A dozen playfields is more than enough to see there’s a difference. Again, I don’t know the reasoning, I just know the results. Could it be the clear, wood, moisture, etc? Sure. It can always be figured out, but the question is if it’s financially viable. The test was just done to see if there is a difference, and I believe it showed there is, backing up what some people thought they saw.

Just as an example, a major airplane manufacturer kept getting batches of aluminum parts that were the wrong temper. A few weeks later and almost $100k in cost, we finally found the issue. While the parts were being transferred to another building, one guy on night shift would stop for a smoke break. Even though it was only a short time, the below freezing temps and the parts not fully cured caused the temper to change. It can be some minuscule change has a big effect down the line.

Again, I don’t think this is a huge deal. I’m going to play it either way, but there is a difference in some playfields. The fact one of the softest readings had ghosting issues may be something, but a way more scientific approach would be needed to know for sure.

Uhhhh, my restored Wh20, a gorgeous example, with a MICRO PF, has more dimples all over it than any other PF i own.

And a dozen is NOT enough of a sample size.

C'mon, did they teach the Scientific Method in your school?

You need dozens of EACH title, chosen at random.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

That is unfortunate.

Back in 1015, Ibn Al Haytham strongly believed in Allah, but he still knew the importance of science when he invented the Scientific Method.

img-1 (resized).jpg

All you need is one sample to prove variation exists. No one has said all Stern playfields are softer than others. All people have said is that there is variation in hardness and that difference will result in a physical difference when hit with similar force. The scientific method used here is perfectly sound. Sample size is irrelevant. Trying to pretend that every playfields are the same since the dawn of time is laughable and for more akin to the fundamentals of Creationism.

P.S. All Stern needs to do is provide a test and standard and all of this would be settled. Posting videos of pinball Messiah does nothing.

They haven't?

Clearly not, the vast majority of Sterns out there that look great. This has always been an issue with a limited number of pins. If pinside would just take a breath and not go protect the hive at the mention of any flaw things would be far more rational.

I was more impressed with the video in the side bar where Steve mentions his favorite game from the 25 years of Stern.

And yes, I do wear my sunglasses at night.

It's not my hive so I've got nothing to protect, I'll leave that to Gary Stern. But I think I've read plenty of posts arguing that Stern playfields made over the past few years are universally more prone to dimpling than other manufacturers. Which may or may not be true, but people are definitely saying it.

First I have never seen anyone say that every Stern playfield between a specific set of years is softer than another manufacturer in the same period. You're just exagrations the facts. Even if they did say that you know it's nonsense because there is no way to observe or prove this assertion. If people would just try and tone down the hyperbole, maybe a reasonable conversation could exist.

Well at least we agree that if anyone ever said it, it's nonsense.

There is your problem, right there.

If you say Stern "cheap-ed out" and used soft Hard Maple, that implies that Stern did this to save money.

Now, if you only have "one sample", are you implying that Stern "cheap-ed out" to save money on a single game?

Do you hear how crazy that sounds to everyone else?

Again you are just saying things that are irrelevant and not part of the discussion. My opinion is that Stern has done a poor job maintaining quality and testing. All products have variation, organic products naturally have more variation. As has been proven it is very easy to test a playfield for its hardness. Stern should be testing ever playfield and setting a standard. If they simple rejected any plywood that tested less than X all of this would be resolved. In the event that there testing failed and a customer felt they had a problem playfield, they could simple retest and replace if it was below standard. Stern has cheaped out in this area of manufacturing. As evidenced by testing in the real world some limited number of playfields are released that are softer than the average and people are unhappy with them. Instead of addressing it professionally and scientifically they post videos telling people they are ill informed. Its a very poor strategy.

Assuming that any of this has anything to do with the hardness of the wood. But what if the clearcoat is a contributing factor or the sole cause of the perceived dimpling issue?

The principal and standard is the same. I stated they should test the wood before manufacture because that would be ideal. They wouldn't waste time making a bad playfield if they got a bad piece of plywood. They could easily create a test and standard and test ever playfield at the end of manufacture once the clear has cured. Reject any below standard at this point.

Excellent! This makes sense.

**In your opinion** is the operative phrase.

Now if you want everyone to share your opinion, you need to use the Scientific Method.

Otherwise

Mythtorywitch (resized).jpg

Yes clearly I am the one taking liberties with the scientific method and going Monty Python with the evidence.

Please supply evidence supporting your assertions: 1)Stern has done a poor job maintaining quality and testing and 2)Stern has cheaped out in this area of manufacturing

Without the appropriate sample size you cannot determine 'the average'. Nor have you determined the variance in dimple sizes due to any difference in playfield hardness as opposed to other factors like vertical ball speed.

I knew I should not have said average you are correct I have no evidence of what the average is. I tried to make that clear when I said Stern could decide X and set the standard.

That's how preposterous it sounds to 99% of the people reading this.

I'm not concerned with what made up percentage are capable of understanding what I am trying to say. I'm confident with my logic and science and open to any discussion on the subject. I do not believe I am 100% right, its just a discussion. If you are correct and 99% of the people on pinside are not capable of this level of discussion I guess this is a waste of time. I myself give them much more credit.

P.S. Clearly some people are following along and called me out on my factual error when I used average when I could not support that position.

I got rid of all and any games that showed any signs of excessive dimpling.

Call me OCD or anal if you will, but I just couldn't hang with a playfield that has the texture of a Valencia orange.

Your honor,

You are getting more defensive, even though we are trying to help you.

We are trying to show you what you need to do to make your "logic and science" become real to everyone else.

You're more of an avocado man if I remember correctly.

The smooth skinned varieties are by far the tastiest.

I'm not defensive personally at all. It's clear that you provide only hyperbole and putting quotations around words in an attempt to reduce their impact as a counter argument. If you have some other point I am happy to hear it. All I am hearing is the same tired it's not true all playfields are the same and they all dimple the same. Do not question the pinball Messiah. Play it more and it will magically smooth back out.

Attorney: Your honor, we have come here to prove that Vaccines cause Autism!

Judge: Wow, that is a serious charge.

Attorney: Indeed, but we have proof. Proof that any thinking man can see.

Judge: Please, show me this proof, as I am a thinking man.

Attorney: Before you stand 3 children with Autism. All three of them were vaccinated!!!!

I will say that the dimpling on my TNA in front of the left scoop does seem to be less noticeable as they accumulate over time as the region flattens out more uniformly. I tried to take a picture but couldn't get my camera to focus where the reflection hits the PF.

I do not care for the look of a dimpled playfield. Perhaps I have a mild case of trypophobia.

This raises the question though, if a playfield will eventually evenly compress due to ball hits so the dimpling is not noticeable, why can't the PF manufacturer "pre-compress" the top layer of the PF wood before it is painted and cleared so it would be less susceptible to dimpling? Hammer it with a million ball hits or a giant press or something?

I'm a firm believer in there is a normal level of dimpling that is acceptable and it does smooth out. My AC/DC has a very slight dimpling over the entire playfield. I've seen a Star Wars on route that was a horror show and a mess. If it was mine I would be very disappointed. I would love to see them experiment with other materials and I think once there is some legitimate competition in the business we will see it. Someone is going to come along with some composite material that is cheap and looks awesome. Or like you said they will come up with some new process that makes them super hard. Right now everyone is kinda settling into their own demographic and not really competing head to head. I'm hoping in a couple years JJP is stable and secure enough that they can drop a 6K machine, that will shake things up. I also think just setting a standard would do wonders, I don't think there is that many bad playfields out there, I myself have only seen one personally. If Stern had a clear standard I think consumer confidence would be greatly improved.

I would really like to see the dimple sizes ACCURATELY measured on some of these playfields that are generating complaints. By my calculations using http://planetcalc.com/1421/ your standard 1.0625"/26.9875 mm pinball creates the following depth of dimple:
4 mm wide dimple = 0.149 mm deep
5 mm wide dimple = 0.234 mm deep
6 mm wide dimple = 0.338 mm deep
7 mm wide dimple = 0.462 mm deep
8 mm wide dimple = 0.607 mm deep
9 mm wide dimple = 0.774 mm deep
Even if we find examples of dimples of those widths I argue we don't have evidence it's because anyone is lackadaisical in either their manufacturing or quality control. It's a tiny difference in depth that can be explained by other factors such as vertical ball speed.
Furthermore, what if we measure a 9 mm dimple and it's not as deep as calculated? Could be several dimples grouped together that now appear to be one wider dimple. You might expect to find that if you have an airball that lands in the same location repeatedly.

This is just a problem because Stern doesn't hit every playfield with a sledgehammer.

Because they don't have to.

Playfields have been made in the same way for 80 years - Rout some Hard Maple plywood, seal it, silkscreen it, topcoat it.

Bally experimented with un-dent-able Bakelite and even a plexi overlay back in the 80s. Nobody cared. They went out of business.

MarsaPlay in 2010 made their playfields with a thick Plexi top, and magnetic sensors for switches that would never wear out. Nobody cared. They went out of business.

You can buy an overlay for any new game for ~$100. Are you going to buy it?

Probably not, because you like the **feel** of the lumpy Maple ply.

This is a very valid point. The Star Wars I saw was a Pro and when the drop target reset the ball was hung up on them and it ejected the ball off the glass and hard back down onto the playfield. It was super loud and it left a serious dimple in the playfield. So these extenuating circumstances are a factor for sure. I think a cover over the drop target would have helped greatly. The premium has the hyper loop and I think that would help deflect or slow down the ball as its above the drop targets. Other on pinside have had no problems with their Star Wars so I think there is a combination of the occasional soft playfield and other factors.

I disagree that Churchill has “obviously lower quality”. They have been making playfields for decades, including the classic Bally/Williams games, and have an excellent reputation. During the GB ghosting insert drama customers were hoping they received a Churchill playfield instead of one of defective playfields made by FUN Enterprises.

I'm still thinking a Stern Sledge Hammer would be a big hit.

download (2) (resized).jpg

They've produced a lot of problematic playfields lately, though, and they are clearly inferior. We've never seen Mirco playfields with the ribbing, planking, heavy dimpling, cratering or with multiple ghosted / raised inserts. Plenty of Churchill pfs like that. Mirco certainly aren't perfect, but they are better.

If they didn't have a better product and reputation, I doubt AP would have gone for a more expensive international supplier rather than a cheaper, 'industry leading' one just down the road from them.

The ball at speed might travel faster with less surface resistance on an orange peel-like surface than on a smooth one.
Possibly less drag? Possibly less wear over time? (golf balls again? come to mind...)

Dimples may be better than super smooth over time?

What a joke. If you can’t extrapolate data from a dozen readings, that’s on you. First it was you need a destructive testing device, then it was moisture and now it’s sample size. It was a simple and quick test to see if there was a difference. There was. The data is there for people to make up their own mind. You choose not to believe it, or believe it is so flawed that isn’t valid at all, then so be it. I did it for myself and shared the results. I can’t make any definitive statements as to cause because I truly don’t know. Could it be a coincidence that the softest play field had ghosting issues? Sure. Is their likely some correlation between the hardness and ghosting? Maybe.

Again, the data is there to do with it as you wish. Don’t believe it or think it’s flawed? Great. Ignore it, I’m sure you have a better method and will post your results. I did it for myself, and I’m glad some found it useful. Honestly I’m just trying to kill the time in between plays of my hammered dogshit play field... it’s good to know that more dimples will smooth it all out to a high gloss shine after long enough. Pfft

AP may not want to give business to CGC/Churchill since they are a direct competitor. That would be perfectly reasonable. Presumably Stern felt the same way which would explain why they went with the inferior FUN Enterprise playfields for a while before switching back to Churchill to solve the ghosting mess.

Churchill likely makes more playfields than Mirco so comparing numbers of playfield problems is difficult unless we know the percentage affected. And as Iceman pointed out at the top of this page his Mirco Wh20 playfield has more dimples than any other he owns.

Remember, everyone is trying to help.

In science, you publish your findings.

Then people in your field, review, revise, poke holes, extrapolate, and suggest ways to better prove the hypothesis. (we call that Peer Review).

Then you, or your peers go back and test further with the new insight.

It's just the way it is.

I can only go with a truly scientific and unbiased in depth study.

Why it won’t happen? Because most people don’t give a flying F

For arguments sake I would like to see it

Truth is there seems to be a lot of soft wood in this hobby lately.

It's hard to take someone's data seriously when they say things like "hammered dogshit".

Oh no! Please let me apologize for my language! Do you want to send me your approved words for use on a pinball forum?

You must of mistaken me for someone who gives a shit if you believe what i posted. Don’t, ignore it. It’s clearly an uphill battle with anyone offended by the word dogshit.

I'm a religious man.

I'm pretty sure god has enough to worry about in all the universe, than my playfield.