seriously, how does your need to play FPS' standing up relate to the "Interrogation about the real advantages of a CRT over a low-lag LCD today", hmmmm?

[yotsuya]

Canadian-on-Canadian fighting is never pretty. 

[bulbousbeard]

I think a lot of people build cabinets backwards. They put together a cabinet, and then they think about the games they want to play later.

Cabinets are designed for games. Games aren't designed for cabinets. Think about that.

What you should do is make a list of all the games that are really important for you to be able to play. Which games do you truly like? Which games will you truly spend a lot of time playing?

Once you make that decision, you can decide what you want to do intelligently. Here's an example of the kind of reasoning I think you should be doing:

Requirement scenario #1:

* I need to be able to play Street Fighter 2: Champion Edition because it's my favorite game.
* I need joysticks that are good for fighting games.
* I don't care about medium resolution or high resolution games. Everything I want to play is standard resolution.

Cabinet #1:

* The cabinet must have six buttons per player.
* 8-way IL eurostick or Sanwa joystick
* I can use a 4:3 15khz CRT without missing out on anything.

Requirement scenario #2:

* I don't like fighting games. All my favorite games are 4 buttons or less.
* Most of my favorite games tend to be 4-way joystick games.
* I don't care about medium resolution or high resolution games. Everything I want to play is standard resolution.

Cabinet #2:

* I only need 4 buttons per player.
* 4-way joystick/leaf switch joystick possibly
* I can use a 4:3 15khz CRT without missing out on anything.

Requirement scenario #3:

* I really like Street Fighter 2 and will play that all time. I need a cabinet that has six buttons for each player.
* I really like Street Fighter IV and other high resolution games and want to be able to play those as well as SF2.
* I like to play new indie 2D games that come out on Steam like Volgarr the Viking

Cabinet #3:

* The cabinet must have six buttons per player.
* 8-way IL eurostick or Sanwa joystick
* G-Sync 16:9 LCD monitor

Requirement scenario #4:

* I spend most of my game time playing first person shooters, action/rpgs, or adventure games
* I like to play new games

Cabinet #4:

http://www.overclockersclub.com/vimages/news/news31011_8678-red_harbinger_transforms_your_desk_into_a_monster_gaming_pc.jpg

And of course you have to factor in things like what you can actually afford and your personal preferences. For example, if you're a motion clarity snob, you might prefer an aliased and blocky Street Fighter IV on a CRT over a 3840x2160 Street Fighter IV on an LCD with some motion blur.

If aliasing in newer 3D fighting games really bugs you, you might prefer the high resolution LCD over the CRT.

It really all depends on what YOU want to play and which tradeoffs you want to make.

[twistedsymphony]

I think a lot of people build cabinets backwards. They put together a cabinet, and then they think about the games they want to play later.

Cabinets are designed for games. Games aren't designed for cabinets. Think about that.

Quoted for Truth. 

To me the allure of arcade machines isn't about standing up, and it isn't about being crammed shoulder to shoulder with someone else while you play. If you wanted that you might as well just throw an X-Arcade stick on top of your standing desk and call it a day.

To me arcades machines are about having a self-contained unit where every aspect of that machine was chosen as the best option to play THAT one particular game. When they developed the cabinet they picked the most appropriate hardware, the most appropriate monitor, the most appropriate button layout and cabinet proportions, display angle, and then decorated the entire machine for that game specifically. An arcade machine is like a playable shrine solely dedicated to it's game.

MAME loses that "100% dedicated" aspect the same way a multi-cab (like an MVS) or a conversion cab does, but if you stick to a singular configuration and then only load it up with games that are designed for that configuration then once you're playing the game then the actual gaming experience of playing on an original dedicated cabinet is retained.

to this end i have 2 MAME cabs and I've been building parts to put together a 3rd

One is the Fix it Felix cab I posted earlier. it only has about 120 games on it. I wanted a "curated" list of games that fit perfectly with that style cabinet. There's no fluff or scrolling through dozens of crap games that no one cares about to get to the stuff they want to play. but most importantly every game on there is designed to be played on a vertical monitor with a stick and 2 buttons. I've seen people try to cram 2 joysticks and 6-buttons per player on those old Nintendo cabs but it just ruins the playability of them.


My second cab is a Kraylix cab, it's got 2 players and  8-buttons per player, I've got several thousand games on there. but none of them are deigned for a track-ball or analog stick, or pointing device, because that doesn't fit with the control layout that the cabinet has.




The third machine I'm putting together will be a Racing MAME... again a cabinet that is deigned just for driving and racing games and will only play driving and racing games. In the future I'd like to build a dedicated light-gun cab and a Virtual Pin. These capture the essence of the dedicated cabinet that the games were originally designed for while not diminishing the experience being being a glorified gaming.

Back to the point of the cabinet following the games and not the other way around. My fix it felix cab will never be a good setup for playing Golden Tee, and the Kraylix cab will never be an optimal setup for playing Robotron, because trying to make those machines work like that would be a very far cry from the original gaming experience I'm trying to emulate, and in the process I'll also be diminishing the gaming experience of all of the other games on those cab by having remanence of unused and poorly positioned controls strewn about. Choosing whether to go with a CRT or LCD follows this as well. Build the cab around the game you wan to play, then choose the display technology that fits best with your chosen game and cab design. One isn't better than the other, but one is always more appropriate than the other for your target games.

[Calamity]

For example, if you're a motion clarity snob

 

That one was good. Motion clarity has been the norm since the 50's. It's only since the past decade that humanity has been deprived from it. So I'd rather speak of don't-care-about-blur snobs.

(anyway I agree with your post).

[yotsuya]

I think a lot of people build cabinets backwards. They put together a cabinet, and then they think about the games they want to play later.

Cabinets are designed for games. Games aren't designed for cabinets. Think about that.

What you should do is make a list of all the games that are really important for you to be able to play. Which games do you truly like? Which games will you truly spend a lot of time playing?

Once you make that decision, you can decide what you want to do intelligently....

It really all depends on what YOU want to play and which tradeoffs you want to make.

I know you and I have disagreed with a lot of things in the past, but I think you are 100% correct with this statement. 

And to take it a step further, I think the cabinets that have issues or aren't well-received are the ones where the creators don't take the time to consider the tradeoffs (or are unwilling to) and instead want to try and play everything under the sun. That results in overcrowded control panels, wasted controls, and the like.

And before I come off as some ---uvula--- who just likes to criticize frankenpanels, remember, I made the same mistakes my first time around. Like most of us who provide opinions and feedback, the criticisms and suggestions come from experience. I have a 36 in wide empty control panel rotting in the wood pile in my backyard. I'm proud of it from the standpoint that it was truly the first thing I ever built correctly in this hobby, but I also know now that it was a mistake I'll never make again.

[Vigo]

Cabinets are designed for games. Games aren't designed for cabinets. Think about that.

I did think about that, and the more I think about it the more I disagree with it. Not that I disagree with you about cabinet planning, but I have to add a caveat that planning isn't always gonna guide you to an intelligent outcome.

In almost every case, a PC game has no set controls and a console game has predetermined controls. Arcade machines, however, are the unique situation where the same team that designs the game also designs the controls, and the more I read about these games, the more I hear that controls are well thought out even before the game is worked out. Experimenting in the early years especially was equally a hardware thing. Spinners, trackballs, 49-way joysticks, these things were not invented to fit a game created. Games were designed around these concepts. Modern cabinets, like DDR, are 90% about the hardware, because people can get any software experience they want at home. Environmental cabs, racing cabinets, these were all "experiences" that game makers wanted to create and build a game around.

So how does that change things?

The big thing that means is that just because you like a game and it is on your "Cabinet game" list, you might find yourself sorely disappointed that the cabinet doesn't deliver the experience  that you were hoping for. Your controls might be fine, the monitor might be the perfect choice, but that means nothing if you can still gain a better experience playing at your desk or couch. 

I have been there. I was naive on my first build. I was into 2d console RPG's and thought I would be playing them all the time on a cabinet. (Yeah, I was that dumb). I spend a long time planning how to make those controls work, made special buttons for save states and load states, and set up my front-end and put up pixel smoothing algorithms in the emulators to make those games shine. About 10 minutes in to playing my first RPG on an arcade cabinet, and I realized my stupidity. Luckily, all it cost me was my first control panel and hours of emulator and front end setup.

If you are gonna build an arcade cabinet, you have to realize it caters best to arcade games. And the controls you select is a trade-off of what kind of arcade games will work well. If you think you are gonna be PC gaming on your cabinet, just be prepared to realize that even with the right monitor for the game and well thought out controls, it still might not be the right setting to spark that magical experience.

[twistedsymphony]

Cabinets are designed for games. Games aren't designed for cabinets. Think about that.

I did think about that, and the more I think about it the more I disagree with it. Not that I disagree with you about cabinet planning, but I have to add a caveat that planning isn't always gonna guide you to an intelligent outcome.

....I spend a long time planning how to make those controls work...

You disagreed with him and then you told a story that reinforced his point. What I took away from it was that you spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to shoe-horn the game's design to work with stereo-typical arcade style controls.... that's not designing the cabinet around the game, that's trying to make the game work in a traditional cabinet.

There are lots and lots of arcades in Japan for RPGs and FPSs and other types of games that we here in the west would consider to be not-traditional arcade experiences. But those games in Japan don't use joysticks and buttons, they use things like touch-screens or special mouse style controllers. Here's an example of an control panel from an FPS game in Japan called "Border Break":



Also notice that the machine is design to be sat-at. Because games like RPGs or FPSs aren't the kinds of games that you stand while playing, you sit because you're probably going to be at the machine for a while and those types of controls are best suited for a seated posture.

Japan even has a half-life 2 arcade game, again with it's own unique controls suited for the game and designed to be sat at while playing:


here's a Square Enix Arcade RPG from Japan called "Lord of Vermillion", notice it's got platform where players can place down cards to manage the inventory and equipped items while the screen shows the action, then it has buttons to the sides that players use to select their actions. and again... players are seated.


The problem you ran into is that you were playing a game that was designed around a (presumably) console or PC controls and then tried to make it work with arcade style controls, that's trying to make the game fit your idea of a cabinet, not the other way around.

Experimenting in the early years especially was equally a hardware thing. Spinners, trackballs, 49-way joysticks, these things were not invented to fit a game created. Games were designed around these concepts.

You don't develop a completely new language every time you write a book either. Spinners, track balls, multi-direcitonal joystics etc. are all just the "raw materials" that are are available to construct your gaming vision. I don't doubt that some ideas over the years were thrown out because there wan't the right control mechanism to make it work but we're not talking about game development we're talking about building controls to suite the games as they were designed. Pac man doesn't make sense with a spinner, but Tempest doesn't make sense with a joystick either. but whether or not those controls were part of the original vision of the devleopers that's what those games were ultimately designed to use.

You can also look at things like the lunar lander control panel which had an analog lever, or 720 which used a non-centering joystick, or other games that used existing controls in unique ways like tron that utilized a spinner for one hand and a trigger stick for the other.

If you want to play SNES games in arcade form but a joystick doesn't feel right then maybe you should design your control panel the same way Nintendo designed theirs:

[Vigo]

TS, I think you missed what I was saying. First, I wasn't disagreeing with anything other than 1 sentence. Second, inadequate controls or cabinet style/features have nothing to do what I was complaining about with arcade experience, I was talking about inadequate games. I've had sit down candy cabs and custom controls for console games, but something like an RPG simply does not improve in experience on even a tailor made cabinet. My point is just because you like a game type and think you would play it on you cab, you may find the reality to be very different.

[opt2not]

Just wanted to jump back in here and say that my attempts at keeping this topic on track have been thoroughly pummeled. 
But please, carry on.

[yotsuya]

TS, I think you missed what I was saying. First, I wasn't disagreeing with anything other than 1 sentence. Second, inadequate controls or cabinet style/features have nothing to do what I was complaining about with arcade experience, I was talking about inadequate games. I've had sit down candy cabs and custom controls for console games, but something like an RPG simply does not improve in experience on even a tailor made cabinet. My point is just because you like a game type and think you would play it on you cab, you may find the reality to be very different.

I completely agree with this. As I've stated before, when I built my first cab in 2010, I was jacked to be able to play Arcade, Atari 2600, NES, SNES, and Genesis games on it. The arcade stuff kicked ass.... then I tried playing Starfox on the SNES.... Ugh... I was like...



It was the same with all the other console games.

Within a month, everything but Arcade games was removed, and I've never looked back.

[Vigo]

The arcade stuff kicked ass.... then I tried playing Starfox on the SNES.... Ugh... I was like...

Exactly 

[cools]

Just picked up a second Toshiba PF trisync, so I have spare working high quality CRTs for both my cabs.

Because LCDs are not an option.

[bulbousbeard]

Just picked up a second Toshiba PF trisync, so I have spare working high quality CRTs for both my cabs.

Because LCDs are not an option.

You mean the best option?

[cools]

Nope. My cabinets are CRT cabs, and there's no chance in the world I'd swap these for LCDs if the screens die.

[opt2not]

Nope. My cabinets are CRT cabs, and there's no chance in the world I'd swap these for LCDs if the screens die.

[twistedsymphony]

TS, I think you missed what I was saying. First, I wasn't disagreeing with anything other than 1 sentence. Second, inadequate controls or cabinet style/features have nothing to do what I was complaining about with arcade experience, I was talking about inadequate games. I've had sit down candy cabs and custom controls for console games, but something like an RPG simply does not improve in experience on even a tailor made cabinet. My point is just because you like a game type and think you would play it on you cab, you may find the reality to be very different.

I understand what you're saying but I still think you're missing the point of this whole discussion. Any of those games with a custom tailored control panel would work well. but Not every game plays well with a joystick and a 6-button layout... it'd be impossible to play say Grand Theft Auto with that setup, but you could probably map it to a controller setup like the one used for Border Break or the Half Life 2 arcade and have a really great cab experience with that game. Similarly a joystick seems really unnatural for game like Final Fantasy VII but if you layed out say 24mm buttons for directional movement (similar to a hit box) and then have custom right hand button layout for ok and cancel and then the menu buttons off to the side it would make navigating the in-game menus a lot more natural and probably allow you to execute commands even faster and more fluid than a game pad.

I do believe you could build a cab for any game and Taylor the experience to just that game and have it improve over what you'd get with a game pad or just a keyboard and mouse. But you ONLY get that if you're using the right type of controls for your chosen game and have laid them in out a way that fits with the way that game is played. Trying to make a universal control panel that can play everything will always fall short and end up being detrimental to the experience of just about every game you play.

Nope. My cabinets are CRT cabs, and there's no chance in the world I'd swap these for LCDs if the screens die.

Quoted for truth.

[Vigo]

In many cases, nope. It is simply feeling like a tool playing some of these games on a cabinet. The atmosphere ain't right. It reminds me of my junior high school dances, where they would play slow dance songs, but refuse to turn down the lights. 

An arcade cab is an isolation piece. It detaches you from the world around you and you are able to submerse yourself into the pulse of the game directly.  Arcade games are designed specifically for this atmosphere. A good game is gonna be very brief. Fast paced. Intense. Often aggravating. Requires alertness. One false move, and everything is over. No respawn, no save slots, no pause. The challenge makes it great.

It is a stark contrast to what I consider couch gaming. Gaming for a long haul. Adventure games, Puzzle solving games, FPS's, RPG's, games with load times and those games with hours of unnecessary cutscenes all fit under this category. It is leisure gaming. I can relax, allow my brain to work on a deeper level of critical thinking and calculated decisions. I can enjoy the atmosphere around me, eat, drink and take on games the same way I take on a movie. I tend to play games I can win at the couch, see them through after hours of gameplay.

With couch gaming, I can play a game at the couch while my kids are playing with their toys on the floor. It is significant that I can still interact with them and be with them and give them a large portion of my attention. Something I couldn't do if I was playing Final Fantasy on an arcade machine, staring into a cabinet against the wall for 5 hours straight. At the same time, if my kids get on my nerves, I can shut everything out for a little while by playing some arcade games and free myself from outside distractions.

[twistedsymphony]

Arcade games are designed specifically for this atmosphere. A good game is gonna be very brief. Fast paced. Intense. Often aggravating. Requires alertness. One false move, and everything is over. No respawn, no save slots, no pause. The challenge makes it great.

I understand what you're saying but you're still trying to apply stereo typical arcade style cabinet design to console games and I agree it doesn't work, it's a different world.... but that doesn't' mean that you couldn't design a cabinet that fits well with the leisurely "long-play" gameplay style of most consoles games. There are plenty of arcades in Japan that fit with this style, they've got comfy chair that lean back and they're designed so that players can plan themselves at the machine a for hours while they play. The most common of these that you see are the network-terminal games like Derby games... you do some menu management at a slow pace then you sit back and watch the virtual racing for a while before tweaking your setup and repeating the process... it's a long-haul leisurely style arcade game... these just aren't the type of games that were ever marketed to arcades outside of Japan... but that doesn't mean it's impossible to design an arcade cabinet that fits with that style of play.

[yotsuya]

... but that doesn't mean it's impossible to design an arcade cabinet that fits with that style of play.

While I agree pretty much with you and Vigo's points, I think what you describe here is more a piece of custom gaming furniture than a traditional arcade cabinet. Semantics, maybe, but that's how I see it.

[Vigo]

  Right, I am completely talking on a practical sense, giving my perspective as advice for would-be BOYAC'ers. I am not disagreeing with your point that it can be done, and I have no doubt those games you pointed out are fun, but as far as taking a home arcade machine and making it fun for all sorts of RPG's or console games, you are gonna be hard pressed to top the experience being had at a couch. Thing is, all my friends have couches and TVs, so what can I offer at my house that my friends can't? Cabinets and arcade games get a lot of love. I made a console emulator box to play those games on my TV, and I won't look back, because I can't reasonably get that level of all around experience at a cabinet.

And I think any game that is meant to spend progressive long-haul play in the arcade is still a niche item. Die and repeat games is still where it is at at the arcades. I have been to a number of arcades in east Asia, and by far, any game that I noticed that gets play is the fast paced, trigger happy quick action gaming. Fighters, DDResque games and gimmicky stuff with a unique premise. Anything flashy and high-octane seems to get all the attention. I personally love the water sensing LCD stuff. I've also played one of those Japanese Derby games. All the seats were empty, and for a reason. Yawn City. Of course, I couldn't quite read the menus, and ended doing nothing but grooming my horse over and over again for 5 minutes before getting frustrated and walking away.

[twistedsymphony]

Right, and that goes back to the original sentiment that started this whole discussion:
A cabinet should be designed for the game, you shouldn't try to fit a game to an existing cabinet.

[Vigo]

  But that doesn't negate my comment that many arcade games have been designed around cab features and designed exclusively for a cabinet experience, and also that some non-arcade games generally do not fit the arcade machine experience at all.

[twistedsymphony]

But that doesn't negate my comment that many arcade games have been designed around cab features and designed exclusively for a cabinet experience...

We're not talking about designing new games, we're talking about designing new cabinets for existing games... Games that were designed for arcade cabinets are easy to build a cabinet for because you just build what the original game was designed to use

...and also that some non-arcade games generally do not fit the arcade machine experience at all.

My point is this: You can can build an ideal cabinet for ANY game and have it be a superior experience than couch gaming, or computer desk gaming, this cabinet might only be suited for THAT ONE game and no other game, it might be completely impractical, but it can be done. Further, trying to make a particular game work on a generic cabinet, (especially one that would require a really weird, non-typical dedicated cabinet in order to improve on the couch/desk experience) is a waste of time because it just doesn't fit with a generic cabinet design. that doesn't mean it can't be done it just means it's impractical.

Hence, if you want a great cabinet for a SPECIFIC game (not a GENRE of game, a GAME) you can do that but you will never be able to build a cabinet that works well for ALL games... or even MOST games... or even an entire GENRE of games because of how much variety there is among games and their design.

I think we're both in agreement that there are SOME games that work well with a stereotypical arcade cabinet, but there are others that don't.... Where we disagree is that I believe that you could take any of those non-typical games and design a custom cabinet that works well for that game and actually improves the experience over what you'd get with a couch. It might only work with that one game, it might not look anything like what you'd picture when you picture an arcade cabinet and it might be an enormous impractical waste of time and money but it doesn't mean that it can't be done and it doesn't negate the fact that in order to have a good cabinet it needs to be designed with a SPECIFIC game in mind instead of trying to make a game work with a design that is ill-suited for it.

[Vigo]

But that doesn't negate my comment that many arcade games have been designed around cab features and designed exclusively for a cabinet experience...

We're not talking about designing new games, we're talking about designing new cabinets for existing games... Games that were designed for arcade cabinets are easy to build a cabinet for because you just build what the original game was designed to use

Yes, only that isn't always practical without owning 1:1 controls and setup, and when I made the point that arcade games are often designed to a cabinet, that is my big point. Play kick with a spinner. Mame calls it a spinner game. Makes complete sense playing with a spinner. Great control, great precision. However, Kick didn't use a traditional spinner, it used a unique 2 way roller. You might enjoy Kick with a regular spinner, but you are missing on the madness of rolling the ball back and forth trying to catch all the balloons. You can't use a trackball as well either because the rolling resistance is completely different. You lose the intended level and design of gameplay. In many instances, you do not necessarily understand the decisions that were made when programming that game, because it was specifically designed to a an exact cabinet. The difficulty of the game, the sensitivity of the controls, mechanics, inertia, physics and many precise details are all designed to fit only one dedicated cabinet.

My point is this: You can can build an ideal cabinet for ANY game and have it be a superior experience than couch gaming, or computer desk gaming, this cabinet might only be suited for THAT ONE game and no other game, it might be completely impractical, but it can be done.

OK, I'll put you to the test on this. Tell me how you would improve these game experiences using an arcade cabinet, using practical or impractical dedicated cabinet design. I like all three of these games, but as arcade machines? Yeesh....

Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders (PC) - Perfectly precise with a mouse, anything less precise and direct makes it annoying trying to aim to the right point and click command.

Final Fantasy 8 (PSX) - RPG with very long load times, long drawn out battles, cut scenes and idle waiting. Perfect for a couch and a bag of chips because you are gonna be waiting around doing nothing half the time.

Aerobiz Supersonic (Genesis, SNES) - Turn based sim where you take on the role as the CEO of a airline.

 

[opt2not]

I agree with Vigo on all points.

My point is this: You can can build an ideal cabinet for ANY game and have it be a superior experience than couch gaming, or computer desk gaming, this cabinet might only be suited for THAT ONE game and no other game, it might be completely impractical, but it can be done.

Opinions are great and all, but when it veers on the side of facetious and silly, then it can do more harm than actually insightful. First you say that any game would give you a superior experience than what it was originally intended by the developers. Then you kill it by saying it's impractical...and widdle your point down to just "it can be done", as if getting it to just run on a cabinet is the be-all end-all. NO! That's contrary to the whole point of this arcade hobby. We're trying to recreate the experiences of yesteryear, for games that deliver a high difficulty, high payoff, and low introductory elements.  Most games that were not arcade games were built for comfort play -- as outlined by Vigo. 
There are select few outside of arcade games that can be translated to an arcade experience well, but definitely NOT all.

Sure, you can hook up any console or computer to a monitor, and have the inputs map to arcade buttons to play so-and-so game, but that doesn't mean you'll get a superior gaming experience.

You cannot put any game in an "ideal cabinet" (w/e the heck that means) and have it feel natural. Period.

[twistedsymphony]

OK, I'll put you to the test on this. Tell me how you would improve these game experiences using an arcade cabinet, using practical or impractical dedicated cabinet design. I like all three of these games, but as arcade machines? Yeesh....

Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders (PC) - Perfectly precise with a mouse, anything less precise and direct makes it annoying trying to aim to the right point and click command.

Final Fantasy 8 (PSX) - RPG with very long load times, long drawn out battles, cut scenes and idle waiting. Perfect for a couch and a bag of chips because you are gonna be waiting around doing nothing half the time.

Aerobiz Supersonic (Genesis, SNES) - Turn based sim where you take on the role as the CEO of a airline.

I'd love to take on the task of designing a theoretical custom cabinet for some interesting games. It's actually something I've done in the past (designing custom cabinet for games that never had arcade cabinets) but I've never played any of those games and withing knowing how they play inside and out I'd be unable to come up with a design that suites them well enough to improve on their original gaming environment. Honestly I think you'd have to really love a game in order to come up with a suitable design.

... First you say that any game would give you a superior experience than what it was originally intended by the developers. Then you kill it by saying it's impractical...and widdle your point down to just "it can be done", as if getting it to just run on a cabinet is the be-all end-all. NO! That's contrary to the whole point of this arcade hobby.

This is a complete mis-representation of what I've been trying to say. at no point have I ever advocated actually trying to build a cabinet for any of these ill-fitting games. from the start I've been attempting to encourage people to not play these games on their arcade cab by pointing out how specific, customized, and impractical the cabinet design would have to be in order to make it work well.

I stand by that given enough time and money you can build one of these cabinets but doing so would be a either a fools errant or a labor of love.

[yotsuya]

I stand by that given enough time and money you can build one of these cabinets but doing so would be a either a fools errant or a labor of love.

Once thing I've learned about this place...

[Vigo]

I think Opt drove the point home very well. I think your points do have merit, TS. I am reminded of one of the cabs Opt did the art for, Geometry Wars. It took a lot of brainstorming to figure out a way to do dual analogs with a separate button, and some less than practical measures to make a cabinet for that. I think a pedal was added or something along those lines. Between the unique controls and the cool look of the cabinet, I am positive it is about the most definitive incarnation of the game to play. It created an atmosphere and it was a smart game choice.

But the problem is you are letting those examples be a case in point that a good cabinet can make any game better, and that just isn't true. We are here because we want to recreate that arcade experience in our home. Not that we think every game is better when staring into a custom made box. I love Super Metroid but all the planning in the world wouldn't help me make it a better experience on a cabinet.

Now excuse me while I go watch the Addams Family.

[twistedsymphony]

Now excuse me while I go watch the Addams Family.

mind if I join you 

[Vigo]

Now excuse me while I go watch the Addams Family.

mind if I join you 

Just finished. Darn good movie. 

[ID4]

Actually, the fact is that resolutions are going to keep increasing in games whereas CRTs are going to be stuck at 1200p forever, and it isn't a long term solution. Within 5 years, games will be designed for 3840x2160 and higher. Modern games already look awful on 90%+ of the CRTs out there today, and within a few years, they're going to look awful on any CRT you can get. The high end Sony CRT you mentioned is 16:10, too, not 16:9, and basically every modern game is designed for 16:9. Most CRTs aren't widescreen at all, and the only 16:9 CRTs I know of max out at 1080i, which really isn't good enough for modern games (who wants to play games with interlacing?). It's really just a matter of time. There will be flat panels (not even LCD) that will beat out CRTs in every measurable way. The main things holding display technology back are 1) people who can't see at 60fps and don't even notice motion blur 2) apathetic people who don't care about display quality and 3) the industry's huge investment in LCD displays which will take at least another decade to completely milk. We could have had OLED displays years ago, but most people simply don't care about quality, so they're still milking cheap LCDs.

And just to set the record straight, people aren't working on CRT simulation (HLSL and GLSL shaders) because it "equalizes performance." LCDs actually display a more precise and uniform image than CRTs. That's part of the problem, really. Those shaders are a conscious effort to DECREASE image quality. Scanlines, slightly busted convergence, bloom, and so on are actually VISUAL DEFECTS. They're not GOOD things. If you have sufficient resolution, you don't even want scanlines. People are really good at filling in visual gaps in their head. The only reason scanlines help older games is because you have dark gaps between the pixels that let humans fill in those gaps with their imagination, which actually makes the low resolution graphics seem more detailed than they really are. Shaders aren't compensating for any flaw in LCDs; they're approximating flaws in CRTS. It's simply that old games were designed with those visual defects in mind, and so that's the best way to play them.

As I said, I don't think that resolution is the key feature or the problem, the actual display technologies have very deep flaws, and seems that they think that only with more resolution, the problem is fixed.

More resolution only have sense in big screen, and a "big screen" is not really necessary ofr play games, maybe for some type of them.

Really, as you can see in this image, the 4k resoution only have sense for giant screen and your eyes glued to the screen



I ONLY play in CRT, really I was playing FPS games in LCD, but tried to play with an CRT monitor from 2004, this can handle more resolution than 1080p and never back to LCD, the colour, no blur, the lag, wiew angle, bright all are way better than LCD.

I was playing MAME in LCD too, but tried AVGA and 15 Khz CRT and never back to LCD, I play PS3 and Wii in my CRT HD 32' and it's perfect, no view angle or scaling problems, and 32 is more than enough to play.

Some CRTs was using more resolution that 1080p before that all FULLHD hype, I have my LCD and my CRT hooked to the same GFX card, and you can check the evidence in perfomance, no doubt about this.

I know that is true that visual quality is not the goal of the industry, for that reason LCD is the kind.

All that you say about scanlines are true, but you forget that all old CRTs was desinged with then curent standar, 576i. Sure that if you today desing CRT for the today standars, they will perfomance way better than LCD, but seems the problem is not the visual quality, the problem is if you can do it more thin than paper sheet

[bulbousbeard]

Actually, the fact is that resolutions are going to keep increasing in games whereas CRTs are going to be stuck at 1200p forever, and it isn't a long term solution. Within 5 years, games will be designed for 3840x2160 and higher. Modern games already look awful on 90%+ of the CRTs out there today, and within a few years, they're going to look awful on any CRT you can get. The high end Sony CRT you mentioned is 16:10, too, not 16:9, and basically every modern game is designed for 16:9. Most CRTs aren't widescreen at all, and the only 16:9 CRTs I know of max out at 1080i, which really isn't good enough for modern games (who wants to play games with interlacing?). It's really just a matter of time. There will be flat panels (not even LCD) that will beat out CRTs in every measurable way. The main things holding display technology back are 1) people who can't see at 60fps and don't even notice motion blur 2) apathetic people who don't care about display quality and 3) the industry's huge investment in LCD displays which will take at least another decade to completely milk. We could have had OLED displays years ago, but most people simply don't care about quality, so they're still milking cheap LCDs.

And just to set the record straight, people aren't working on CRT simulation (HLSL and GLSL shaders) because it "equalizes performance." LCDs actually display a more precise and uniform image than CRTs. That's part of the problem, really. Those shaders are a conscious effort to DECREASE image quality. Scanlines, slightly busted convergence, bloom, and so on are actually VISUAL DEFECTS. They're not GOOD things. If you have sufficient resolution, you don't even want scanlines. People are really good at filling in visual gaps in their head. The only reason scanlines help older games is because you have dark gaps between the pixels that let humans fill in those gaps with their imagination, which actually makes the low resolution graphics seem more detailed than they really are. Shaders aren't compensating for any flaw in LCDs; they're approximating flaws in CRTS. It's simply that old games were designed with those visual defects in mind, and so that's the best way to play them.

As I said, I don't think that resolution is the key feature or the problem, the actual display technologies have very deep flaws, and seems that they think that only with more resolution, the problem is fixed.

More resolution only have sense in big screen, and a "big screen" is not really necessary ofr play games, maybe for some type of them.

Really, as you can see in this image, the 4k resoution only have sense for giant screen and your eyes glued to the screen



I ONLY play in CRT, really I was playing FPS games in LCD, but tried to play with an CRT monitor from 2004, this can handle more resolution than 1080p and never back to LCD, the colour, no blur, the lag, wiew angle, bright all are way better than LCD.

I was playing MAME in LCD too, but tried AVGA and 15 Khz CRT and never back to LCD, I play PS3 and Wii in my CRT HD 32' and it's perfect, no view angle or scaling problems, and 32 is more than enough to play.

Some CRTs was using more resolution that 1080p before that all FULLHD hype, I have my LCD and my CRT hooked to the same GFX card, and you can check the evidence in perfomance, no doubt about this.

I know that is true that visual quality is not the goal of the industry, for that reason LCD is the kind.

All that you say about scanlines are true, but you forget that all old CRTs was desinged with then curent standar, 576i. Sure that if you today desing CRT for the today standars, they will perfomance way better than LCD, but seems the problem is not the visual quality, the problem is if you can do it more thin than paper sheet

Sorry, but you're completely wrong. Charts like that aren't even taking CRT simulation into consideration. You actually DO need 4k resolutions to make some of the CRT shaders look good. This isn't a theory or opinion. I have an arcade cabinet with a 28" 4k monitor, and the shader looks noticeably better than it does on a 1080p monitor from the same distance. That chart also isn't considering how picky some people are about aliasing in 3D games. In November 2014, 1080p is actually a pretty humble, low end resolution. At normal computer monitor distances (2 feet or less), 4k resolution is a night and day improvement.

[ID4]

Sorry, but you're completely wrong. Charts like that aren't even taking CRT simulation into consideration. You actually DO need 4k resolutions to make some of the CRT shaders look good. This isn't a theory or opinion. I have an arcade cabinet with a 28" 4k monitor, and the shader looks noticeably better than it does on a 1080p monitor from the same distance. That chart also isn't considering how picky some people are about aliasing in 3D games. In November 2014, 1080p is actually a pretty humble, low end resolution. At normal computer monitor distances (2 feet or less), 4k resolution is a night and day improvement.

Hi!

I put that chart to show how 4k is not the "revolution" that the hype is claiming, forget the previous super 3D revolution, it failed with all his hype.  I put that chart to show you that with only increasing resolution, you don't get the magic solution to LCD problem. I didn't showed that chart to take the CRT emulation into consideration.

I Know that display industry leave behind the CRT technology, but I spoked with people, and know too that some revelant people think that the industry has done bad move, but they will never recognize it.

Anyway, I'm agreed with you that 4K in computer monitor can be a good thing, as you says in can be used to emulate better the CRTs using shaders, althrought not like real CRT. It's only the pixel size and he same technology.

I know too that the process to manufacture 4k TVs is the *SAME* that normal LCDs, not new technology or revolution here. You can build 90' 4K TVs using the same panel that you use to build four 45' 1080p TVs, only need to skip the cutting panel stage.

[S_Akuma]

Hello,
I sent you a PM but I think that if I reply here it will help other Asus ROG Swift users since everyone will be able to see this information.  SDLMAME with the Lottes shader works great with the Asus ROG Swift.  Without lottes shader the MAME games look bad,, really bad.  Is there anything that I should change on the mame.ini to reflect the Asus ROG Swift?. I copy the xxx.ini that you provided to mame.ini from the link.  You mentioned that you had the 4k, gsync 60hz not sure if your xxx.ini has something specifically for your monitor and not the Aus ROG Swift. 

I would like to know if you can please provide a link to the "SDLMAME build for Windows" that you made so I and other users could try it out. Also which forntend would you recommend to use with SDLMAME. 

thanks you very much for your input you really helped me out

S_AKUMA

I totally agree that LCDs are stop gap. I'm not entirely satisfied with motion blur and crappy backlights, either. I can't wait for good OLED screens. Having said that, though, I just want to stress two things:

1. All technology is a stop gap solution. It's always going to get better.

2. The new G-Sync panels are very, very good. They're the first LCD screens that I feel comfortable recommending for arcade cabinet use.

I just got this monitor today:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009658&cm_re=acer_gsync-_-24-009-658-_-Product

The Acer and the Asus ROG Swift are both excellent in different ways. The Acer is only 60hz, so it can't run games that run at 60.60hz and so on at full speed, so that's its downfall for arcade games. 4k, though, looks absolutely amazing in SDLMAME with the Lottes shader. They're both 1ms response time panels, and the motion blur is _not bad_. I'm incredibly picky when it comes to motion blur, and they're not as good as a CRT in this regard, but they are good enough to the point where even an arcade enthusiast would find it acceptable.

If you want to try out the Lottes shader, extract this into your SDLMAME folder and see the ume.ini file for configuration:
https://sites.google.com/site/bigbluefrontend/lottesshader.zip?attredirects=0&d=1

I'd offer a link to my SDLMAME build for Windows, but I remove the nag screens, and MAMEdev requested that I not distribute that version, so you can build or download SDLMAME yourself elsewhere I guess.

The Lottes shader is a HUGE step forward for CRT simulation, because it's the first one that has a shadowmask effect that doesn't look like butt. The other great thing about it is that it doesn't even require super high resolutions to look good (even though it looks mindblowing at 4k). Here are a couple of other screenshots I took of it awhile ago (it actually looks better with the settings in the archive I linked):

https://436e85e1-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/bigbluefrontend/mkscreenshot.png
https://436e85e1-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/bigbluefrontend/knightsscreenshot.png

I'll see if I can post some 4k screenshots at some point.