The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Arcade Collecting => Miscellaneous Arcade Talk => Topic started by: 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.
-
Did it feel like an artifact of the emulation or maybe too slow a response rate from the LCD?
-
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).
-
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.
-
Cool... thanks for the post. I've yet to see one local in MN but I know I'd sure like to try one.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Does it give the game board architecture? I assume it's a PC based boardset.
-
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).
-
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.
-
There's a 38 page thread (http://www.vpforums.com/forum/showthread.php?s=29fc4480d7c8628018fb1725f0271a36&threadid=37470&perpage=20&pagenumber=1) 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I agree on the cartoony look of some of the tables. That's the fault of the artist(s), not the technology.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
Think it's 3 GHz with a 800MHz FSB. I doubt Intel still produces dual-core x86 CPUs at anything less than 1 GHz.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
800Mhz FSB yes.
I'm "fairly certain" I found the actual motherboard used. :dunno
Manufacturer: Gigabyte
Model: 945GM-S2
The description quoted here (http://www.byte-tech.net/MB478s.htm) exactly matches the description in the manual. The motherboard specs given here (http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/Motherboard/Products_Overview.aspx?ProductID=2331) match the details given in the manual.
-
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
-
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.
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?
-
Chad, maybe they need the extra horsepower since they are outputting to 2 screens...
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :)
-
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
-
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
-
Cool ... thanks for responding.
Cheers
-
He's right about the plasma, anyway... better picture, easy to burn in. Easier than any other common display type except maybe CRT projection.
-
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.
-
My money's on Toshiba's flat electron+phosphor screens. Same tech as CRTs but truly flat.
-
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.
-
OLED screens are notorious for having short lifespans (they get really dim within a year or two).
-
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
-
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.
I'm not sure I follow you. You say you do not get the great graphics display with a crt like you do an LCD. Actually when it comes to image quality, CRT is still the standard by which everything else tries to measure up to. The major drawback of CRT's is size(depth) and weight.
Now that might change with the SED technology, the best of both worlds, just curious how much it will cost though.
-
He probably meant size and shape of the display itself.
-
I'm still around. I'm moving into my house and I'll be posting up more often.
Best of luck to everyone involved in making such a great product. There were probably at least 100 devs directly and indirectly contributing.
--
- Ahigh
-
The problems related to the LCD screen are enough to make UltraPin a total flop.
It's a shame as it could've been great.
--
- Ahigh
-
The problems related to the LCD screen are enough to make UltraPin a total flop.
It's a shame as it could've been great.
--
- Ahigh
Do you know what latency the screen they chose has? I'm seeing fairly affordable LCDs on sale these days, with as low as 2ms display.
-
The problems related to the LCD screen are enough to make UltraPin a total flop.
It's a shame as it could've been great.
Do you still work for them? Just curious. Ex employees tend to hate on their former employer's products... the way I hate on Kodak's digital cameras. :)
-
I saw one of these at the Texas Pinball Festival. I didn't play it, but I watched someone else playing it. The graphics need work. There was no lighting or shadows on the screen. The wireforms didn't look like they were floating above the table like they are supposed to.
From the perspective of the player, IMO the Ultrapin should look like a real pin rather than a cartoony pinball simulator.
The Ultrapin might be an application for the Ageia physics card, if the internals of the simulator take the actual physics of pinball into account. Hardware accelerated physics would speed up the application greatly.
The product has a lot of promise. If it is sold for less than the price of a new pin, say $3500 or so, and the graphics are improved, there could be a real market for this product.
I see the price listed at $6k. Well, maybe there's a market for that, but I could almost buy two NIB machines for that much dough.
-
I'm familiar with Ageia and I've written software using the routines, however, UltraPin's needs for physics are quite different from what they have to offer.
The reason, in my personal opinion, that the graphics look non-real and cartoony is because they are on an LCD screen that shows extreme blurring when eye-tracking the moving pinball.
Also, to Chad, I don't just hate it because it is from a former employer. You can ask anybody that worked with me on it. I just hate the LCD screen on it. The product is amazing and still would be if GlobalVR were willing to understand (first .. I think they're a year behind but making progress) and to solve (second .. not bloody likely) the display problems. The response time and the latency are two independent numbers. The latency numbers are never disclosed, except on forums. Not part of the advertised specs.
I saw one of these at the Texas Pinball Festival. I didn't play it, but I watched someone else playing it. The graphics need work. There was no lighting or shadows on the screen. The wireforms didn't look like they were floating above the table like they are supposed to.
From the perspective of the player, IMO the Ultrapin should look like a real pin rather than a cartoony pinball simulator.
The Ultrapin might be an application for the Ageia physics card, if the internals of the simulator take the actual physics of pinball into account. Hardware accelerated physics would speed up the application greatly.
The product has a lot of promise. If it is sold for less than the price of a new pin, say $3500 or so, and the graphics are improved, there could be a real market for this product.
I see the price listed at $6k. Well, maybe there's a market for that, but I could almost buy two NIB machines for that much dough.
-
The graphics look cartoony because they were rendered in 3d. The results
of rendered objects rarely look as real as Real photographs. When rendering
in 3d, many times there is a lack of color depth and they do not render enough
simulated light rays in order to save render times.
LCD's have come a Long way. While I used to hate them because of
stationary blurriness, ... todays new LCDs are astounding. Im using a
37" sceptre 1080p (1920*1080) for my PC monitor. Its crystal clear and
the color is just about as good as my 17" crt. Its very hard to see any
difference between the two... and I have a very good eye for such things.
The biggest problem with LCDs is making sure you are using the Native
resolution of the LCD. Otherwise, it has to use a hardware scaler.. which
usually is poor at conversion, and blurs and distorts the images.
Also, one must usa a DVI connector - or the HDMI connection.
Mine has a DVI to HDMI cord included. Using the VGA DSub connection
looked horrible on the thing. DVI was 1000% better in color and clarity.
I wonder if the Ultrapin is using DVI. I doubt that thier LCD was 1080p res...
and honestly, I wouldnt take anything less that that... as the pixels are so
small they are barely visible.
This particular model does have a slight blurr when there is a lot of fast movment...
however, its over a year old, and its not a top of the line model. The new models
have much faster responses and greater contrast ability. The problem will most
likly be cost in all areas.
To do photo-realistic rendering would take a ton of time and money... as well
as possibly still looking less than optimal. Doing a true 'photographed' version
would be awesome.. but that too is time consuming. For great example,
of photo results, see Microsofts 'Pinball arcade'. (from what i can
recall) Adding a better LCD will come down in cost in time.. but for now, it
may be too expensive to justify to add a top of the line model.
I also wish there was an option for selection of a Top view instead of
the faked perspective. (unless they could get stereoscopic 3d to work
well ;) )
Another thing that Really bothered me about the machine (I played it at the
Rochester gameroom show) was that there was no 'feeling'. Strange
as it may sound, when you hit the flipper button and do not Feel a
thump from a coil... it really feels like you are playing a video and not
a pin. Adding 3 live coils would be much better. One located near
each side of the cab for flippers, and one somewhere else to simulate
jet bumpers, kickers..ect. Sound alone just doesnt cut it.
I believe they could resell the feedback units to PC users too,
to use in thier home controllers. Same for the push/tilt
sensors and plunger interface.
The cartoon like looks did detract from the experience tho. As there
were plenty of real pins to play, and they looked so much better.
The physics were a bit off. They were decent... but the games
were much easier than thier real counterparts. The ball was much
more predictable, and controllable. Peoples ball playtime was very long
as a result.
There was a lot of light glare too. They probably should add a polarizing
film on the playfeild glass to help keep the feilds from glare.
-
You are playing a video and not a pin. Every criticism I hear of this thing is that it doesn't feel like a real pin. Well, it's not a real pin, so judging it exactly as you would a real pin isn't going to result in a good review. I think the key to success here is going to be how many people are able to get past the "it ain't a real pin" factor and judge it for what it actually happens to be.
-
I like the idea of adding a little force-feedback to the unit. I wish I was in a location where I could try it out...