(Topic ID: 214129)

Steve Ritchie discusses Pinball Playfield "Dimpling"

By StylesBitchly

5 years ago


Topic Heartbeat

Topic Stats

  • 718 posts
  • 174 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 2 years ago by Yelobird
  • Topic is favorited by 14 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

No games have been linked to this topic.

    Topic Gallery

    View topic image gallery

    robo.jpg
    family.jpg
    guy.jpg
    Screenshot_20180602-120325 (resized).png
    bowling_lane.jpg
    20180512_145039 (resized).jpg
    f214296b378c9ec88cd0b7e270c27c35c199428e (resized).jpg
    01adsfasd (resized).jpg
    BM66 (resized).png
    DSCN5798 (resized).JPG
    DSCN5794 (resized).JPG
    DSCN5795 (resized).JPG
    DSCN5793 (resized).JPG
    thLIVP55YF (resized).jpg
    800px_COLOURBOX2630929 (resized).jpg
    ra,triblend_tee,x2150,black_triblend,front-c,367,133,750,1000-bg,f8f8f8.u1 (resized).jpg

    Topic index (key posts)

    6 key posts have been marked in this topic

    Display key post list sorted by: Post date | Keypost summary | User name

    Post #34 Ancient playfield pic for comparison Posted by vid1900 (5 years ago)

    Post #100 Summary of Playfield hardness test with gauge by Procrastinator Posted by PinMonk (5 years ago)

    Post #117 Explanation of test method to determine wood hardness. Posted by swinks (5 years ago)

    Post #129 Comparing the size of dimples based on hardness. Posted by TimeBandit (5 years ago)

    Post #195 What is Maple plywood? How is it made? Posted by vid1900 (5 years ago)


    Topic indices are generated from key posts and maintained by Pinside Editors. For more information, or to become an editor yourself read this post!

    You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider dzoomer.
    Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

    #146 5 years ago
    Quoted from PinMonk:

    I think you missed the post where I pulled in the data of playfields from all eras tested with a gauge and Stern having the softest playfields overall. Page 2, end of the page. Completely opposes the "made up" Stern party line - with facts.

    Dude, the craziness of this statement and other related posts shows me that logic again doesn't seem to matter here on the forum. You are comparing six stern machines across eras which show a variety of hardnesses. And at this time they are being compared to one CGC pin, two JJP pins, two Bally pins, and one Williams pin. LOL, as if samples of one or two pins are representative of a manufacturer overall. Basic math stats logic laughs at such comparisons; it's fake news.

    NEED MORE DATA.

    -1
    #353 5 years ago
    Quoted from PinMonk:

    I think that's getting a little cray. Absolute hardness isn't really necessary for these purposes (just surfing above the "it's all in your head" propaganda and confirming that SOMETHING, likely the wood, has changed at Stern). The test with the $10k machine the guy did on a bunch of old and new playfields show *relative* hardness to each other right now, in the same environment (so shared humidity, etc). It confirms that virtually every Stern, and all the recent ones are softer than JJP, and visuals of a playfield craters on a number of the newer Sterns (notably BM'66 and Ghostbusters) bear that out.

    Quoted from PinMonk:

    All of that is a distraction from the fact that most of the Sterns (but not all, KISS LE is pretty great, GoT Pre is good, Ghostbusters is bad) from around the same timeframe are a LOT softer than JJP PFs from the same timeframe, all of them stored in the same home environment. The RELATIVE differences are the POINT and if JJP takes up moisture slower or dries faster, leading to a harder test, great. That doesn't change the fact that the JJP PFs are much harder RELATIVE to Sterns of the same era in the same environment. That's all that's being established. Stern PFs have bigger craters in general than they used to and compared to JJP playfields. The vintage ones you can make your drying argument. I don't think it holds water in this, but it's at least a possibility.
    And we're only talking factory product. Not opening the restoration PFs can of worms because that's all a distraction from Stern cheaping out on PF wood and being caught with verifiable tests.

    Keep banging that FAKE NEWS drum . LOL at your continued insistent ignorance with using a sample of two whole JJP pins to draw any conclusion. Again, basic math stats logic laughs at such comparisons; as if samples of one or two pins are representative of a manufacturer overall. And now adding anecdotal BM66 and GB visuals and cherry picking fallacy hilarity. The fact that you then continue with hyperbole and run with a sweeping generalization fallacy that "virtually every Stern, and all the recent ones are softer than JJP" is the trifecta and show us that your posts and opinions should be flushed down the toilet, where they belong. And what's all this about "recent" Sterns? That sample size for Stern is also basic math stat laughable and now we are at FAKE squared. Fake news king alert. Pinside reaps what it sows and logic is long gone. Maybe we need a graph.

    Quoted from Procrastinator:

    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... 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.

    Quoted from Procrastinator:

    What a joke. If you can’t extrapolate data from a dozen readings, that’s on you. .. 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...

    LOL, what difference? The question that so many absolutely fail miserably at here is if the difference is actually "significant". Thanks to people with brains throughout human history, there's a discipline that has been developed to logically analyze and interpret data; it's called statistics.

    Absolutely hilarious the gross logical fallacies and extremely basic logic fails all over this thread. Since no one has attempted to actually evaluate the results in a meaningful manner (the only meaningful manner is using actual statistical math analysis), all the talk of differences has been nothing more than WAG and BS. The numbers mean nothing, nada, zilch until someone actually actually and "properly" uses statistical analysis to see what the significance of the difference is. Any conclusions posted about any significant difference in this thread are FAKE NEWS.




    A start could be to run with basic probability theory, consider the results indicative of a standard normal population and distribution and calculate the mean and standard deviation. Then look at how much variation there is for any one measured sample, based on the population mean, standard deviation and distribution, though it's still a crude estimate with lots of shortcomings as one is lumping all the different manufactures and types of pfs.... and over decades of production (as well as production changes). But it's much better than the FAKE CRAP many here are posting. From that one will be able to determine what the variance means in real terms with regards to the sample population and distribution. This is often reported as +- 1 SD, +- 2 SD, and +- 3 SD which correspond to the values that fall within 68%, 95%, and 99.7% of the distribution, respectively. And the only info you will get from this is an understanding of where and how a hardness result from any one pf relatively compares to the overall distribution and average measured hardness from the 12 pfs of various ages from various manufacturers.

    Where some here have been separating out pf types and/or # of plys and/or manufacturers into even smaller sample sizes and then advancing the idea that there are differences (often repeatedly)... is a sad joke. That's statistically ridiculous, ludicrous and hilarious. There simply is not enough data from which to generate any meaningful distribution of the sample population. FAKE NEWS.

    For example, an average of three measurements may have a mean of 80. Does that mean a value of 30 is significantly different from those three measurements?..... Well, that depends. If those three measurements have values of 75, 80 and 85 (the mean of those three numbers is 80), many people will consider 30 to be significantly different. However, if the values of three measurements are 10, 70 and 160 (which gives the same mean of 80), then no... many people will not consider 30 to be significantly different. The distribution of the population and thus the standard deviation matters and such info is needed to draw basic conclusions. Ding, ding ding.

    #358 5 years ago
    Quoted from Procrastinator:

    Sorry this upset you so much. It’s evident you are really bothered by all this. You’re free to ignore whatever you want since you obviously can’t pull anything of value from the readings, as I’ve said...a dozen times. Apparently you take this so seriously you think we need a full blown study to get any results, which I’m excited to see you do since you are so passionate about it.
    Once again, I sincerely apologize for you getting so upset by this and if I would have known I never would’ve posted...pfft. Also, thanks for schooling me that even a small amount of data is better than none at all. Any more pearls of wisdom feel free to shoot them over! (Sans all the Insane adjectives)

    Fake news is a disease and this site lives and breathes it. If you read my comments a little more closely you'll find that I didn't say there was no value. There's a bit of specific value that I even took the time to specifically describe and show how to determine. Is that a bad thing? And since when did mean and standard deviation calculations become a full blown study; that's just hyperbole and setting the bar as low as possible. It seems some people would rather obliviously embrace fake news and not be bothered at all than make an effort to even read about or attempt to understand logic and truth.

    It was great to see some numbers posted and the work done to get the numbers. The numbers give some basic but great information. For example, the numbers show is that there are a range of measurable pf hardnesses out there. But the numbers haven't been worked up statistically by anyone here, we don't know the statistical significance of that range, and the numbers certainly can't be extrapolated to so many of the crazy conclusions on the forum that many gleefully fake post about.

    #380 5 years ago
    Quoted from PinMonk:

    Again, the POINT is the limited actual TESTS of playfields REINFORCE a LARGE number of OBSERVATIONS. It wasn't done in a vacuum, and the sample size of people complaining about bigger and more dimples/craters on many recent Stern machine playfields was plenty. The calibrated test with RELATIVE values and the observed issues hold substantially more weight than the known cost-cutting manufacturer telling people it's all in their heads with NO PROOF. So until Stern releases tests of the caliber you're demanding proving otherwise, I'll take the tests and observations we DO have over NO PROOF and a lot of hot air from Stern (and you).

    Obviously there are soft pfs out there, and obviously they measure as soft. Regardless, the way you wildly extrapolate continues to ignore basic logic. Large numbers of observations? There are thousands of Stern pins sold every year and tens of pf's reported with abnormal wear / softness issues. If you're going to latch onto the number of reported pfs with these issues, at least make a basic attempt to be honest and acknowledge the number of pfs/pins Stern sells every year. And the recent harping on and on about this in the forum obviously results more confirmation bias from additional reporting compared to earlier times. Extrapolation is fake news without more data. And another strange comment about stern communications; this whole discussion is separate from what Stern has said and I haven't seen anyone in this thread using Stern communications to justify or debate pf integrity/hard/soft issue. Another red herring misdirection.

    One can just as easily hypothesize that there have been PF hardness problems from time to time throughout pf and pin production over decades. The data supports that extrapolation at this time as much as it does your extrapolation. Because the data doesn't really support any extrapolation.

    Quoted from Procrastinator:

    It’s hard to make head or tails of your entire bloviated post, and I have never made a definitive statement one way or another. I simple said they are different. Take from that what you will.
    I could be biased in that I saw what looked to be abnormal wear, tested it, and for the most part the readings lined up with what I visually was seeing. Honestly though, I don’t care enough to spend any more time on it. It was enough for me to develop an opinion. You clearly desire more info, so you should take the torch and show everyone how it’s done. I’m glad you’ve seemingly calmed down from your first post, because I hated seeing someone get so upset over something as ridiculous as a playfield. Best of luck in your search for statistical truth.

    Details matter, sorry that short attention spans suffer. Your statements are posted, quoted and fairly obvious, though you waffle back and forth at times irrationally and it makes it hard to follow you. I don't care about pfs, though it would be nice to have a semblance of logic on the forum without mocking those who try to use logic. It's a red herring misdirection fallacy to bring up abnormal wear from what I posted. And if, as you say, you went out of your way to find and add abnormal wear pfs to the tests then that's obvious selection bias which introduced bias into the whole sampling population and distribution curve. Shocker, you showed that abnormal wear pfs are softer. Maybe one day you can learn more of what your results mean along with the rest of us.

    #382 5 years ago
    Quoted from Procrastinator:

    Shew, you get more pathetic with each post. One playfield had abnormal wear compared to my other pins. It was an MMRLE for anyone thinking I’m just bashing stern. Hell, my sterns looked great truthfully...my LOTRLE looks unused after 1500 plays. So I took an evening and tested all the pins available to me, mine and some of my neighbor’s pins. That’s it man, no grand conspiracy, no searching out shit looking pins, just did the ones I had immediate access to. The fact I even have to explain that to you is embarrassing.
    You think someone would go around and find shit play fields to get readings to post on a pinball forum? I promise you my friend, the story ain’t that great. Have pins, noticed wear on one more than others, was curious if there was a difference, have the equipment, tested them, posted it. I don’t even proclaim to know what the difference is, just that they’re different. You getting so visibly upset by all this and coming up with these conspiracies says a lot more about you than me.
    I hope this is the last time I have to explain it to you. I can make some amazing recommendations if you are looking for someone to talk to about all this? Maybe you should take the night and cool off? Honestly I’m just worried about your well being at this point...I had no idea a simple conversation about playfield dimples would get someone so amped up that they start babbling about playfield conspiracies. I hope whatever is driving these unhinged rants calms down for you, I sincerely do.
    If you want to discuss further I’m always available via PM instead of clogging up the thread with me explaining everything for you?

    Holy bloviated post (pot kettle black). I never posted anything about you bashing Stern; it's just more red herring misdirection hyperbole. I've simply literally quoted and went with what you posted. Sorry for "embarrassingly" mistaking your language and having you explain yourself better; it was poorly written, open to interpretation and misinterpreted. The clarification is always appreciated. Your broken record attacks and piling on an impressive number of insults like pathetic, conspiracy, well being concerns, being unhinged, embarrassing, etc are not appreciated; though you da man and must be so proud of your ad hominem hammering! Seriously go look again at my first response quoting you and let us know what deserves such prolonged, repetitive, low ball, escalating, personal attacks. Your true colors are shining through.

    2 weeks later
    #567 5 years ago
    Quoted from TheLaw:

    No dog in this hunt but I always wonder how many games are cratered like that? I keep seeing the same couple pictures over an over so is it a small amount of games or large?

    And who's to say that there haven't been bad PF examples over the last 40 years either? Occam's razor. Far too much anectodal experience/evidence from a few newer machines being used to wildly extrapolate to indefensible positions. I don't know how much PF variety is out there, but it's reasonable to think that there's some variety and it's been that way for a long long long time as well (before there was an internet to post this stuff).

    You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider dzoomer.
    Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

    Reply

    Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.

    Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!

    Donate to Pinside

    Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!


    This page was printed from https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/steve-ritchie-discusses-pinball-playfield-dimpling?tu=dzoomer and we tried optimising it for printing. Some page elements may have been deliberately hidden.

    Scan the QR code on the left to jump to the URL this document was printed from.