Author Topic: I tried Ultrapin (Read 13437 times)

RayB · « **on:** January 21, 2007, 12:52:58 pm »

... And I like it.

Definitely not in my price range, but I like it! Plays well.

Only gripe is the frame rate doesn't seem high enough. Ball motion seems choppy when it's moving fast, and that's the most important part of the game.

ChadTower · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2007, 03:27:01 pm »

Did it feel like an artifact of the emulation or maybe too slow a response rate from the LCD?

RayB · « **Reply #2 on:** January 22, 2007, 09:48:10 am »

Quote from: ChadTower on January 21, 2007, 03:27:01 pm

Did it feel like an artifact of the emulation or maybe too slow a response rate from the LCD?

I'm not familiar enough with LCD screens to know for sure. I appeared frame rate related (as if it were running at around 40fps).

ChadTower · « **Reply #3 on:** January 22, 2007, 10:07:52 am »

If it were response rate, it would look more blurry than skippy. I'm assuming it wasn't a plasma screen for cost and burn-in reasons but I guess you never know.

TheOtherBob · « **Reply #4 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:08:11 pm »

Cool... thanks for the post. I've yet to see one local in MN but I know I'd sure like to try one.

ChadTower · « **Reply #5 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:15:03 pm »

Ray, which games were loaded on that one? Last I saw there was only a set of like ten going to be available at first and only six or so actually on there. The rest were going to be addons.

RayB · « **Reply #6 on:** January 22, 2007, 02:55:44 pm »

It had the 6 listed here:
http://www.globalvr.com/products_ultrapin_intro.html

Basically a nice set of classics ranging from 1960's to "Pinball 2000".

The plunger works great. I didn't bother testing the "nudging". The cabinet construction is really solid.

ChadTower · « **Reply #7 on:** January 22, 2007, 03:09:48 pm »

None of those are Pin2k titles. You're probably thinking of Revenge From Mars, the sequel to Attack From Mars.

I remember when they started buying rights, Black Knight was in the group, and that's one of the titles most people were looking forward to trying.

GoPodular.com · « **Reply #8 on:** January 23, 2007, 12:17:31 am »

They use a 32" TFT LCD for the table and a 19" TFT LCD for the backglass. It's DVI to the table and a VGA connection to the backglass. (I have a manual)

The ball movement is choppy huh? That's not good.

ChadTower · « **Reply #9 on:** January 23, 2007, 09:04:44 am »

Does it give the game board architecture? I assume it's a PC based boardset.

RayB · « **Reply #10 on:** January 23, 2007, 11:53:50 am »

Quote from: GoPodular.com on January 23, 2007, 12:17:31 am

The ball movement is choppy huh? That's not good.

It's not a deal breaker though. Still enjoyable, but for a guy like me that builds interactive entertainment for a living, I can tell it's not running at the ideal frame rate it should be. (Important and noticeable when the ball moves fast, but not an issue when it's moving slow).

ChadTower · « **Reply #11 on:** January 23, 2007, 12:03:22 pm »

Hrm. Seeing as how it would be really easy to fix that by throwing better hardware at it, it's probably a software issue. Not a good sign.

The guy writing that, IIRC, was a member here until the "Foley is t3h debil" crowd ran him off. I regret that having happened as the guy (the dev, not Foley) seemed to have his head on straight and was just trying to make a living in the arcade industry. He would be able to answer this question for us.

These days in the pinball industry, with home sales an ever increasing segment, this could actually be an issue at their retail price.

Tailgunner · « **Reply #12 on:** January 24, 2007, 11:12:11 pm »

There's a 38 page thread over at VP Forums about the Ultrapin, they've got the hardware specs listed somewhere in the last 10 pages of it. Some video comparisions of it side by side with the original tables too.

If it makes everyone feel better Global VR got involved by buying Foley out, he's no longer involved with Ultrapin. I hope they sell enough of them to actually produce the home version, I still think it's a neat concept.

ChadTower · « **Reply #13 on:** January 25, 2007, 08:54:38 am »

I could barely care less about Foley or whatever issues the people around here have with him, to be honest. The concept is good and I'd like to see the machine have a measure of commercial success.

Tailgunner · « **Reply #14 on:** January 25, 2007, 02:34:59 pm »

Quote from: ChadTower on January 25, 2007, 08:54:38 am

I could barely care less about Foley or whatever issues the people around here have with him, to be honest. The concept is good and I'd like to see the machine have a measure of commercial success.

No arguement here, I'd love to see them sell like hotcakes. They mentioned doing a 3D graphics engine update which I think would help, the current graphics are a little cartoony for my taste. They still need to increase the number of tables available though. The 10 they've got are pretty good, but were more of the older tables available I'd seriously consider buying one.

ChadTower · « **Reply #15 on:** January 25, 2007, 02:50:48 pm »

That's more of a licensing issue than anything else... IIRC, they were adapting VP tables and had to pay both the game license holder and the VP table authors just to start porting a pin for their own platform.

RayB · « **Reply #16 on:** January 25, 2007, 03:43:33 pm »

I agree on the cartoony look of some of the tables. That's the fault of the artist(s), not the technology.

Tailgunner · « **Reply #17 on:** January 25, 2007, 09:54:20 pm »

Quote from: RayB on January 25, 2007, 03:43:33 pm

I agree on the cartoony look of some of the tables. That's the fault of the artist(s), not the technology.

True enough, what got me interested in VP in the first place was seeing renders of photorealistic tables Scrapino posted on a 3D site I frequent. I'm just thinking since Ultrapin has a fairly powerful video card a 3D engine might smooth out the framerate.

GoPodular.com · « **Reply #18 on:** January 26, 2007, 12:24:42 pm »

Whatever issues it has would have to be in the software IMO. The hardware specs are plenty good to play pinball:

Computer Assembly:
Hard Drive - 40GB3.5-ATA, 3.5 Inch, ATA100, 40GB
CPU - Pentium Dual Core 3.0 2X2M 800MHZ (D925?)
CD-ROM Drive - IDE (no other specs given)
Video Card - ASUS 7600GS, PCX 512M HDTV DVI
Motherboard - GA/LGA775/945G/CONROE/AVL/MATX
Memory - STT DDR2-667, 512M/64X8 S-Rigid (two sticks = 1Gb)

ChadTower · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2007, 12:42:18 pm »

800mhz processor? That's borderline for a lot of tables in VP if you're running under Windows, and this is more graphically intensive, so scratch even more of the CPU. I've tried to run VP under XP with as low as 533mhz and most "modern tables" won't run without major framedropping at that speed.

MustardTent · « **Reply #20 on:** January 26, 2007, 01:50:39 pm »

Think it's 3 GHz with a 800MHz FSB. I doubt Intel still produces dual-core x86 CPUs at anything less than 1 GHz.

ChadTower · « **Reply #21 on:** January 26, 2007, 01:57:38 pm »

Sure they do. Tons of embedded devices use them. The x86 series isn't strictly for off the shelf PC motherboards.

You're right, though, a quick google says the FSB is the 800mhz number.

MustardTent · « **Reply #22 on:** January 26, 2007, 03:29:00 pm »

I haven't seen any embedded devices running a dual-core CPU, nor have I worked on any (although I've only worked on ~10 embedded devices). Do you have any examples?

ChadTower · « **Reply #23 on:** January 26, 2007, 03:32:16 pm »

I meant 800mhz speed range CPUs, not specifically Dual Cores. I'm not all that familiar with the Dual Cores, obviously, what with thinking one of them might be 800mhz.

GoPodular.com · « **Reply #24 on:** January 26, 2007, 04:38:37 pm »

800Mhz FSB yes.

I'm "fairly certain" I found the actual motherboard used.

Manufacturer: Gigabyte
Model: 945GM-S2

The description quoted here exactly matches the description in the manual. The motherboard specs given here match the details given in the manual.

BMath · « **Reply #25 on:** February 01, 2007, 05:00:45 pm »

HI Guys

I am the producer behind UltraPin and I saw your thread about UltraPin and wanted to answer your questions.

First off we are using a 3Ghz Dual Core Processor for this game.
The reason we need such a high end processor is for the real-time physics that allows the player to nudge and bump the game just like a mechanical pinball game.

The game software runs at over 60fps. The reason you see the ball skip at high speeds is not because of the computer, but because of the lag time on the LCD screen. Its not a huge lag time, but anyone that plays pinball often will notice it. Although I have been told by many players you get used to after 2 to 3 games.

If you guys have any other questions I am happy to answer.

Have a good day

Brian Matthews
UltraPin Producer
Global VR

ChadTower · « **Reply #26 on:** February 01, 2007, 09:19:51 pm »

Quote from: BMath on February 01, 2007, 05:00:45 pm

I am the producer behind UltraPin and I saw your thread about UltraPin and wanted to answer your questions.

Hey, great to have you here. I appreciate your taking the time to seek out end users.

Quote

First off we are using a 3Ghz Dual Core Processor for this game.
The reason we need such a high end processor is for the real-time physics that allows the player to nudge and bump the game just like a mechanical pinball game.

Visual Pinball does an excellent job of that with far less CPU than 3ghz... is Ultrapin actually that much better or is it doing something differently?

RayB · « **Reply #27 on:** February 02, 2007, 09:59:47 am »

Chad, maybe they need the extra horsepower since they are outputting to 2 screens...

ChadTower · « **Reply #28 on:** February 02, 2007, 10:11:24 am »

That's a possibility. How much animation is there in the upper screen? It would definitely take a little more horsepower to run two video cards.

BMath · « **Reply #29 on:** February 02, 2007, 12:23:52 pm »

Hey Guys

We mostly need the extra horsepower for all the physics computations we are doing. On average the computer is doing 7 million math calculations per second to create the realtime phyiscs and the ability to nudge and bump the table and have the ball react. We have added alot of code to Visual Pinball to make UltraPin play just like its mechanical older brother.

And yes having 2 video screens does add to the graphics computing power. We do not do much with the upper back glass due to the lack of support for such high res images with Direct X9. Mostly just make the DMD work. The back-glass artwork does not light up and is mostly static.

We are planning on fixing all of these issues as we move forward with the project, and I get lots of good ideas and suggestions from others for UltraPin every month.

Have a good day
Brian

ChadTower · « **Reply #30 on:** February 02, 2007, 12:34:56 pm »

Quote from: BMath on February 02, 2007, 12:23:52 pm

We mostly need the extra horsepower for all the physics computations we are doing. On average the computer is doing 7 million math calculations per second to create the realtime phyiscs and the ability to nudge and bump the table and have the ball react. We have added alot of code to Visual Pinball to make UltraPin play just like its mechanical older brother.

Thanks for the info, Brian. If it helps in the future, a lot of us are not only pin guys but professional software engineers, so you can tailor future answers accordingly.

CheffoJeffo · « **Reply #31 on:** February 02, 2007, 04:37:41 pm »

Thanks, Ray, now I have to drive down to Starburst to check this out (although it is hardly a major inconvenience as I am 10 blocks away).

I thought that the original plan for the UltraPin was to use a plasma display for the playfield and I seem to recall (but cannot find any substantiation) our friend Mr Foley saying that they couldn't use LCDs due to the lag.

NOTE: I have never thought to evaluate that statement as I lack the expertise and, indeed, it could be a figment of my imagination.

BTW -- Cheers to GlobalVR for moving the project along. I think I could find space in my basement for one of these.

Cheers

BMath · « **Reply #32 on:** February 02, 2007, 05:47:51 pm »

We were going to use a Plasma screen, but they suffer from Image Burn in problems and they generate more heat than an LCD. I thought it was to much of a risk to use a Plasma Screen. LCD's are more durable, the do not have the burn in problem, and the lag time is the same between Plasma and LCD screens. The best choice would have been a CRT monitor, but then you do not get the great graphics display like the LCD offers. Choosing a monitor for this project was one of the biggest problems because no of the availble options are perfect in any way.

We are working on the LCD lag issue, we have found a LCD driver board that is used in the medical industry that just might get rid of the LCD drawing lag on the display. We are waiting for the parts to begin testing this new LCD driver board to see if it lives up to performance of what we have heard.

Have a good day
Brian

CheffoJeffo · « **Reply #33 on:** February 02, 2007, 05:51:42 pm »

Cool ... thanks for responding.

Cheers

ChadTower · « **Reply #34 on:** February 02, 2007, 07:47:24 pm »

He's right about the plasma, anyway... better picture, easy to burn in. Easier than any other common display type except maybe CRT projection.

freckleface · « **Reply #35 on:** February 04, 2007, 07:37:36 pm »

I'm waiting for OLCDs. From the little I've seen on them it seems all these issues and more will fade away. Could even finally retire CRTs.

RayB · « **Reply #36 on:** February 04, 2007, 10:59:57 pm »

My money's on Toshiba's flat electron+phosphor screens. Same tech as CRTs but truly flat.

freckleface · « **Reply #37 on:** February 04, 2007, 11:27:09 pm »

I don't think so. OLCDs will rival plasmas in picture quality without the backlighting or viewing angle issues of LCDs. Add to that print-manufacturing process (simple, cheap, and high QC for any size) as well as paper-like flexibility.

http://komar.cs.stthomas.edu/qm425/01s/Tollefsrud2.htm

AND, with the advances in ambient-power technology recently, and incorporated into OLCDs, you won't even need to plug them in. Oh, and they're more environmentally friendly - no mercury.

Whoops, I got it wrong. They're OLEDs.

RayB · « **Reply #38 on:** February 05, 2007, 06:47:56 pm »

OLED screens are notorious for having short lifespans (they get really dim within a year or two).

coasternuts · « **Reply #39 on:** February 07, 2007, 03:21:01 pm »

Quote from: RayB on February 04, 2007, 10:59:57 pm

My money's on Toshiba's flat electron+phosphor screens. Same tech as CRTs but truly flat.

SED's if I'm not mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display


Main	Restorations	Software	Audio/Jukebox/MP3	Everything Else	Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements	Monitor/Video	GroovyMAME	Merit/JVL Touchscreen	Meet Up	Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing	Woodworking	Software Support Forums	Consoles	Project Arcade	Reviews
Automated Projects	Artwork	Frontend Support Forums	Pinball	Forum Discussion	Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board	controls.dat	Linux	Miscellaneous Arcade	Wiki Discussion	Old Archives
Lightguns	Arcade1Up	Try the site in https mode		Site News


Unread posts \| New Replies \| Recent posts \| Rules \| Chatroom \| Wiki \| File Repository \| RSS \| Submit news