Clear is mixed to give a desired amount of flex verse rigidity. Basically it can be a range. Harder, stiffer clear will crack and chip instead of give. You can see how it’s hard to satisfy all applications with one “right” mix.

The fact the material is not just compressing.... but wrinkling as Eric so correctly put it is interesting IMO and what keeps me wondering how the different layers in play

Yeah... and the reality that they've change their builds to put washers under slingshot star posts... something they never did before. And magically, they make that change now...? How convenient...

You are referring to direct printed playfields vs using silkscreening. Thus, part of the ink discussion.. prep and adhesion questions.

Mirco has been direct printing for many years.. CPR is adding it to their options as it is faster, less error prone and less labor intensive.

Have you looked in a stern manual in the last few years? They don't even include lists of parts like ball guides, posts, plastics, or anything... mounting hardware is way down the list of 'shit you won't find in a stern manual'

Frankly issues like the manual (since about Metallica era) are so abysmal and will really hurt us going forward.. yet most collectors are oblivious to it

wrinkling... not pooling... the topcoat isn't flowing downhill to your posts people :p

if it were caused by something expanding underneth... or filled with something.. I'd agree its better. But the failure is being instigated by pressure/movement on the top coat causing stretch, displacement and eventual tearing/chipping.

We can induce the same kinds of failures on the cabinet decals when you tug on it with bolts or over compress. That's the similarity I see..

Or the difference between constant squeezing vs impact.

The clear has shown itself to be soft. that means impacts will be absorbed better.. and if the clear is more elastic, it will return to its shape. Where as a post is constantly squeezing and pushing the material.

yes, this was previously noted that this is being done by stern on JP...

The problem has nothing to do with the top of the post... plastic isn’t going to support and combat the high intensity ball impacts. The problem is that it’s a skinny screw in a big hole for the t nut... because there is no room underneath for a typical post+nut.... where the post is normally friction fit to the hole as well as having a nylon nut.

it is cured - it was sprayed many months ago. The formula they used is not resulting in a stiff finish resistant to compression like we are used to.

Cure is not the same thing as 'hard'. Cure means the chemical reaction has finished and the product is now stable.

Elasticity is a separate property from hardness. You squeeze putty fine.. it doesn't mean it springs back because its soft.

The clear wasn't thicker there - what you see now is material that has been displaced and wrinkling. That's why it's popping like a blister.. the material is separating from the substrate below.

No

Yup... and there are additives that can be added to the mix to adjust how flexible the finish is, gloss level, leveling, how it interacts with the substrate, etc. Dozens and dozens of variations vendors can dial their product in with.

It's possible they went with a new formula to make the clear more pliable or less likely to crack.. and ended up with this byproduct of lack of resistance to compression.

It's unlikely we'll ever hear the real root cause... just some promise of 'its fixed'

Careful but still inaccurate.

Is there a post over bare wood on these impacted playfield s to compare to? If not... then you’re not comparing apples to apples

Link? I only see his posts with the wrinking around the metal posts.

or maybe can it be a combination of both... ? The ink part being why the clear can be moved so easily... leading to the chipping.. after the soft clear has been shifted.

But yes, certainly to start with the clear shouldn't be displaced and pushed by simple compression from a post!

Economically at scale? Unlikely. Just like building a house.. you need a steady base. If the base is easily compressed... the clear on top will fail when it can't keep up with the base moving.

So you'd try to remove as much of the factory clear as possible.. to make the 'mushy' layer as thin as possible.. thus reducing how much movement is possible. Getting that optimized is a finesse thing that is not perfect and is error prone depending on how aggressive you are. Pros like HEP do that when refinishing PFs, but it's alot of work and not perfect.

It's cheaper at scale to just make new ones and repopulate with the old hardware.

All of that is assuming the entire PF needs restoration. If we find out that only the contact spots are problematic... restoration could be to just fix the cosmetic issues that caused (repairing or replacing lost art/visuals) on a spot by spot basis and accepting the 'stabilized, better looking, but still flawed' PF.

In a lot of ways the newer pfs can be easier. More modular, better harnesses, no need to rebuild mechs, drop targets, etc. there is more on modern games... but they are built different and if the mech holes are setup correctly it would go pretty quickly.

Yeah, many assume 'more stuff == harder!' but it's more about the kind of work needed.

yeah it's called 'parts' vs 'parts and labor'. Never had to pay for the technician to replace the part in your HVAC system? Or pay to replace a failed component in your car that failed under the parts warranty?

The significance here (not covered by your poor analogy) is the fact the product is faulty brand new... and not just something being replaced by a vendor.

Because the assertion they did not issues is false. Horrible registration.... cabinet inks that faded in short order... misassembled games... mechs that broke with normal usage... ghosting inserts... they were all things b/w went through too.

I think many posters live in the fantasy world they dream up on the web.

You could say the same thing about Munsters... and TPF ran a similar (alas smaller) paid event too..

Remember that thought as dozens of pinsiders tour the stern factory next month

You pretty much answered yourself If you publicly state you made this change for that matter... you pretty much make it easier for others to come back and say you owe that fix to me too because the original was defective.

Ballguides making contact with the PF wearing the paint... yes... old as time.

Ballguides causing the clear-coat to wrinkle, and chip away... no, new to the clear issues of recent times. Old PFs would just wear at the spot and form a lip that could be chipped if you tried very hard. But adhesion made that very hard to break away much material. Here, this is nearly a cm worth of width away from the contact point. Not the old normal.

It's why the art change is only a quick and dirty attempt.. it doesn't address the problem anywhere else things are putting pressure on the topcoat.

not really.. the pf protectors don't go under hardware except in limited circumstances. they float on the PF and just sit 'around' everything

Don't stand in front of the blame train... it respects no logic

Deduction leads to hypothesis... not assertions. It’s best to know what kind of ground one stands on.. less one puts all their credibility into the fire

How about making public statements saying its not a widespread issue... then turn around and quietly change your builds to include washers... then change the art on a game to avoid it.. all while not acknowledging the issue for what it is?

It's typical stern.... try to handle everything on a 'case by case basis' to minimize exposure and do everything possible to avoid publicizing the issue... including denial.

You asked how they are sweeping it under the rug.. I answered that question. Dismissal... while quietly directly trying to cope with it to make it go away.

It's widespread enough that they invested time and resources to rework the game already in production. That should tell you all you need to know if it was materially significant or not.

We've seen this posture from Stern over and over and over. Be it splitting cabinets... ghosting inserts... failing cabinet decals... cratering PFs.. and now, wrinkling top coat. Stern bogs customers down by forcing claims through the distributors, while providing miserable support to the distributors for the issue, and using the pain and effort as a way to help minimize the number of claims. Then, hide resolutions behind 'case by case' basis policies that again drag customers through the mud of uncertain standards and no published guidelines to hold employees for accountability in decisions.

Deny, make it painful, and those that still manage to get through, scrutinize, and deal with the least number of failures as possible. It's the Stern way.. and always has been.

The problem has spanned multiple titles over titles shipped over multiple months. Hypotheticals that use ideas like 'playfields from one week' are disingenuous and dismissive. The problem clearly has been widespread... the affected percentage may be low vs the total.. but it's certainly not an isolated incident or momentary issue.

"worthy of fixing" is a balance of cost vs gain (or risk). Clearly Stern invested in the cost side of the equation to get JP fields reworked with new designs quickly... that alone projects what stern thought the other side of the equation meant.

Visions of Bryan in Bad Santa....

Ehh... screen printing is alive and well in other industries. The beauty is there is no tech to support! The only thing to go “eol” is your screen material... and that is not happening now. It’s literally squeegees on a pivot arm.

And for volume... the industry makes far less playfield these days then in the past... so this isn’t a scale constraint.

Digital printing is desirable because it’s more efficient. Less labor, less time, less space, and less waste. Nothing to do with obsolescence.

This train of thought doesn't work. This is not about when games were released... it's about when games were BUILT. Since Stern runs multiple games at the same time, and different batches of the same title... you have to look at what games were built in the affected time period... not when games were released.

That is chipping from insert lift. Not even comparable.

Don't worry about the sheep.... hearing what you want to hear is more critically valued on pinside than having to face realities. Hence the mob flocking to any prophet preaching what they want to hear.

Your comments have been much appreciated.

The Stern JP Pros at York today had the updated 'cut back' art style on the Playfields. So the change they made for the LEs they have now made for Pros as well.

The issue is this isn't just a threaded post. The issue is it's a threaded post that has the flipper plate obstructing it from below. So instead of your tight fit post with a big #8 nut and washer below... It was a post into a T-nut.... so it could be screwed in without removing the flipper base plate and would fit under it.

The T-nut does not provide the same lateral strength and resistance to becoming loose that the threaded stud w/nylon nut does.

Starting with the LEs, they changed it so the post is longer and has a nut on it. Unsure if it's still a t-nut or if they went to a fatter post stud. I haven't had to pull one part yet.

And if you want to copy over Mike's FB post.. just tag him Guidotorpedo

yes, as the posts above mention... the hardware was changed when they did the first run of LEs to have a longer stud and nut on it now.

Maybe you should go back and update your wildly inaccurate stories with corrections.

Its about the process and materials used at a point in time by a comapny... not so much about the title itself. The titles were just our way of referencing what was made during the time period because playfields are made in batches... and games are made in batches (during which the company may have a common qa standard across).

What is even more depressing is when I can sit the two latest Stern games side by side... see differences... and people still play dismissive as if everything is always the same. It's not.

Go back and start here for a perspective from CPR... as a voice of someone who tries hard in this area
https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/cpr-playfield-preorders-are-meaningless/page/2#post-4863477

The MBR we have sitting right next to Stranger Things does not look as bad to the eye... but when you look closer it is quite extensively covered in divot marks. It's just alot less distracting to the eye on MB. I think the marks are less pronounced.. but haven't studied closely.

It's a thin metal protector that is just stuck on with tape. It's not mylar It's effectively a big cliffy protector for the drop zone. You can add it at any time.

Nope sorry Levi - the term has been used to describe the behavior for over three years

The last one was dripping with sarcasm if you don't click the link

Incorrect. That is mylar put back there that wasn't installed well so is pulling up.

They switched to holding it down with hardware... but now their design requires everything to be through hole. No screwing into the top of the PF. That will be a challenge in its own -- finding space for T-nut everything or washers, etc.

But agree - what we have right now is a good sounding concept - actually seeing it completed, VETTED, and sustainability/suitability for other games is needed before crowning any concept the king.

Biggest problem with this design... space.

If you made every post a big 1" square... you'd have all kinds of conflicts of mounting spots on the bottom of the PF.

So instead of custom lightboards all over... now we have large custom one piece brackets covering large areas of the PF? ?

Actually fitting the mechs around each other is one of the most difficult portions of PF design... and what every pro laughs at when people armchair design Playfields from just the top. "why don't you just move that over...". They know each change can have a cascade of effects underneath.

So you did it for one post... now how about all the others?

It's a novel idea - just saying it's not a magic bullet. It complicates one of the more constrained portions of mechanical design in the games.

This thread is like freaking ground hog day

Similar - but not really part of the solution. I think that was just more about letting light through and materials. They don't do this all the way to the ends, etc.

For the exact reason you outlined in your hypothetical.

These issues appear within a short amount of time. They don't take years to reveal themselves... so buying second hand you have the opportunity to see a game that has already had miles put on it for when you'd expect the issues in question to have appeared if they are going to at all.

We both just said it won't take years to reveal itself... yet you come back with this?

This is really no different with any NIB purchase... there is no real value besides 'being first' and JJP trying to enforce non-transferable warranties. NIB is a safety blanket to some who are not comfortable with their games.. but for most others its just a luxury.

The best thing about the explosion of the hobby with new buyers is the number of basically brand new games on the second hand market. People are not making bigger collections, they are buying and selling to buy the next game. What used to be like finding a 4 leaf clover is now the expected norm. People measure usage in hundreds of games, not 10k+, etc... Most flaws with a title or example will be flushed out within the first few months of a game being on the market. Or those with weak code, etc.. you can see where the game goes.. (like Batman66).

And add-in that manufacturers re-run games more commonly now... there is even less FOMO.

For those who know what they are capable of... it's easy to sit back and just pick the winners.. instead of playing the NIB lottery. Here's looking at you Munsters owners!

The ball doesn't dig into one spot :p

Nah... that is still a design/materials issue that you create this dynamic. The rail as spec’d is laying on the PF... and the guide can deflect and move.

and out of date...
and one sided....
and with an agenda...

He's anti-stern because he got his grey market importing busted up.

that's sales talking...

No they’d just say it was a way to apease a customer and provide closure.

When a business has a customer that just can’t be satisfied… giving them their money back and jusr severing the transaction is the most complete way to just say “fine please leave”

Unless hou give a playfield… and customer still isn’t happy because the new playfield has similar issues.

A bare pf has shown to be not enough. A populated pf is expensive… but i agree a buyback aint cheap! But it is final…

Nice snark - but unrelated to the actual conversation thread. So ... *yawn*

It wasn't snark - it was reality. The 'give their money back' solution is not a admittance of fault - it is the most direct way to simply undo a business relationship and reset to zero.

The actual conversation was if buy-backs open them up to some other liability - they don't. You can simply say it is a way of appeasing an unsatisified (or unsatisfiable) customer. You give them their money back and part ways.

Your response added nothing to that conversation.

or ... just offering compensation to address customer satisfaction.

or... addressing individual situations

Still a long way from directly acknowledging a faulty product/process.

We all know it... but from a business/legal perspective... still a lot of space between those points.

Posts are never snug in the hole where T-Nuts are used (the T-nut barrel actually sits in the hole)
Posts that are snug should be posts that are only held on with a nylon nut.

I haven't looked at which posts these are in our game... but even if they are using a t-nut post vs a post w/nut - it's not 'why' the PFs are chipping - other playfields that have mechs or posts move don't chip like this. They gouge or wear. Which is why we get that halo of missing paint under posts in nearly every game of the last decades after enough play/age.

Even posts that are press fit and take direct flipper shots usually end up bending or working their way loose. And again on those PFs we don't get the topcoat pulling and chipping.

See star post pooling with earlier games

The point of the washer is to reduce the pressure per area. And we saw the ripples on narrow posts and larger based posts as well. Washers aren’t an instigator.

Yes of course but only because that is the area of contact. Washers are a common fix used even on older pfs to give a wider base for stability and resistance to deforming the wood playfield.

Read again... without your foregone conclusions in the mix. Doing something in response is not the same as 'admitting fault' or acknowledging a widespread problem. There are specific reasons why they don't make such public statements.

the same things you quoted two messages ago - https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/continued-playfield-issues-with-jjp-and-stern/page/174#post-6329007

If you don't get it by now - we aren't going to convince you. Providing customer satisfaction is not the same thing as admitting fault or systematic issues. Companies walk a fine line for very specific reasons... and why the first goto is "we will handle things on a case by case basis..."

'some games' - you mean ONE report?

Get a new schtick.

Hell no... Randy is cool af. Can't say that about the activity here

Non-sense. A lot of effort went into a great mech that LOOKs simple because it's actually elegant and performs awesome without screaming LOOK AT ME, I'M BIG AND IMPORTANT!

Looks like a chip from a screw going too far from the bottom. Dab a drop of 'hard as nails' nail polish if you are worried about it.