The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Arcade Collecting => Miscellaneous Arcade Talk => Topic started by: meyer980 on March 16, 2013, 11:55:15 am
-
Hey guys I was watching a video on Ice Cold Beer and had never played it so did some searching if there was a virtual version, emulator, or anything. I wasn't finding anything except something called "Mount Neverest" here on the forums which didn't run on my computer so did some Googling and found this.
http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184493-ice-cold-beer (http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184493-ice-cold-beer)
Works great on my computer, I can't comment on how accurate it is to the real thing since I've never played the real thing, but figured some people might be interested. I can't find a way to customize controls so not sure if it'll work well in cabinets but it does show support for keyboard or joystick. Sorry if this has already been posted and I missed it!
-
The real thing has a fun lifespan of about 3 games. It gets annoying quickly after the novelty wears off.
-
It doesnt feel anything like the real deal.
ICB is a game thats impossible for most, due to missing out on a little trick. Once you know the trick, its 100x easier... and somewhat
less interesting.
Trick is to use both sticks at the same time.. rather than simply adjusting one bar at a time. This allows for much greater level control, and
less moments where you lose all hope of recovery.
ICB is fun for what it is. Id play it every so often, merely because its a mechanical game of skill. Even with the trick... having the patience and skill to get to the top level is a challenge.. and then you try to challenge yourself to see if you can repeat the climb more than once.
But.... ICB isnt exciting enough on its own to warrant the cost. Usually half the price of a good pinball machine... which has most more fun playability... which is why I sold mine off. I do miss it at times though... and am happy to play a few more times at a buddies house, when I visit.
-
Trick is to use both sticks at the same time.. rather than simply adjusting one bar at a time. This allows for much greater level control, and
less moments where you lose all hope of recovery.
How is that a trick? It's the only common sense way to play the game. Anyone with any old school arcade experience would figure that out by the second ball.
But.... ICB isnt exciting enough on its own to warrant the cost. Usually half the price of a good pinball machine...
Sells for as much or more than a lot of good pins around here. Easily a $1000 game for whatever reason.
-
Thanks for posting. I've wanted to play this, but I've never seen it in person. A few times, it seemed that the picture of the ball looked like a square, and didn't roll correctly. But other than that it seemed to play "appropriately." You can move up on both sides at the same time. The bar starts at an angle, so you have to move the right side before it is level.
-
Trick is to use both sticks at the same time.. rather than simply adjusting one bar at a time. This allows for much greater level control, and less moments where you lose all hope of recovery.
Given the option would you opt for a different control scheme then? A pair of analog pots? Analog joysticks?
-
The bar doesn't respond quickly enough for analog to make it any better. The holes are so close, and the adjustments so fine, that it might even make the game worse. Improving response time to the joystick in general, without changing the type, would make the game better. Maybe just a shorter throw stick. Honestly, up/down buttons would work a lot better, but might not be as fun as the sticks.
-
Trick is to use both sticks at the same time.. rather than simply adjusting one bar at a time. This allows for much greater level control, and less moments where you lose all hope of recovery.
Given the option would you opt for a different control scheme then? A pair of analog pots? Analog joysticks?
Nah. The controls work just fine. Any delay or burst of feed thats a little too much... is what creates the challenge.
Improving response time to the joystick in general, without changing the type, would make the game better.
The sticks are 2way leaf based, and are thus adjustable. The main issue with these, is that the sticks assemblies have often
worn down to the point where theres slop. (bushing wear) This cases most of the controller issues.
The next problen, is dust / dirt. When the games that old, theres like 20 yrs worth of crud in all the assemblies. All the ball trails
in the rear have to be taken apart & cleaned. Front field cleaned & polished with some nice F21. Roller bar often needs to be re-built...
as the bar breaks free or gets too loose from it holding mounts. The bar itself may be worn & pitted. Replace the scratched up ball too.
The biggest problem is usually the belts. They get brittle & break. Or they slip. I replaced mine with winsheild washer tubing, as recommended by others. Cleaned the belt rollers as well.
But as far as control, thats mostly to do with the motor / gearing assemblies. (not the sticks) Its a bit coarse: Fast and jerky. Taskes
finesse to use tiny taps to get past tough areas. But thats part of the games challenge. If it were too easy to control,
there wouldnt be any challenge at all.
-
The real thing has a fun lifespan of about 3 games. It gets annoying quickly after the novelty wears off.
---steaming pile of meadow muffin---, I played one this past weekend, and I didn't even finish the game. I checked it out cos I could. I hate puzzles.
-
Looks decent. I'd at least like to check it out.
I've never had the chance to play an actual ICB.
Customizable controls would be nice though so I can play it on my cab
-
I have it's sister game, "Zeke's Peak". Same game just different theme.
I agree with Chad that it is pretty easy to master if you have decent hand/eye coordination. However, guests love it at parties.
I also think the control scheme is perfect as it is. It would be great if the target holes were able to vary but that would have required switches behind every hole.
-
I also think the control scheme is perfect as it is. It would be great if the target holes were able to vary but that would have required switches behind every hole.
I bet that could be done DIY with a bit of programming and a bunch more switches.
-
I also think the control scheme is perfect as it is. It would be great if the target holes were able to vary but that would have required switches behind every hole.
I bet that could be done DIY with a bit of programming and a bunch more switches.
It can be done but it isn't exactly as simple as you might make it out.
-
It can be done but it isn't exactly as simple as you might make it out.
Of course it isn't simple. The tools for DIY hardware systems are improving in leaps and bounds right now, though. Between the Pi and the Arduino, the P-ROC and a handful of others, our ability to do these things is accelerating.
-
Well, in the virtual version it would be as simple as adding some code - or something hacking it to add the functionality. Hell, since it's 2D, a novice could probably create a decent version with extant software.
-
It can be done but it isn't exactly as simple as you might make it out.
Of course it isn't simple. The tools for DIY hardware systems are improving in leaps and bounds right now, though. Between the Pi and the Arduino, the P-ROC and a handful of others, our ability to do these things is accelerating.
You don't get it. The I/O isn't the problem. Managing the I/O is so simple that there about a dozen ways to do it and only a tiny fraction require any sort of I/O expander or some sort of I/O monster. There are only 83 potential scoring holes anyways and not all need to be monitored the entire time. A P-ROC is a massive overkill. A Pi can do it, but I feel is too much horsepower, what are you going to do? Have it be a webserver too? :laugh2: An Atmega or PIC would be enough.
It's your switches, positioning, and handling of the ball drop. Depending on the new design, you'll find you'll run into more than a few problems. Cherry switches might not fit in a position that guarantees reliable triggering or ensure optimum placement of the wiring. Another problem that is easily overlooked is that all those switches and with no proper ball guidance is almost guaranteed to have the ball hammer some switches. The ball popping out after a drop can cause problems too but that's really a programming issue. One possible solution that deals with most of those problems in one fell swoop is to switch your "back field" layers around. It solves a lot of problems but you might not be happy with the cherry switch positioning. Self diagnostics also proves to be a :censored: nightmare.
Oh well, I'm sure there are people with better skills that can come up with a better solution. :dunno It is what it is.
My point being is that you make it sound like that all you need is a 73 more switches and a controller.
Sorry if this post comes off as being uh... negative. So if you have any ideas to solve those problems I'd like to hear them.
-
The primary reason I suggested the P-ROC is because it is already designed to handle that many individual switches. And it has a scripting engine that could enable someone with 12th grade level coding skills to write the software. Yeah, it's overkill, but it's also quite a bit of the way there already.
I agree with you on the physical arrangement of switches. I would start with small leafs myself. None of those switches would see a seriously high volume of hits. Maybe use thicker switches on the bottom half since they will see more than the top. You have to remember this ball is never moving at any real speed. It's not a pinball.
-
The primary reason I suggested the P-ROC is because it is already designed to handle that many individual switches. And it has a scripting engine that could enable someone with 12th grade level coding skills to write the software. Yeah, it's overkill, but it's also quite a bit of the way there already.
Personally I wouldn't use it. Doesn't P-ROC require a host driver. A PC, an Atmega, something? IMHO, dropping a PC for a game like ICB is like dropping a V24 into the family SUV. A P-ROC + Atmel might be doable. But at $325 for the P-ROC alone, there are certainly much cheaper solutions if one puts a little thought into the design. Hell, if you're going to drop a PC into it, you might as well buy three or four suitable boards from Randy or Andy. Might be cheaper.
I agree with you on the physical arrangement of switches. I would start with small leafs myself. None of those switches would see a seriously high volume of hits. Maybe use thicker switches on the bottom half since they will see more than the top. You have to remember this ball is never moving at any real speed. It's not a pinball.
Sorry, I meant behind the playfield, not in front. When the ball is dropping down.
The original ICB ball bounces around sometimes and the ball would pop back out. Any switches back there are going to be demolished if that isn't dealt with.
The way to deal with it, IMHO, is to switch the layers behind the playfield. Push nearly all of the switches and wiring against the playfield underside along with guidance that forces the ball to travel a short distance before free falling behind another layer. A sort of switch and wiring shield if you will.
For comparison, ICB appears to have the ball fall directly behind the playfield if it's a foul. If it's a score, it travels beyond the foul layer into a channel system where it triggers the appropriate switch before dropping into the ball return. From a manufacturing standpoint, this make sense. Probably easier to manufacture using molded plastics.
-
The way to deal with it, IMHO, is to switch the layers behind the playfield. Push nearly all of the switches and wiring against the playfield underside along with guidance that forces the ball to travel a short distance before free falling behind another layer. A sort of switch and wiring shield if you will.
That makes sense. You'd be able to reinforce the switches, harness the wiring, and slow the ball down before it hit the switch. Possibly gives you the ability to pull the whole switch matrix out for service without pulling the playfield.
-
If you're going to the trouble of a physical mod, might as well build your own design that's simpler and more efficient.