Just something I wanted to point out (man, now I'm not so sure, this innocent post is becoming a warzone)
Randy talked about how he dislikes the usb port and feels that it can't get the job done. Well it can as the ipac works just as well in usb mode as in ps2, but that's not what I wanted to talk about.
If you make a new product and expect it to last more than a couple of years it better support usb. Why? Because computer manufacturers are slowly phasing out all ports except usb and firewire. They do this becuase it's cheaper and more efficent in terms of hardware and software to make motherboards this way.
I feel that the ps2 probably has a year or two left. I've already seen mb's with NOTHING but firewire and usb. It used to be that this wouldn't be an issue as older pc's were used for mame cabs, but now days it takes a beefy pc to run a lot of the games.
And in regards to the key-repeater function, as peter and the others said, all fe's around here are coded with that in mind (also gamelauncher and aos, so that is the majority of all fes), and if you aren't using one of our fe's then what's wrong with you?
Something else that's just a note.... you can almost have a 4 player layout with ipac2 because 4 player games don't use start buttons. This is due to jamma+ constraints (see even real arcade games don't use that many inputs) and a sheer lack of control panel space. Try out tmnt and notice that the game starts, not when you press "start" but when you press "punch". Capcom 4 player games are also like this as well as any 4 player game I know of in mame, so I'm assuming this is a universal thing. Now with that being said, you still need 8 more buttons, but i'm just saying, that's the maximum any arcade game is ever going to use.
And THAT was my point on the extra inputs. 36 is the most inputs you are ever going to need. (Heck make it 38 or 40 for some extra fuction buttons) And for you console fans out there that are saying "nu uh" answer me this: Do you know of a single, all digital game that supports more than 4 players and the players actually use more than 4 buttons? Flight sim games? Well they use analog inputs so you would have the full compliment of buttons, including the directional inputs.
So having an better buffer/encoder chip/matrix/ect isn't necessary... it's nice but when you look at those facts I would think that just about everyone would agree that some of the inputs could have been sacrificed for other features like led inputs. (I see you are working on adding this, which is a good thing.)
Also regarding the redefining of inputs... on the fly is cool and the ipac also has a software free method, although from what you've explained it's more primitave. BUT the ipac has on-the-fly scheme uploading and the software works on every major os, including linux and mac's, which is something that your encoder can't even do. (At least i'm guessing judging by the way you have talked about possible support for other oses.)
So again I state that the features you say the ipac lacks, it actually does not. It's went about differently, but it's the same result. And the other features you mentioned are completely unnecessary.
But yours is cheaper.... so it will do well. Why don't you just market it as a "cheaper ipac" instead of adding these marketing buzz words.
Mind you I'm a big fan of marketing pitches and I think it's something that andy really needs to work on. But talking about a feature that really isn't a feature makes it sound like you are trying to put something over on your customers and many people are turned off by that. (I think that's what brax's unjustly hostile comments were getting at.)
An example of this is your shazaam key... the way you pitch it in your faq it sound like you are saying it's better than the ipac's shift feature. The fact is, except for the lack of delay (which isn't an issue as secondary keys don't need to be pressed quickly) it's exactly the same as the shift feature.
I think that taking a more honest approach would actually sell more products. I'm not saying that you are taking a dishonest approach, but the way you word things is very shady when you take a step back and look. The fact is, despite your hard work on the product it's always going to be looked at by the consumer as an "ipac clone." I think that's a good thing, because when you can say that your product works just as well as the ipac but is a little cheaper people will buy it. But my point is your going to have to accept this fact and work it to it's advantage instead of defending so-so features, that although are technically impressive, have little to no practical application.
The thing is you don't need to "sell" the prodcut to us that much. It should be very good and it's cheaper, and even with some of the ipac's more popular features removed that's going to be enough for a lot of people.
My point is (and everyone, including the negative posters in this thread should listen up) We are comparing apples to apples here. Just because one is a little "bigger" won't make any difference as you are paying by the pound. Everyone needs to stop getting hung up on technical specs and just accept the fact that they are two VERY similar products and neither is better.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Send this topic
Print
Topic: ooooh! (Read 15226 times)
