I have about $700 in boards, and ~$500 in playfield components in my home waiting for me to do something with them. I'm sure there are missing components, but so far its roughly enough for a whitewood with 2 flippers + mechs, three pops, two slings and assorted posts, rubbers, guides etc...

I have a pile of old junk to use for spare switches, targets and metal components like ball trough parts and whatnot. Those will add cost eventually, but for now it's theoretically functional.

I also have a small selection of playfield items modeled in Solidworks, and a few templates for pop bumper and slingshot cutouts. No word on how accurate they are yet

For homebrew or prototype purposes, buy white, and a pack of sharpies in different colors. Then 3D print a little holder thingy for the sharpie and pull the wire thru it. Presto, you have color ID wire

Well, at least that's what I did...

From what I have played with, 3D modelling ramps (in Solidworks at least) and wireforms is horrendously painful. It's not hard, but the time in vs usefulness out is not a great balance. I think a more free-form modelling suite would work much better but my day to day life is all Solidworks machining/manufacturing/fabrication type stuff so my artistic/freeform/surface modelling skill is non-existent.

My intention is to use foam core/cardstock and 3D printing to develop the geometry then 3D model the prototype afterwards.

Welllll then you need to work faster

Then you won't need so many pre-orders

I'm about 60% of the way to a 3d model of a PF with the standard "Italian bottom" with 2 flippers, single inlane guides, 2 slings. I also have the cut patterns for pop bumpers, and the PF side of a pop bumper assembly modelled.

No verification on the geometry being 'acceptable' but I have homebrew pinball as my new years resolution...

Nice! Way further ahead than myself.

I'm definitely not modelling a cab either though. At least not till I start taking pre-orders and I need a nice render

If anyone wants to set up a drop box or something, I would happily dump a folder of solidworks pinball crap into it in exchange for other solidworks pinball crap haha.

No I don't believe SW can save as old versions, but we could save iges/step/parasolid stuff that would still provide geometry and whatnot.

If there's enough people who want to talk homebrew on the mechanical end, not so much software, we should make a thread or google group or something. I don't know how active it would be but I know there's a bunch of mechs, geometry, and dimensions I could use measured or checked that I don't have access to, and I'm sure there's the odd thing I could measure or check for other folks.

What hardware are you driving this game with Keith?

I dug this up from late 2013. I met Brendan Bailey at Expo 2013 and was impressed by his virtual pinball table Junkyard Cats and set out to build a cad model of it, possibly pursuing making it a physical reality one day. It more so became a basis to generate some pinball parts in CAD and has sat dormant for a year sadly. I didn't quite have the space to tackle the physical part of the project then, but I've been making strides the last few months on clearing out some pinball hobby space.

Capture.JPG

We shall see what develops.

Agreed. I played the virtual rendition and it's pretty sweet. Some of the physicalities of it differ in my mockup so some tweaking would/did need to occur. If no one else tackles it, someday I'll build the PF.

Yeah if you can export to IGES, STEP, Parasolid, or even STL (STL not ideal imo) they would be fine as dumb solids in solidworks. The question of scaling and precision is a potential issue but assuming you were able to work at a true scale of some sort, I would expect the relative dimensions in any given part to be accurate enough - Solidworks has an often-times little known scale feature that can work as long as the part is accurate to itself.

That said, I have some of those smaller parts and pieces mocked up in SW; they don't look as pretty as yours of course - less faceting and smoothing and more function over form

What I am very interested in on your end is the ramp modeling you've done. Solidworks can certainly do it given enough time, but it's a royal PITA since there's really nothing to dimension to and/or from in many cases, and the whole thing needs to have it's hand held and constrained thru the whole sweep/loft or whatever else one decides to do. The need for more free form CAD ramp forming options is much needed imo.

PS: your renders look f'ing awesome. Thought you should know

Is that dirt on the rubber rings...

STL imports like crap (in my experience) most times to Solidworks as it's only surface data (which is probably what obj files are anyway? Not 100% familiar with the format) and it greatly depends on the quality of the STL export, but it would be better than nothing in a pinch. It would also enable immediate 3D printing just so you're aware (not that printing other formats is impossible, just requires conversion)

Yea the ramps are a pain mostly for lack of reference points and getting the up ramp angle and curve is important to get right. I use box molding methods more or less and that one i had the actual machine and separate ramp to model from. Thanks

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. Even having the part is tough. I've just spent an hour with my caliper and Solidworks trying to model a plastic inlane guide 1. Some dimensions (hole to hole and overall caliper-type dimensions) are easy to acquire but curvatures and whatnot are kind of a guess - print a 1 drawing - overlay the part - tweak - re-print cycle...

The hard part (conceptually, not in execution) is the 2D PF layout. Once you have the parts modelled, you'd be surprised how easy it is to plop all that crap (posts, flippers, lane guides) on the PF - they just mate to all the 2D geometry on the PF.

I bet I've spent 2-3 times as much time trying to sketch and layout the 2D playfield and realistic shots than modelling posts and pop bumpers. If you can get a caliper on it, 3D modelling (in SW at least) it is damn easy - it's purely dimension driven. That said, I don't personally have any intention of modelling the under-PF crap yet, which is ironically probably more useful than the top side haha.

Just after screwing around with my lane guide last night, as I was going to bed I realized I could simply 3D print my model to check it lol. Still not used to having that capability...

I bought mine 90% to print pinball crap, shame I never remember to use it haha. It's sitting right next to me while working, not sure how much more obvious I can make it for myself

That's awesome. My current engineering career doesn't lend itself all that well to little parts and pieces so outside of pinball I'm not printing much else (yet!)

What printer are you in on?

That thing is pretty cool. Hope it delivers on its potential. I could see myself wanting one eventually...

Slightly OT but I semi-drunk ordered rotary encoder potentiometers to repair a MIDI keyboard this weekend... not even sure that's the fix but with a few rums and the confidence to solder pcbs, may as well buy something right?

What I have personally found to be reasonably accurate as a CAD vs 'Art' software is that true CAD software requires (or functions better) with the concepts of dimensioning and manufacturing in tow, while the more artistic software functions much better with the free form creative thinker. There is overlap in the middle but each side suits one style of thinking (and purpose) over the other.

I have personally found there is much less flexibility in terms of 'creativity' in software like Solidworks and AutoCAD vs 3DSMax (is that a thing anymore?!) or Illustrator. When I sit down in a session of AutoCad or Solidworks, I typically need to start with something to begin relating features and ideas to. Whether it's the size of paper you are drawing on, the blank piece of material you begin with, or the physical part in had, parametric modelling software demands that you relate features and properly define them over and over.

Ironically this is why I always have felt lost in Illustrator or a 3D 'Art' modelling software because you can basically start with nothing, and poke, twist, bend, pull, shear, etc... your way to a masterpiece (or in my case some sort of spheroid I accidentally folded on itself). Now, some of that capability is found in CAD software, but it frankly usually results in errors or anomalies more often than not, and it's usually rudimentary at best, much like I assume any strict dimensional and geometric constraints in artistic software might work less than ideally.

The developers of newer CAD modules claim they are pushing more 'free modelling' concepts but I would be surprised if they could rival what animation and modelling software can do. PTC Creo has some neat features that might appeal to the free-form artists, but the functionality has been around forever in non-CAD software.

Long story short: I wouldn't get too bent on learning CAD - and you can accomplish many goals with both softwares. If you need scale manufacturing drawings done, call me and I'll do it; when I need artwork I'll call you

Man, read that guarantee... we sure don't get that in our EULA anymore...

I mentioned this before and was hoping someone else would jump on it for me

I'll look into what I can set up on my dormant dropbox account if folks would like

EDIT: Ok, well I can clean out my dropbox tonight so I have the full free 2.5gig to dedicate to this if no one else has a better idea/plan - I'm relatively unexposed to the world of crowd/cloud workspaces so if there are better options (google?) lets go with that - my biggest gripe with dropbox is there's no built in communication tools.

I can upload some crap tonight wherever we decide.

PM sent

I'll be uploading stuff tonight - no promises that anything is accurate or modelled appropriately Unlike the day job, I get to drink copious amounts of rum while working on hobbies

Tried converting OBJ to STL, and it turns out Solidworks blows for importing STL as solid geometry.

I'm now messing with your obj files in MeshLab: http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/

Nifty opensource program that lets you view, edit, and resave mesh files. If you resave as DXF, and import it into Solidworks as a 3D model, all seems to work well so far - the output right now is all surface data which can be knit into a solid if needed.

Here at work, on my i7-4790k @4.0ghz and 16gig ram it seemed to take about 8 or so minutes for your parts file (after converting from obj to dxf which took no time at all) to convert from dxf to solidworks (That's ~75000 faces in that file). Only used 4-5 threads of the cpu at a time and not at 100% so its not THAT demanding a process, but on a crappier computer it will take some time and requires a reasonable chunk of RAM (4 gigs min I would say for this model). I'll try it at home as well and see if it's do-able there.

I always recommend these if you want to get excited about springs or wireforms

DXF is the best overlap to Solidworks from what I see there. I don't think it matters too much on your end as the conversion between mesh formats seems very seemless - it's importing it into SW where the fun starts haha.

I have found in Solidworks I've been forced to resort to guide curves for sweeps and lofts on ramps for many things resembling a 'true' ramp (ie - trying to prevent unnatural twisting and pinching). I have to admit my knowledge of such features is probably about average, so maybe I'm over thinking it all at this juncture.

I don't think you have anything to worry about using inventor. The software is more than capable from my brief interactions.

Hahaha that's awesome!

Same decision I made. Whole assembly is too cheap and easy to pass on.

I better get mine together... I kinda let that fall thru the cracks what with Christmas and all... damn family and celebration and whatnot hahaha

Great to hear! Yeah... dat ramp... I feel like it's over-modelled but IIRC it kept twisting and pitching in stupid ways. I think it has like 3 profiles and a bunch of guide curves and junk.

Yeah everything I've done is SW 2013. FYI new SW models can't be opened in older SW so if anyone is running 2014+ we'll be out of luck They can still open 2013 files though to that's a win.

Actually... I used to have an educational ProE/WF 4. Wonder where that went... I think it had time expiry tho...

Having spent years using ProE and switching to SolidWorks about 6 years ago, I would never go back to ProE. It was a good tool to teach and learn with because it was very strict on 'how' one should model, but it was a bear to use quickly and efficiently. Assuming you model and draw in an 'appropriate' way, SW blows ProE out of the water imo, but it does allow for sloppy modelling practices where ProE would have smashed you in the face with errors immediately.

That said, for FEA analysis I do believe Mechanica is technically better than Cosmos (neither of those names are relevant anymore actually lol) but that's not germain to the conversation at all.

Good point. I like sharing SW models a bit more because they preserve that info, but for 99% of the parts, they are off the shelf anyway.

I'll try to iges my files before xmas but no promises.

You could try looking into SolidEdge by Siemens - they have a monthly subscription model that I find very appealing. A company we merged with 3 years ago used it exclusively and built 10's of millions of dollars of revenue off it so it can't be too bad, but I've got no personal experience with it.

I feel like most of the commercial packages are overkill in features and price for what most of us are doing here though...

As one Mechanical Engineer to another, your guy is absolutely correct. I've used parasolid and STEP (which is some sort of variant on parasolid) in my day to day to send for for 5 axis CNC machining for years now. They are much better files than IGES in my opinion.

However what keeps me using IGES at times, is that I have heard/found that IGES is a bit more 'common' and is (was?) generally compatible with more software - now keep in mind that was probably 6-8 years ago With that said, I've recently read that IGES is basically obsolete and unsupported by any further development, but this is basically here-say from my end...

Finally someone who can sympathize with my exact issue with ProE. That damned "Resolve Feature" mode was often times "Close the model and re-open it" for me...

The DXFs seem to work well! Takes time to open them but its no biggie.

Places that can do springs or wireforms should be able to work with you and/or a 2D drawing with dimensions where appropriate/possible and/or the 3D model to come up with something.

Handmaking them is probably the best choice for the first off though.

http://www.amazon.com/Machinerys-Handbook-29th-Erik-Oberg/dp/083112900X/ref=sr_1_1

Get one, even if it's an older edition (I'm on 27th)... in fact the older editions seem to be printed better based on reviews?

It will be overkill for you, but it has 90% of the answers for questions you never thought to ask, and it's not that expensive considering the content. Fasteners, materials, equations, springs, cabling, welding, sealing, geometry, stress analysis, heat treatment... yes pipe and sheet metal sizing! Anything mechanical you want to know is at least mentioned. (Ironically I don't think plywood sizing is...)

In my job it is THE mechanical reference and I take it for granted that I have it - I just assume everyone must have it haha.

No native obj support at all in SW 2013.

Actually I wonder if 3d printing software opens them....

Very cool - lots of potential there.

Is this at/in your home, or is this a separate 'workplace' location?

Very cool! Hadn't thought about holding ball guides, but I've been working on some similar 3D parts this weekend for building wireforms without welding:

I have to pick up some rod to work out the fit and squeeze to make these work (and they need to look cooler as well ) but I'm hoping to shortcut ramp construction a lot. Will probably make some 45° and 90° pieces too so I don't have to bend so much wire...

Capture1.JPG

Yeah that's exactly where my head started going when I modelled the first U shaped thing - it could easily hold a switch. And the 'ball drop' part can have mounting features, or a flasher/led feature built right in to it. There's some great potential for multipurpose implementation.

I'm hoping to have a 'build your own wireform' set of components for people to print and/or buy in the end.

Yeah so far I'm not anticipating the actual bending will be hard, moreso the proper alignment of the 2 (or 4) different curvatures of wire. With access to any CAD, it's less of an issue, but some 3D printed curves could be used in lieu of random bending (and actually forming parts could be printed to fit to the 'proper' curve to QA a 3D bend... just thinking out loud)

I was thinking a 2 piece version could be cool but wasn't visualizing a nice way to do it. That works!

I don't have TONS of experience with laser or waterjet, but enough to know that either should work fine. Cutting metal on laser is not tricky - at least not in my part of the world. It just depends on the machine and the company - kinda like lathe turning metal is not plausible on tooling set up for wood, but both processes are far from difficult with the proper tools.

The only exception might be aluminum as I've not worked with it and laser. I've always seen aluminum waterjet - whether that's coincidence or not I do not know.

Personally I would go laser If I understand your part description.

Why is this Vid? Does aluminum absorb/reflect the laser radiation differently and/or inconsistently, or is it something else entirely?

Did a little research and this is definitely the trend with aluminum vs lasers.

Seems aluminum's reflectivity and quick heat transfer properties make cutting it difficult with laser energy. It reflects and transmits well enough that you require much more powerful lasers to get through any appreciable thickness. You also can run risks of damaging the laser itself due to reflected energy

Anodized aluminum cuts better as the aluminum oxide reflects less and traps heat somewhat, and aluminum alloys cut better as they tend to transfer heat worse than pure aluminum.

The more you know...

I think the big thing here to keep in mind is (imo) this thread and what I get from it (or a subforum or whatever) is we're talking the actual mechanisms and components (and maybe art) of a homebrew machine. To me the code (C++, python, .net, VBA... etc) and hardware (PROC, FAST, PinHeck, Arduino/RaspberryPi/BeagleBone whatever) all have their own places that exist on the internet already. I have yet to see much consolidated info on PF features, dimensions, material sources, services, etc... that relate directly to machine construction, and less to the programming or powering of the game.

That said, the pinballcontrollers forum does still have a decent amount of homebrew ideas on PF construction, but it is in general very code-focussed (which is appropriate imo).

I do feel like I would love a BYOPM (Build Your Own Pinball Machine) site but I don't know how much it would thrive. The BYOAC site/forum is/was awesome to read and search back when I was tinkering with arcade and MAME builds. Still never pulled the trigger on a full machine but I learned about all the products and how things work through a dedicated arcade building forum and the companion 'Project Arcade' book(s) - I'd LOVE to read a Project Pinball book and be able to search a dedicated pinball site for standard layouts, templates, wiring, etc...

As it is right now, I feel the info is scattered (what there is at least) and a great deal of it never even makes it's way into public domain. It just gets measured/duplicated by a hobbyist and never posted for others to know. (ie - how many of us have to manually measure pop bumpers and make drilling templates from scratch for them?)

I remember finding that eventually but I finally have a drilling template (untested keep in mind) so if anyone wants one you don't have to buy stuff

Yeah that's easily the best resource for building a machine but its still just semi-organized thoughts from one persons learnings that one has to stumble across and see value in. That said, it's certainly better than nothing, and he does share a ton of stuff so I've certainly been following.

As a side note that fellow, Brian Cox, is extremely talented and has a variety of awesome connections to pop culture in film, sfx, and music. He's certainly more talented and ambitious than I for sure. Would love to share a beer with him - very sad I missed Expo this year

http://www.space-eight.com/Daft_Punk_Helmets.html
http://www.electro-gadgets.com/portfolio/film/film.html
http://www.space-eight.com/pinballSelect.html

This is a very cool and simple thought... I will be adopting this idea in the weeks to come haha. Was making mockups out of foamcore last year but the 3d printer access certainly changes things here...

Awesome work on that site. I will see what I can contribute to it in short order.

The issue with coding for non-coders is when people say something like "use pyprocgame" average joe has no idea wtf that even means. We all know it has something to do with Python language, but how it all works is a big mystery to most - do I run it? Install it? Open it? Edit it?. Installing Python environments, interfaces, calling API's, interpreters and compilers, libraries, etc... are all way beyond most peoples knowledge bases (mine often as well). I have a small background in coding in BASIC, Turbo Pascal, and C++, but it never extended into object oriented or Windows environment levels of coding, so even I got lost in a lot of this info at first glance.

I have python.exe and pypy.exe on my computer for running 3D printing slicers, so I'm no stranger to running python stuff, but even I got lost in the "how to" of editing, coding, compiling, etc... in a Python environment, despite how 'easy' MPF or pyprocgame are to someone who understand what they even are... I still have nothing up and running fyi so I'm technically still in the fog lol.

How does one get from a blank slate, to an end use .exe file (or whatever the end result is lol) for pressing 'GO" and watching your machine boot - THAT'S what non-coders are looking for. It doesn't have to be 10 steps... it can be 100, but if followed to a T, it needs to produce a flipping game. Right now step one for most people is....? Install something? Code something? Download something? They just don't know.

That's fair to say as I really have no way to judge 'overkill' from the software side, but I guess my point is: from my perspective as a mechanical engineer I feel most of the mechanical construction diy stuff is overkill for me personally, but I recognize that many people do not know about or have those specific skills, so it's great to have some reference info in there targeting pinball diy mechanical stuff as opposed to "go search vacuum forming". I personally don't see why a barebones cobbled together flippers/bumpers/scoring coding section is outside the scope of a diy wiki, even if it's simply pseudocode describing how the code works for various items and what steps need to happen to get up and running. But again, maybe im just out of my league in terms of knowledge about what I'm describing

Either way I'm not passionately for or against, and am likely 100% wrong or uninformed on my thoughts, but I'm just addressing the topic to pass some time I think everything is trending the right direction regardless of how the coding section ends up turning out.

This thread continues to keep me enthralled

So if I follow, you are wiring ALL rows and columns into all boards via 3 cat5's between each board, then set each board via jumper to output only single column (say column 1) and 16 rows, in discrete pairs of outputs?

So for 8 columns, you need 8 boards, and each board would have 16 pairs of switch wires (one column by 16 rows), and be connected by 3 cat5 cables in and out? Conceptually it makes sense and would help a test machine be modular, but man that's a ton of wire and cat5 cable to use for a full matrix.

Where I do see use in this however is in a 1-2 column set up, with maybe 8 rows max. For a prototype game one can easily cut switch useage to a minimum, and use this to keep things semi modular. Beyond 8x2, the space the boards, cables, and wires would take up far outweight the benefits in my eyes.

Or maybe I have it all wrong in my mind haha

The advantage over traditional wiring will be in the modularity of it. It will make it very easy to move a switch from one part of the matrix to another. This is where I see big value in the prototyping stage.

For a machine where you know where each switch will physically be already, a 16x8 matrix would literally use 24 "wires" coming from the matrix board, with daisy chaining through each row or column (which are short wires typically if your switches are laid out well).

Each switch will have 2 wires attached no matter the method. Your version runs each column set discretely to its own board. The "standard" method runs from switch to switch (or back to the main board on the ends of the daisy chain. Yours definitely has advantages so kudos to you for that!

100% agreed. I think I would actually be interested in a handful of them at some point.

I don't see why not, but from a mechanical mod perspective the third target will still score points if I understand your idea completely. If you are writing custom code with the mod, then anything is possible and the target can simply be removed and go unused imo.

I must have glazed over this. What was your hope/request for this? Just a blank PF cut with holes for the standard 'Italian bottom' playfield? Or fully populated with flippers and laneguides and whatnot?

I'll look into it and see what kind of price it would entail as I'm hoping to start cutting PF's myself first by hand, then with a local vendor.

Shipping will hurt I imagine, but if I get a few extra PF's made, with our CDN dollar being such crap, and local manufacturers begging for work due to crap oil prices, it could be cheap and easy for you to buy from Alberta lol.

Is anyone else interested in this? If I can verify the layout of my 'standard' PF in the next few weeks, I could look into running 5 to 10 to 20 to ??? extra PF's and estimate out the shipping costs in the meantime.

I've hand made my first Italian bottom prototype with flippers, slings, and inlane guides. Once I get it wired up and flip a few balls around to make sure it feels good I'll finalize it in cad and get it quoted somewhere here locally.

Trickiest part (so far) is the slingshot mechs. I cut and drilled for Williams style holes and starposts, but in using a Stern sling assembly it seems to want smaller cylinder sling posts to get the switches in contact with the rubber ring. Had to do some hole 'tweaking' in a manner of speaking

The trouble is related in part to the cutouts relative to the rubber, but also to the placement of the mech itself from underside the playfield.

The second issue is I don't want to use Stern posts for my slings, and starposts do make an appreciable difference to the inlanes and sling rubber positions when you get down to the ~1/16" scale.

Essentially, in short, Stern 'Italian bottom' is not the exact same as WMS - which frankly doesnt shock me and I anticipated such a hiccup; The inlane guides are slightly different, and the sling positioning is slightly different. They are functionally "identical" for 99% of gameplay purposes (as far as the average guy could tell at least) but they are not necessarily part-compatible, and as far as readily available whitewood parts, it's a mix of what's "off the shelf" these days.

Overall not at all a big deal. Just a small initial nuance to laying out a whitewood.

That's the mech I've used. Works really well, aside from the aforementioned slight alterations to the WMS sling template.

The tradeoff of not having to align multiple parts vs a slight change to the routing template is worth it imo.

Yeah, a stern sling template probably works 100%, but you'd have to mess around with the switches a bit if you want to use starposts vs stern posts; I tried changing my Metallica to starposts way back when slingshot airballs were an issue, and it works to lessen the slingshot forces but it does alter the switch closure sensitivity and the inlane feeds.

I won't 100% confirm I have things positioned quite right until I power the coils and let them fire a ball around, and also check the inlane/outlane feeds for feel. That might take awhile as my workspace is kinda crap for getting power and boards hooked up right now... I have everything 'ready' to start diving into it but it's a cluster-f of balancing expensive (and dangerous) boards and power supplies/transformers on chairs and tables lol...

Workbench incoming...

Swinks, FYI I used your 3D printed sling templates. Cool idea and they worked awesome. Thanks for those - on to the pop bumpers!

Because Linoleum deserves more publicity

Check it:

https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/frozen

The other issue with solid wire is it's not the best choice for vibration and fatigue resistance.

It can also be more annoying to solder in some situations (personal opinion I suppose)

Shooter lane is pretty easy in SW. There's a bunch of ways to tackle it depending on what you want.

Most intuitive is to draw a circle and sweep/extrude it at an angle to the PF (or on a curve) like boblangelius did above. In practice this is the most realistic as far as manufacturing goes - the tool has a constant radius and simply rise out of the workpiece as it travels. The minor complaint I have with this is easily controlling the end position of the groove requires a sweep which adds a sketch for the path.

My preferred method is to do it with a revolve cut feature. You set up a plane on the center of the shooter lane then revolve a cylinder around a centerline at an angle (or revolve a tapered cone around a straight centerline - less realistic manufacturing wise). Choose your diameter and depth at the start, and make it coincident at the end. Easy to dimension, all in a single sketch.

Revolve2.PNG

Alternatively you can use a loft cut from a circle to a point and adjust the position of the end point and the "normal to profile" value to adjust your 'cylinder/cone' transition. It's fancy but ultimately kinda cumbersome.

Loft 2.PNG

You could also model a solid cone body and use the "Combine Bodies" feature and subtract it from the PF. This would be by far the most cumbersome method imo and is functionally identical to the above methods with the added 'subtraction' feature.

MDF is also heavy as hell which can be advantageous or not, depending on the application. It's cost vs weight ratio is very appealing for things like arcade cabinets. Similarly heavy and finished plywoods are significantly more expensive than the MDF equivalent in my experience.

Personally I wouldn't use MDF for anything in a pinball machine unless it happened to be the only thing I had laying around.

My least favorite aspect of MDF is pretty much everything needs to be pre drilled (hint: I'm lazy ), ESPECIALLY edge screws, and even then you still run the risk of cracking and splitting if you have enough screws along a stress line.

The issue with "plexiglass" is that pretty much every consumer refers to clear plastic as "plexiglass". 'Plexiglas' is a trade name for acrylic, much like 'Lexan' is a trade name for polycarbonate. The properties of these two materials (and other clear plastic sheet) are NOT the same.

I would be interested to know exactly what the Elektra PF is made of (it may even be plexiglass/acrylic - if it's not crazing I would doubt that though) but swinks is definitely right that acrylic would be prone to cracking/crazing around stress and ball impact regions after a marginal amount of abuse. Likewise he is correct that Lexan/polycarbonate would resist cracking, but would scratch all to hell in very short time.

I'm not sure what material old artwork plastics were made of, but I believe CPR uses PET/PETG for repros... (ie - neither acrylic nor polycarbonate) I'm very unfamiliar with PET properties but in very thin sheet form, it is known in our world under the trade name "Mylar" and tends to work quite well as a playfield protector

May I recommend the main pinball vendors?

http://www.pinballlife.com/index.php?p=catalog&parent=107&pg=1

http://www.pinballlife.com/index.php?p=product&id=658

http://www.pinballlife.com/index.php?p=product&id=1513

And tons of crap here with varying degrees of availability:

http://www.marcospecialties.com/pinball-parts/MECH-ASSY?

The cheap way is used or old mechs, but whole new assemblies are certainly available.

The flippers/slings/pop bumpers are all new stuff and were the bulk of what I inferred you wanted so I would go ahead and not worry about that stuff. Most items "in stock" and not listed as NOS should be reasonably available for anyone.

The only stuff that I would say is tough to implement are drop targets. The only drops presently in manufacture (to my knowledge) are the various Stern mechs on modern games and they are neither cheap nor readily available as an off-the shelf purchase.

At the end of the day, if your primary concern is not taking up parts that a restorer needs, you need to build your own stuff which means $$$ and wasted time building stuff that doesn't work trying to replicate mechs that do work.

The hobby is small to start with and the number of people wanting custom drop target mechs is even smaller. The only way a hobbyist is going to build a one-off machine for a reasonable price (IMO at least) is by using existing junk.

My two cents

Agreed, but imo it still comes down to the questions: do you want to build a pinball machine, and/or do you want to build mechanisms? Neither are wrong, but building a reliably working drop mechanism (or flipper mech, pop mech, etc...) will be a (probably fun) project in it's own right that will add to the unknowns and time to the end 'pinball machine' project.

I have had this discussion regarding pinball electronics as well: if you 'simply' want to build a pinball machine use P-ROC and/or FAST with MPF or pyprocgame, etc.... but if you also want to design electronics then by all means start from scratch, but realize "pinball electronic hardware" will be a project on its own and ultimately will result in you reaching the 'working pinball machine' goal later rather than sooner.

Ultimately, you have to determine what the goals are in your project - there are no wrong methods or ideas unless you aren't personally enjoying the work. I for one have messed around enough with "good" drop target assemblies in old and new machines to know that I (a mechanical design engineer) don't really want to design one from scratch in my free time during my pinball machine project - my goal in a custom machine at this point is a working playable game with a great theme and ruleset, but that's not necessarily everyones goal or path (see Jpop custom cabinet glass/hinges/airvents/etc...)

You crazy man

Since the patents are expired, just copy the classic Bally Drop mechs.

Which would require a bally mech to copy, which means you already have the mech (or one close to working) to use in your homebrew game If we're talking about mass producing things, that's a different argument and debate altogether (imo). If someone wants to start building cheap drop target mechs for us to buy, please be my guest.

What's fun about homebrew pinball is theres something for everyone, no matter where their 'tinkering' passions lie. Layout, artwork, programming, mechanisms, electrical, animations... you can do all of them, one of them, or any combination thereof.

damnit vid, now you have me drafting up drop target assemblies...

I intend to use heavy weight cardstock (ie - business card or stiffer) like a ramp flap... no clue on how that will turn out. Failing that, I will probably 3D print some semi-flexible ramp entrance parts from ABS that can clip or glue onto the foamcore or PF. If that doesn't work, ill use sheet metal and be done with it.

The issue I forsee is loss of ball speed and/or airballs. The 'delta angle' a ball will travel up with minimal speed loss and/or bouncing is actually pretty low in my experience, even with a proper edge. Even a shallow ramp has a fairly abrupt change in angle without a proper ramp flap.

I too doubt the longevity of a cardboard solution, but its easy to tear off some tape and fire another one on every few plays if its an issue. Once it's nailed down better, 3d printing a ramp entrance with some backing/mounting features on it for the foamcore would be trivial. (well as trivial as 3d printing is lol...)

Depending on size, I think that could be 3D printed in one piece on a one of the typical consumer grade printers (makerbot clone) with only a bit of cleanup required. It's definitely possible in multiple pieces and it should be plenty strong, especially if ABS was used.

If you send me a sketch or drawing with the dimensions of the key features required I would love to model it up and try it out just for fun, even if you are abandoning the idea.

I'm not a patent expert but there is a distinction with patents that many people aren't aware of. There exists an item called a "Design Patent" which is not the same as the "Patent" we typically discuss in engineering, despite the term 'design' being in the name.

A "Design Patent" actually does not patent the function or utility of an object, rather the appearance and form of the object (the Industrial Design of the object). Likewise a typical 'engineering' patent patents a process, mechanism, or formula in terms of function and utility with much less regard for appearance. In another way of thinking about it, Design Patents more closely protect a "copyright" of a physical object appearance.

IIRC, the Samsung vs cellphone Apple phone lawsuit revolved around these Design Patents - it was primarily over the overall appearance and features of the physical device, not the cellphone tech behind it.

I would surmise that to possibly enforce a playfield layout infringement you would need a Design Patent on the appearance of the layout. The overall layout or appearance of the shots on a whitewood would probably not be 'engineering' patentable imo. Some unique shots or feature might be if they drastically change or add something to the game, but I think the overall appearance and flow would (could have?) probably be a candidate for a design patent; but even at that - how much do I need to move a pop bumper to generate a completely new layout?

Also I would be willing to bet there isn't a single enforceable patent of any kind on the overall layout of shots on a pinball machine, maybe on individual ideas or features, but not the layout as a whole.

My 2 cents (probably wrong)

Exactly - and that was when pinball patents would actually be useful to obstruct competition. If it didn't happen in the golden years of pinball, I don't see how it could effectively happen now.

Don't use either of those. Use this

http://www.pinballlife.com/index.php?p=product&id=3384

The other two are for plunger and auto fire. If you only need auto fire don't bother with those more expensive mechs (imo at least )

Yeah it could work pending spacing and size issues under the apron, but that's then a non-standard usage of a standard part. The point wasn't so much "here's the cheapest assembly that could work" it was moreso "there are more appropriate auto plungers than those two"

Being it's homebrew there are obviously no rules though

Very cool swinks. Always makes me feel lazy when I see the ambition of other passionate people

Much appreciated nonetheless!

I'll be sure to compare to my bottom PF (since that's all I've managed to accomplish lol) and see if I agree with any given row of your sheet. I 100% agree with your finding on item "L" being the key to making the flipper gap change with standard return lane guides.

I like that the Williams return lanes allow you to choose how to "finish off" the top of the guide with your own post selection or geometry. You can make more interesting inlane/outlane features in that regard. I think when Stern uses metal inlane guides you'll notice they often elect to leave space at the top to place (or not place) posts, rubbers, wireforms, etc... These inlane guides also appear to be as wide as the Williams ones actually... at least in tron and metallica

Capture.jpg
Capture2.jpg

I started working on a 3D printed ball trough because it makes no sense to spend $150 on every single prototype just to serve up balls. Fine for production but obnoxious for testing.

Anyone have anything on the go in this regard? I don't want to repeat work that's further ahead elsewhere - would be happy to help out with design and/or printing if someone has something half together.

Wolf, it's clearly life and death... you should probably drop everything you're doing and post it now...

Safe travels!

Whatever variant of trough I do will be using microswitches exclusively until it's bulletproof. It's for prototyping, not production, so I see no advantage using tech (ie - optos) that was adopted to increase long term reliability but can be tougher to troubleshoot at times.

I spent a chunk of the weekend on a 3D printed 6-ball trough design. It's only the under-playfield part, no scoop component yet (step 2) but it's pretty decent. It requires two standard components to mount the coil (the two coil retainer brackets from a WMS assembly) and 6 trough microswitches. The biggest hurdle tonight is comfortably fitting it into my print envelope. I am hoping it is printable without supports in a single step, and should be relatively compatible with the trough openings that would be cut in a Stern or WMS playfield. I think for prototype purposes I will shrink it even more so it comfortably fits into my build area (approx. 9x6x6) and the opening can then be opened up if desired for a production trough - either way this will be the most ambitious print I've come up with since beginning 3D printing a year or so ago. I'll snap a few pics if/when I can get it to print...

If it works out, I'll be building a scoop interface for the top side. As BloodyCactus mentions, that's really where the plastic/printed build method will fall apart in short order due to repeated ball impact. I have some ideas how to mitigate that but regardless, for prototyping if I have to replace the scoop at a cost of $1 every couple weeks, who cares? Thus the beauty of 3D printing

Hah that's a mockup of almost exactly what I've had in mind for the VUK chute on the trough I'm drafting. I don't know how curved it would need to be as I was intending to print it extremely thick on the back/topside and I'm trying to angle my eject from the bottom of the PF as much as possible (~70° right now?). The trough under the playfield resembles thicknesses closer to sheet metal but the above PF part I want to look like a 'block' of plastic with the VUK carved out of it. Come to think of it a chunk of wood with that curve routed out of it could even suffice lol...

RE: a new trough design entirely

I think there's for sure room for improvement/innovation on a ball trough with 'lower stress' ball delivery using stepper motors, and there are some neat possibilities that could result from them (colored balls, different densities of balls, maybe even pucks or different sized balls, or balls sent from the trough to different locations other than the shooter lane) but for me personally I'm struggling to stay focussed on building a generic flipping whitewood to code and play with lol. Last thing I need to do is spend all my time developing a new trough technology for a game I'll never end up making I'm already burning up days modelling something I could buy for ~ $150 or so, but the hope is myself and others might not need to spend that cash anymore for boring old troughs at the prototype stage.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the sound and feel of a ball trough and coils firing is likely something that would be "missed" with plastic troughs and/or stepper motor alternatives. The clunking and clanging is part of a pinball experience for many mechanisms and changing them alters the feel of a game even if the function is preserved.

Like chimes vs digitized sound, it took awhile to break free from the 'sound' of pinball, and I personally think the sound of draining balls into a metal trough and the trough cycling balls is probably going to feel 'empty' if replaced by the whirr of a stepper motor I actually do miss the extra drain-coil firing from the old Sys 11 days to put drained balls into the trough, even though it makes no sense at all to have it lol...

Wow been awhile since I was in that hobby... is the Dye Rotor still the top tier hopper? They didn't even exist when I exited paintball but when I saw how they worked I thought they were super cool. The Halo was the king when I bowed out but I had an Evo 3 with Z-board and I wasn't able to outshoot it.

Funny enough paintball was my first exposure to optos; My 05 Angel Speed had oh-so-amazing visible beam anti-chop eyes (AKA: red glowing IR opto pair lol) and akin to pinball it was used to detect the presence of a ball to allow a solenoid (valve) to fire...

There are some fun patents there

AFAIK there were (are?) no successful screw drive loaders

Ah there we go haha.

I believe centaur auto plunges orbs from under the PF out a flap at the top of the shooter lane if I'm not mistaken... Possibly the first game to auto plunge at all? Still has a manual plunger shooter lane but there is some sort of secondary shooter lane under the PF for auto eject balls I believe

OK thought I'd post here in case anyone actually cares: First crack at a print... took ~7.5 hrs and it functionally looks like it should work fine for awhile at least (it was printed upside down fyi). Areas of the "leg" of the thing kinda printed sloppy as I'm having some issues with certain thicknesses of thin walls in slic3r getting too much plastic extruded during a print, although this has a side benefit to making that leg excessively strong albeit much less impressive in surface finish than the rest of the trough. This would be addressed in short order for next time. Also, sorry it's ugly clear - it's what I had the most of in PLA.

The plan is to put 6 microswitches in eventually and bolt a coil to it and see what happens. Alternatively holes could easily be drilled in from the side (or printed that way) for opto boards, but I'm opting for the mechanical option for now. So far, it holds 6 balls flawlessly - that's about all I can report

Last pic is a cross section of the assembly. I don't intend to use a roller switch for the first ball but this is the overall mockup. Wont have much else to report until a few orders come in but in any case, this monstrosity can be printed in one pass without supports

It's physically the largest thing I've printed although not the most material. There are some things to tweak to print it nicer but even I'm surprised it went this well on the first try...

Trough.png
IMG_1402.jpg
x-section.png

Jeeez you guys want drop target assys too now?

Give me some time I'll see what I can come up with.

I'm actually not going to use a roller switch there. The body of the microswitch is identical to the one I'm buying so it works as a placeholder but my intention is to use a leaf switch with a wireform or curved leaf on it so that the ball can better slide up and down over it. I'm less concerned about a ball snag - I didn't like the idea of the coil plunger possibly smacking the roller from below regardless of leaf direction. That would make short work of my mounting holes

The other concern is that I will probably want a second switch above that somewhere in case of ball stacking in the trough eject - I haven't decided how that is going to work yet as the playfield thickness itself is kinda in the way at that location.

lol k we should probably eventually compare with what I started drafting up last night, high on 3D trough printing fumes I was surprised to find cheap(ish) servos that move WAY faster (like almost uselessly fast for most applications lol) than I thought possible and got to drafting something eerily similar to your description - my idea didn't involve 360° hit capability though, only frontal impact... I think it has a lot of merit though.

Yeah no modern trough uses mechanical switches there AFAIK. I'm not bothering troubleshooting optos until I put a real trough in. If I have to manually fix ball trough issues for the first while on new builds so be it.

Ironically I've had a lot of Sterns false drain on me due to those very optos...