Some problems that Bago have.
Yes, i don't know why but it is probably with position of the ear canal compared to position of the earpiece that makes the sound higer or lower depending of how you position your head. I had the same problem when i had
Stefano's computer. I do not know if it is the earpiece, or any earpiece would do the same problem.
It is problem with induction, it is as TV antenna, the signal is polarized, turn TV antenna 90 deg. And you will receive nothing. It is same with induction.
Concerning your computer accuracy, i get an edge on Stefano's videos on his john huxley wheel, and for sure it is better than Stefano's device.
I love this statement, but then again should I be proud that FFA is better then something that doesn’t work at all, and you know it.
But now i would like to test it on harder condition, when the wheel is not rotating consistently at 6 seconds/revolution. I have to fix the sound problem to know if it would be accurate against different wheels and different conditions.
The FF will predict any wheel where Physical advantage is possible.
I do not claim same as Stefano, because for me if I get one extra hit on rotor in 100 spins is not advantage. With FF within few spins you can clearly see do you have advantage on that wheel or not. If you get something as 70% of spins ending up on 9 pockets on rotor, and if ball scatter is reasonable as on Stefano’s wheel, it is worth playing. It is always players decision what he will do on particular wheel. For example he may get worst predictions but if ball scatter is better it could be better to play. On some wheels I get great prediction where and when the ball will drop, but I still do not play them because ball jumping is close to random. The FF will tune to any wheel where the difference in between rotations is within 70-392ms (I havn’t seen any wheel outside that parameters). That doesn’t mean that it will produce enough of advantage on every wheel with that specification, as you know that can be many reasons for that.
Yes it seems that with the earphones, the sound is higher and the voice is faster, but still i can know which predictions are announced.
At least you can test FF for performance. I do not know what has happened, Marcello connects it to some kind of machine, driving a relay and controlled by recorded waveform. From 110 spins he got only 3 spins predicted.
It also could be that in transport one component got lose. If you want you can remove top board and check all 2 mm components. If that is ok then it must be something with memory chip. You can compare you sound with sound on video http://rouletteplace.com/index.php/topic,456.0.html.
By the way, what is the code you posted on your message board called: ffvR2? Is it the software contained in the FFA?
Just the program update. When I build FFA program I liked some changes so I decided to change it that way and for FFZ/ FFV.
It is 80% same program, the difference comes on the end, where FFA pronounces number but FFZ/V calculates additional parameters, to define when the ball of particular speed will meet with predicted number so the system gives zap at that moment.
You can imagine which kind of accuracy in calculation is required to achieve something as that.
Get clocked ball data with errors, get ball deceleration with errors, get current ball speed with errors, and get rotor speed with errors and from all of that produce when 2 decelerating objects will meet at point which system predicts. That is why single spin test is so important for FFZ. It clearly demonstrates systems capability of performing complex calculations.
Why do you calculate the fall off point of the ball with only ONE spin? Don’t you think it would be more precise and accurate to determine the right deceleration of the ball with several spins of the same direction? Let’s say 10 spins of the same direction to know the accurate average ball deceleration and final fall off point. Indeed with only one spin, we cannot for sure know if it is the average deceleration, it could be a spin not
“orthodox” with all the future spins, therefore, future predictions would not be accurate.
It is because FF do only what is important to do and where benefits can be achieved with smallest compromise on losing on practicability.
The system doesn’t learn ball deceleration on that spin but from few spins. And it is independent for CW and ACW ball direction. You can test it, if you start FF from start on single spin you may get first spin after set up predicted 31, next time 7 next 28 next 26 next 0, next 3. So system is learning and tuning itself. After few spins prediction get stable and stops shifting, because the system learned enough.
If you do not want to set it on first spin you can just do not press the last click.
Wait 16 sec and you will be at start. It may be slightly better because identification of ball drop point will be more inline with actual ball dropping.
Such process was more important with tilt system on older FFZ’s.
With introducing “point set” feature it is not so important.
I do not use few spins to do last click because benefits will be small and not worth bothering with it. If you do not like what you get, if you go back to many and select again IQE6 you can readjust it, because this time the system will go from curve that was formatted in game you previously played, it will allow you to set again and it will extend limits so even curve can be readjusted in higher steps.
Also, why using the same reference spin for both directions, since it is different and the “clock SET” spin is done with one direction?. It is ok if we predict only one direction, but when you play BOTH directions, it uses the same deceleration scheme, not good!.
FFA doesn’t use same deceleration, for CW and ACW,
I can use same spin because I accept that offsets for CW and ACW can be different and that I will play it that way. FF uses ball deceleration on different way than what you think, that is why it is not so important. I will not explain how it is done.
Only once I explained it partly to Michael Barnett, and after that he asked me did you do it all by yourself. I said yes. He said I will never bother you again. And that is what he did.
It could happen that “NOW” which indicate that ball will drop at that moment for one ball direction is perfect but for the other one is let say 0.5 sec earlier. It will not upset systems performance, and you will get “NOW” always 0.5 sec earlier.
With huge rotor speed changes you may get some errors. For example if rotor changes from 10 p/s to 15p/s you will get 2.5 pockets error. But with such changes you should review all your game including ball scatter.
I understand you point, and many people asked me that. I go my way because I want FF to be dynamic system. I do not want to spend 2 hours just tuning it, to acheave only slightly better benefits which can be lost after 30 minutes.