Reason behind the cabinet design change Pac & Galaxian/Galaga Ms Pac?

Tighe

Well-known member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
20,797
Reaction score
825
Location
Richmondville, New York
Reason behind the cabinet design change Pac & Galaxian/Galaga Ms Pac?

I wonder why Midway changed the cabinet design, maybe the older design didn't work well for big people? The sharper curve near the control panel would give more forearm room. Maybe they just changed it when they added tilt casters. I am sure the weren't thinking that people would wonder why 30+ years later.

What do you think?
 
I always figured it was just to make the "new model" more recognizable. Didn't Midway change the style again a year or two later?
 
If I'm not mistaken they are basically the same.

I don't think there was a conscious decision to change the cabinet dimensions as much as making a cabinet for the present but keeping the basic design. I doubt they measured every piece of wood from the originals.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
 
If I'm not mistaken they are basically the same.

I don't think there was a conscious decision to change the cabinet dimensions as much as making a cabinet for the present but keeping the basic design. I doubt they measured every piece of wood from the originals.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
Midway liked to change the cabinets, at least slightly, for the vast majority of their classic games. Just looking at the minis alone is proof. Perhaps it was to make it look better for the new game, discourage bootlegs or conversions, give the design/engineering department something to do, cheaper to build (revised designs), all of the above, etc.? Who knows???

Scott C.
 
Well, I suppose that I would MUCH rather see discussions such as this as opposed to the Chinese "A" quality versus "B" quality in-1 boards debates. I swear, they are ALL THE SAME SHIT!!!!!!!!!
 
Having built a few of these cabs from scratch, one very big reason is cut sheet layouts. Just a subtle change in dimensions can change the yield from a standard 4 x 8 sheet.

It seems to me they were trying to minimize materials used, yet stick to the same basic look.
 
Having built a few of these cabs from scratch, one very big reason is cut sheet layouts. Just a subtle change in dimensions can change the yield from a standard 4 x 8 sheet.

It seems to me they were trying to minimize materials used, yet stick to the same basic look.

Now that makes the most sense!

Sent from my android phone
 
Having built a few of these cabs from scratch, one very big reason is cut sheet layouts. Just a subtle change in dimensions can change the yield from a standard 4 x 8 sheet.

It seems to me they were trying to minimize materials used, yet stick to the same basic look.

I agree...all you have to do is look at some of your cabs inners and see that other cabs were used to make another...they were into saving every penny and use any scraps they could..I would think they wanted to get every bit of each sheet they used to prevent waste. I bet when they took a look at the cabs a small change here or there in curve allowed them to get more out of each sheet....I know i have one or two cabs with a ms pac bottom ..and they ain't ms pac cabs...:D
 
Having built a few of these cabs from scratch, one very big reason is cut sheet layouts. Just a subtle change in dimensions can change the yield from a standard 4 x 8 sheet.

It seems to me they were trying to minimize materials used, yet stick to the same basic look.

I have built both the Namco cabinet and the Midway cabinet as well. The Midway cabinet is a little larger. How would that have saved material?
 
Having built a few of these cabs from scratch, one very big reason is cut sheet layouts. Just a subtle change in dimensions can change the yield from a standard 4 x 8 sheet.

It seems to me they were trying to minimize materials used, yet stick to the same basic look.

Exactly. I don't think that they sat around a table in the board room and someone said. "Ha! We can sell more games if we make this cabinet a 1/4" wider than the last one."

The idea was just to get close enough to satisfy the nostalgia criteria for sales. And then make them as cheaply as possible.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
 
What I think could have happened was that the deeper curve on the ms pac/galaga sides allowed both sides to fit on a single sheet of particle board flipped, which makes perfect sense. Someone should ask DPwiz or whatever his user name is, since he makes reproductions. :)
 
Assuming Gaplus is the same dimension, it couldn't have been to fit on a 4x8 sheet for the sides, as the narrowest dimension is 25" (the part above the control panel) Maybe they used one sheet per side, but could get other parts out of the left overs (just a guess)
 
Assuming Gaplus is the same dimension, it couldn't have been to fit on a 4x8 sheet for the sides, as the narrowest dimension is 25" (the part above the control panel) Maybe they used one sheet per side, but could get other parts out of the left overs (just a guess)

Yes 33 (widest) + 25 (narrowest) = 58 which is 4.8' so it wouldn't fit on one 4x8 sheet.
 
Big difference in the machines.
I used to think there wasn't much of a style difference, not till you see them sitting next to each other.

1st pic: Painted Ms. PacMan on the left and Pacman on the right...
2nd pic: Newer MDF Ms. Pac and old Pac (from DJ. DNS)
3rd pic: Super Pacman, hate the cutout mouth.... Ms. Pacman next t it was used as a template to patch the mouth! :D
4th pic: Garage starting to look like a warehouse... 2 midway cabs in the mix
5th pic: This was the Super Pacman turned Galaga multi.....
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1497.jpg
    IMG_1497.jpg
    74.7 KB · Views: 13
  • IMG_2035.jpg
    IMG_2035.jpg
    96.5 KB · Views: 17
  • DSC04076.jpg
    DSC04076.jpg
    92.8 KB · Views: 11
  • IMG_1325.jpg
    IMG_1325.jpg
    98.5 KB · Views: 12
  • IMG_1735.jpg
    IMG_1735.jpg
    96.6 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom