The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Main Forum => Topic started by: DssTrainer on February 27, 2008, 08:59:04 am
-
Hi everyone. I've been doing a bit of research on mame arcading and came across this forum so I figured I'd check it out.
Here's the deal....
I've been using emulation for consoles and mame on my PC for many years now. About 5 years ago, my brother bought a large arcade system called "The Time Machine" from a small company online. It was a Mame Arcade, and offered about 20 different emulators and some 3000 game roms.
I recognized it right away as emulation but my brother just thought he was getting some magic arcade machine with all the games on it. All the same. He dropped like $4000 on it and when he first got it, some controls were a bit off for certain games. Ignoring that, he was happy with it.
About a year later he inquired about some games that were promised to be available in an upgrade. The company sent out a new mobo and vidcard from what I remember... and I think a cdrom of new stuff. After which, nothing really worked right.
After we had emails back and forth with the company, we couldn't get it to work and forgot about it for a while. A few months later we tried to contact them again, and they were no longer in business.
So recently I took it upon myself to figure it all out. After figuring out all the pieces, I see it is simply:
- a 2.4G Pentium 4 with 512MB Ram
- a 160G harddrive running WinXP sp1
- a Mamewah frontend
- an IPac/4 joypanel
- a 27" CRT arcade monitor.
- a Huge-Ass cabinet
At this point, the CRT is mostly Green, tho the "no signal" message is red. When the system starts up, it starts to load windows and it looks to be a very minimalistic xp install so it loads Mamewah right away. But then it goes to a flashing screen and never starts.
So I'm looking into that, but as I delve deeper, I'm thinking about how this is really just the same think as my computer at home, but with a big joypanel.
So I begin thinking. Why do I see so many people making their own bigass arcade cabinets for their Mame Arcades. With the world going smaller and flatter, and not to mention prices coming down for flat screens... but still high as hell for a low-res 27" CRT. I would think I would see more people making Flat panel arcade systems to save on space, but still have that arcade feel.
I figure that the main reason is the "classic" feeling of a true arcade and perhaps the restoration of old machines that have a working CRT. But I don't suffer from that problem, as I think the less room it takes up, the better. Especially after moving my brothers Time machine up and down his basement stairs.
So are there more people making LCD based arcades now? I have a design in mind for making my own arcade, but it would basically be a panel with a flatscreen, mounted on a thin rack-style VESA mount, allowing me to range my monitor size from 19" monitor to a 60" HDTV with a few screws. The Marquee would be optional, and rest above the monitor on the same VESA rack.
I'd also probably put more than just games on it. Jukebox and Video player comes to mind of course, but also I think I'd like internet access and browser on it, perhaps a fold down joypanel to convert it into a normal TV to watch cable on, and I think if I used Windows, I'd have a way of utilizing it to play other games like Grand Theft Auto... basically making it an all-purpose unit.
Essentially the only "Arcade" thing would be the joy panel. The rest would be a Media Center PC.
So is the main reason for these arcade monstrosities the "Classic" feel & parts availability? or are there some other limitations I'm not seeing?
-
I'd say there are a few camps around here on the boards. You have the folks who want nothing to do with new technology, and just want the preserve history and old memories. These folks will only use original parts. Then you have the middle ground people, who for various reasons, are ok with using a TV vs. a CRT, the controls don't necessarily have to be authentic.. they just want a cab that suits their budget and needs. The LCD crowd I would say, has picked up steam as of late. Maybe it's due to the ease of screen rotation, maybe the drop in price, and probably due to the fact the Knieval (board member) and a few others have been kicking out a bunch of really great looking thin cabs.
So my two cents is that it's a combination of believe, price-point, and tolerance to change. ;) Build what works for you. I've seen great examples of all three categories mentioned above here on these boards. Just be warned that no matter which crowd you join, you will make enemies! :laugh2:
-csa
-
I'd say there are a few camps around here on the boards. You have the folks who want nothing to do with new technology, and just want the preserve history and old memories. These folks will only use original parts. Then you have the middle ground people, who for various reasons, are ok with using a TV vs. a CRT, the controls don't necessarily have to be authentic.. they just want a cab that suits their budget and needs. The LCD crowd I would say, has picked up steam as of late. Maybe it's due to the ease of screen rotation, maybe the drop in price, and probably due to the fact the Knieval (board member) and a few others have been kicking out a bunch of really great looking thin cabs.
So my two cents is that it's a combination of believe, price-point, and tolerance to change. ;) Build what works for you. I've seen great examples of all three categories mentioned above here on these boards. Just be warned that no matter which crowd you join, you will make enemies! :laugh2:
-csa
LOL thanks for the response. I figured there might be some old-school design mindsets... I will have to check out Knievals designs as well as he seems to be versed in the "thinner" side of arcading.
Thanks!
-
I think the big thing keeping people from using old LCDs, vs. the old TVs and CRTs they are using, has been primarily the refresh rate.
The older displays couldn't display the graphics quickly enough to keep them from ghosting.
The thing that's been keeping use of new LCD displays down has been the price.
As the price has dropped, and performance has improved, people have begun using them more.
As a side point, cabinets don't HAVE to be huge to fit a 25/27" display.
I've got a Jaleco Pony sitdown cab that takes up less floor space with a 25" in it than my Vindicator machine with a 19" in it, both with two player controls on them.
-
The problem with LCD now is that they all seem to be going for widescreen. Almost everything above 20" is widescreen these days.
I had hoped the 24" 4:3 models would come down in price, but they seem to have disappeared.
-
The problem with LCD now is that they all seem to be going for widescreen. Almost everything above 20" is widescreen these days.
I had hoped the 24" 4:3 models would come down in price, but they seem to have disappeared.
Agreed, this is a problem. Viewsonic and few others have a 21.3" 4:3, but you pay more for this aspect which seems retarded.
-
Wow...I just looked up that Viewsonic 21.3"
Are they nuts with that price?
Get outta here!
-
I think your brother was clean ripped off for that kind of setup. Sure you will pay more going to a builder as they will put the back-work in and set it all up, but inside it's essentially the same as you do at home. I started at home building my own cabinet, then eventually built up Turnarcades from there. It is for the exact reasons you have highlighted that we offer custom machines, as everyone is different in what they want from a machine.
I understand where many builders are coming from though offering the setup your brother bought. The initial appeal for people new to the scene is the authentic arcade look and experience, and so that design is pushed to the front to pull people in, and is hence (for us at least with our UK cab designs), a big seller to those who want nothing more than a real-looking arcade machine. We, and a few in the US, then offer slimmer designs for people who have thought about it a bit more, as you have.
If you have a look around there are plenty of examples on this site as you have described, so you should be able to build your own based on them. If not though, seek out a US company like ours to do one for you.
-
The problem with LCD now is that they all seem to be going for widescreen. Almost everything above 20" is widescreen these days.
I had hoped the 24" 4:3 models would come down in price, but they seem to have disappeared.
Agreed, this is a problem. Viewsonic and few others have a 21.3" 4:3, but you pay more for this aspect which seems retarded.
yeah, I was thinking about this the other day. I'm guessing in less than 5 years the only LCDs made will be widescreen and we will be stuck with used monitors in our cabs. I mean if you were desperate I guess you could mask off the extra few inches with a bezel or something but it would still add to the overall width of the cabinet...
-
What about flipping the LCD display longways? 9:16 is that too long for games? can they be centered in the middle? I seem to remember Pacman 's monitor seemed longer than it was wide. tho that might just be in my head
-
There was a thread on here someplace with a pic that showed how a monitor of similar size, but an aspect ratio of 4:3/3:4 would actually yield more screen display space (assuming non-stretched to edges), then that of a 16:9/9:16. I also assume there is some sort of performance hit for the pixes being drawn that shouldn't need to be drawn if the monitor was the correct size.
-
Keep in mind, if you're talking PC LCDs, then it more than likely is 16:10, not 16:9
-
This page gives you a good idea of the 4:3 screens versus the 16:9
http://www.screenmath.com/
It takes a 33" wide screen to equal the viewing area of a 27" 4:3 screen:(
That's the main reason why I didn't go with an lcd.
-
The future of arcade cabs is actually in LCDs. The new Taito X2 cabinets are using 32" LCDs. The next wave of fighting games are all using those 32" LCDs
Street Fighter 4, BlazBlue, etc.
-
I built an arcade cabinet to house the control panel that I wanted to use to play the games. I think using newer better technology is great, but old school arcade controls dominate a keyboard/PC joystick. I am using a 27" LCD wide screen monitor. It was only $399 from NewEgg and the viewing area on 3:4 games is over 22 inches. You'll never get a new 22 inch CRT monitor for that price. My cabinet also has classic depth. With the LCD monitor, I could have made it half as long in the Z axis, but I'm glad I didn't. My friends scream and shake the controls madly when they play fighting games. I'm pretty sure they would pull the machine over if it had a thinner base. Another benefit of the wide screen monitor is having more screen area if you are using the cabinet as a jukebox or to play Future Pinball and normal PC games.
-
With a widescreen LCD, then up to a 24" monitor -- about 23" wide -- could fit into most upright cabinets, and have usable area similar to a 20" 4:3 display. And since it probably costs less than a 20" 4:3 LCD. . . I could live with that.
If you want a huge display, though, then you might have a problem.
-
Hmmmm. . . . I suddenly find myself thinking about a rotating LCD monitor.
It's pretty obvious that you can use a LCD to make a smaller cabinet. It took a bit longer for it to sink in that it would be a lot easier to rotate a LCD than a CRT. It can go on a lazy susan bearing, and the rest is pretty much cosmetics (bezel and such) and optional frills (motorizing it).
I've got room for a full-sized cabinet. And if I could rotate it, I think a 19" LCD would be plenty big enough. The only reason I ever thought about a bigger monitor was so that vertical games wouldn't appear too tiny.
-
I prefer CRT still to LCD for most things. Some things to consider: With LCD, they still havent gotten that "contrast problem" fully dealt with when you look at the screen from an angle. Also, if you run an LCD at rez that isnt its native resolution, you sacrifice a lot of quality (CRT's have no native rez) and lastly, contrast ratios havent gotten as good with LCD yet, and good contrast is somewhat important in games, esp some of the older ones.
Personally, I actually have a filter set up in MAME32 to make the screen look like an old NTSC arcade monitor, so I am actually LOWERING the quality of the image being output, just for the effect. I wouldnt normally do this, except that the MAME filter I am using looks so damn realistic and really makes the games I am playing look a fair bit more "authentic".
-
I am using a 27" LCD wide screen monitor. It was only $399 from NewEgg and the viewing area on 3:4 games is over 22 inches. You'll never get a new 22 inch CRT monitor for that price.
You can get a new 27" arcade crt for $450.
-
Do note that if you plan to rotate you LCD in a classic, smaller width cab, then the widescreen format is not for you. My 21.3" LCD is pushing modifications in my midway cab.
-csa
-
I am using a 27" LCD wide screen monitor. It was only $399 from NewEgg and the viewing area on 3:4 games is over 22 inches. You'll never get a new 22 inch CRT monitor for that price.
You can get a new 27" arcade crt for $450.
Where? The best I have seen was on Ebay for $500 and shipping was almost another $100.
-
I am using a 27" LCD wide screen monitor. It was only $399 from NewEgg and the viewing area on 3:4 games is over 22 inches. You'll never get a new 22 inch CRT monitor for that price.
You can get a new 27" arcade crt for $450.
Where? The best I have seen was on Ebay for $500 and shipping was almost another $100.
http://www.wellsgardner.com/products/details.asp?iCat=2&iSubCat=36
I think the betson and billabs are equally priced as well.
-
My biggest issue with LCD's is what happens to the imagery of the original games. Sharp cornered pixels and scaling artifacts are the biggest problems.
However, with higher resolution panels becoming more affordable, this is starting to become less of an issue. Some of the larger units are using technologies from graphics card companies (ATi, etc) to perform scaling of less-than-native-panel-resolution input and are doing a pretty good job with it. A 1080p set can look surprisingly good with a 640x480 input, soft CRT-like pixels and all. And that with very little extra impact on the PC running the game.
So if you can find a good 1080p and use resolutions that fit into the native res at clean multiples, then you can get pretty good results. Of course, you can also get some pretty mediocre results if you don't.
RandyT
-
I prefer CRT still to LCD for most things. Some things to consider: With LCD, they still havent gotten that "contrast problem" fully dealt with when you look at the screen from an angle. Also, if you run an LCD at rez that isnt its native resolution, you sacrifice a lot of quality (CRT's have no native rez) and lastly, contrast ratios havent gotten as good with LCD yet, and good contrast is somewhat important in games, esp some of the older ones.
I haven't noticed most of the problems you describe on my 22" Cinema Display. It's been fantastic for MAME.
I'm especially puzzled by the comment about running at non-native resolution. . . That makes old games look much better, not worse! The scaling makes everything fuzzy, instead of having harsh edges and jaggy pixels visible everywhere. (And vector games also look quite good, incidentally. They can run at native resolution.)
I don't have any problem with viewing angle. I think it would be a problem in a cocktail cabinet, but in a stand-up cabinet I just don't see how it would be.
Regarding contrast, I think what you really meant is black level. Black level can be a problem with LCDs, but I have found some answers to it. . .
1. turn down the backlight
2. put a smoked or tinted bezel in front of the screen
3. give it some time for "breaking in"
-
I think it would be a problem in a cocktail cabinet, but in a stand-up cabinet I just don't see how it would be.
Just to add more to this thread.. ;) since my stand-up cab is a midway style with the screen layed back, view angle was a concern for me as well. View angles would also be a problem for spectators left and right if the screen was vertical.
-csa
-
I haven't noticed most of the problems you describe on my 22" Cinema Display. It's been fantastic for MAME.
I'm especially puzzled by the comment about running at non-native resolution. . . That makes old games look much better, not worse! The scaling makes everything fuzzy, instead of having harsh edges and jaggy pixels visible everywhere. (And vector games also look quite good, incidentally. They can run at native resolution.)
I don't have any problem with viewing angle. I think it would be a problem in a cocktail cabinet, but in a stand-up cabinet I just don't see how it would be.
I think this is because you have a good "high resolution" (1920x1200 or pretty much "1080p") LCD with some of that fancy, built-in scaling I mentioned earlier. There's a pretty wide gamut of LCD specs out there, and the good ones are $$$. The big brother to yours (30") shows a native resolution of 2560 x 1600 pixels(!) With good scaling, this should provide a very nice representation of a "low res" image.
The view angles are, again, one of those things that have greatly improved on more expensive units, but can still suffer badly at the low-end. The upshot is that the display industry is actually heading toward something that will still suit this community's needs. It's just going to take a while before it's available inexpensively.
RandyT
-
I think this is because you have a good "high resolution" (1920x1200 or pretty much "1080p") LCD with some of that fancy, built-in scaling I mentioned earlier. There's a pretty wide gamut of LCD specs out there, and the good ones are $$$.
Mine is 1600x1024, and it was $$$. . . . but it's the original 1999-2000 Cinema Display, so it's ancient in computer terms.
When I got it, it was very bright and the black level was poor. Nowadays the backlight has aged and it's no longer capable of putting out very high brightness, but the good side is that blacks actually look black. I think it looks better now than it did when new. I never had a CRT last this long without going fuzzy, dark or distorted in some way.
-
The view angles are, again, one of those things that have greatly improved on more expensive units, but can still suffer badly at the low-end. The upshot is that the display industry is actually heading toward something that will still suit this community's needs. It's just going to take a while before it's available inexpensively.
I hope so, but I'm not as optimistic about it ATM. There are three* different LCD technologies. (*A lot more if you include the different genereations of each tech.) I hate the cheapest tech, but it seems to be winning ATM.
In gerenal (AKA not always true, but often past on as if):
- The cheapest has the fastest refresh rate.
- The cheapest's "burnt out" pixels are bright red, green or blue (dependong on which is burnt); the others' burnt out pixels show as black and are less obvious.
- The cheapest has a lower color count (usually 14bit vs 16bit.
- The cheapest has the lowest viewing angles and sometimes reverse ghosting (look like negatives) at high angles, especially vertically. The others don't reverse much, but see next.
- One of the others can have purplish blacks, especially deep blacks at angles.
- The cheap LCD PC monitors use the cheap tech. (Example: all 22" widescreen LCD do, and all those I've seen suck.)
IMO, there is no LCD PC monitor good at more than five criteria of what I want in a PC monitor: color quality, contrast, blackness, viewing angle, resolution, size, refresh rate, and price, yet. The cheap ones meet the last three but not most of the others; while the more expensive (and IMO better techs) sometimes can meet five of the first six but not the last two. Sadly, I think the last two or maybe three are the driving forces the public buys (or the industry pushes, depending on the slant ;)). (And ya, I wish the last was no object for me, but it is.)
(I rate PC monitors differently than TVs, mind you.)
Remember, each tech has a wide range of actual quality, so I suggest try it out with your own eyes before buying.