my usual rcv setup on basically all tracks
it works really well for me, so i thought i would share it.
this one is geared for sachsenring (i only adjust the final ratio).
you may change EB to 2 for tighter tracks (not for very tight ones like valencia, though) and possibly reduce the swing arm length to 0 (the bike will be slighty less stable in and out of corners but it will have the ability to take tighter lines).
oh and of course adjust the tyre pressure slighty if needed: ~1.5-1.55 (correction: 1.4) bar is the optimum operation temperature, so check it in the pits after a few fast laps. going below will result in less lean angle and overheating will results in uncorrectable slides.
.......copy it to my documents\piboso\profile\setup\..track...\..rcv folder...\setups or so, you'll find it
appreciated, mate - thanks! ;)
Thanks a lot for sharing veeeery helpful!
I am struggling with weelie-ing, is there any common thing to do or just not going on the gas fully.
I have rider lean F/B on automatic but even I do it manually I have a lot of wheelieing with using your settings and actually throughout all my riding in GPBikes so far, still a novice so might do something wrong.
Any pointers are very welcome
Cheers
i'd say you just need to practice your throttle finger :D
consistently doing small, controlled wheelies (even at lean angle) is probably one of hardest things to do in GP Bikes.
other than that, a longer swingarm of course helps but you could also try changing the swingarm pivot (i use 0 everywhere now but higher values might give you more control over wheelies iirc).
Quote from: vin97 on November 13, 2015, 12:15:07 AM
but you could also try changing the swingarm pivot (i use 0 everywhere now but higher values might give you more control over wheelies iirc).
Not on the rcv214 (nor the default 990), as the min and max value for the swing arm pivot point are identical (so putting 0, 1 or 2 makes absolutely no difference).
I'm not sure we have ever had any bike where changing the pivot had an effect.
From the rcv '14 (or 990) .geom:
Quotechassis_rsusp_min = 0, 0.434, -0.131
chassis_rsusp_max = 0, 0.434, -0.131
swingarmpivot_steps = 2
hmm, that is pretty strange because there is a difference for me (with all bikes).
higher value - more feel for the front (good for avoiding wheelies and wobbles)
lower value - more feel for the rear (good for accelerating)
would be a pretty crazy case of placebo effect for me
It would be interesting to check those figures on the Mod bike GP10 because people stated a difference in feel during that championship too. Maybe all the setup garage stuff is mind tricks settings. ???
Quote from: vin97 on November 13, 2015, 11:12:23 PM
would be a pretty crazy case of placebo effect for me
We had this plenty of times in the past, if that's of any consolation :)
Quote from: Napalm Nick on November 13, 2015, 11:29:57 PM
It would be interesting to check those figures on the Mod bike GP10 because people stated a difference in feel during that championship too. Maybe all the setup garage stuff is mind tricks settings. ???
Easy to check: if the chassis_rsusp_min and chassis_rsusp_max values in the .geom are identical, then there's no effect.
For the GP10, the values are marginally different (<1mm) but as swingarmpivot_steps is zero, there's only one possible setting for swing arm pivot (*).
Quotechassis_rsusp_min = 0, 0.465135, -0.131556
chassis_rsusp_max = 0, 0.464879, -0.132321
swingarmpivot_steps = 0
(*) Strangely when you load it the setting is at 1, but once you change it to 0, then it will stay at 0, no way to change it.
Yes I noticed that!! Man I wish I had said something now but what did I know! Gargh. At least it proves (?) that a difference IS felt on bikes with different pivot settings if the chassis_rsups contain different figures and have changeable steps.
Cool revelation and maybe something to play with on my mod bike :)
Quote from: Napalm Nick on November 13, 2015, 11:57:37 PM
Yes I noticed that!! Man I wish I had said something now but what did I know! Gargh. At least it proves (?) that a difference IS felt on bikes with different pivot settings if the chassis_rsups contain different figures and have changeable steps.
But we don't have any !!
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 14, 2015, 12:10:26 AM
Quote from: Napalm Nick on November 13, 2015, 11:57:37 PM
Yes I noticed that!! Man I wish I had said something now but what did I know! Gargh. At least it proves (?) that a difference IS felt on bikes with different pivot settings if the chassis_rsups contain different figures and have changeable steps.
But we don't have any !!
well it could for the strange setting of the GP10, if you load it with a setting of =1 (and do not change it) then it could actually have a different setting compared to =0 as the min and max settings are slightly different. But if it is only less than 1mm like you say, it most likely is a placebo again.
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 14, 2015, 12:10:26 AM
Quote from: Napalm Nick on November 13, 2015, 11:57:37 PM
Yes I noticed that!! Man I wish I had said something now but what did I know! Gargh. At least it proves (?) that a difference IS felt on bikes with different pivot settings if the chassis_rsups contain different figures and have changeable steps.
But we don't have any !!
Lol what the feck! It was only 2 posts ago you told me all about it you senile old git ::)
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 13, 2015, 11:50:01 PM
For the GP10, the values are marginally different (<1mm) but as swingarmpivot_steps is zero, there's only one possible setting for swing arm pivot (*).
Quotechassis_rsusp_min = 0, 0.465135, -0.131556
chassis_rsusp_max = 0, 0.464879, -0.132321
swingarmpivot_steps = 0
(*) Strangely when you load it the setting is at 1, but once you change it to 0, then it will stay at 0, no way to change it.
Stout is on the same page lol. But yes it can only be changed ONCE for some reason (possibly the default setting not equalling the 'only' setting).
Quote from: Stout Johnson on November 14, 2015, 08:10:58 AM
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 14, 2015, 12:10:26 AM
But we don't have any !!
well it could for the strange setting of the GP10, if you load it with a setting of =1 (and do not change it) then it could actually have a different setting compared to =0 as the min and max settings are slightly different. But if it is only less than 1mm like you say, it most likely is a placebo again.
Quote from: Napalm Nick on November 14, 2015, 08:27:29 AM
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 14, 2015, 12:10:26 AM
Quote from: Napalm Nick on November 13, 2015, 11:57:37 PM
Yes I noticed that!! Man I wish I had said something now but what did I know! Gargh. At least it proves (?) that a difference IS felt on bikes with different pivot settings if the chassis_rsups contain different figures and have changeable steps.
But we don't have any !!
Lol what the feck! It was only 2 posts ago you told me all about it you senile old git ::)
I didn't. But that doesn't prove that I'm not an old senile git :)
If the GP10 had swingarmpivot_steps at 1 ion its .geom file then yes, but that's not the case.
The potential bug of GPB showing 1 when the setting should alway sstay at zero is not proof enough for me.
But in fact we don't need to prove anything: we already know the thing works.
If you wan to convince yourself, edit a geom of a bike, give it +/-5cm height variation (which is huge) in chassis_rsusp_min/max, give it swingarmpivot_steps = 2 (so ot has 3 settings: 0,1,2 corresponding to min/middle/max) and give it a try. I did that years ago and it was already working.
So for the 990 it's placebo effect. For the GP10 I don't know, due to the 0/1 bug.
Nice one Max thanks for the example. I would like to try it for myself for little other reason than it is interesting. No doubt the JamoZ will be rolling his eyes a bit :D lol
It is very interesting indeed. During Valencia's quali session at a stage you could clearly see a mechanic changing the pivot point on Vale's bike in the pits.
What I don't get is why on the 990 we have 2 steps in the pivot point but identical min/max points. It's confusing (and leads to the placebo effect situations).
It would be god if it was corrected: either 2 steps and different min/max, or no steps (0) and same min/max.
BTW, the recently announced (daily dev) "triple clamp offset" setting will be very interesting too.
I don't think it will be as good as 'God', but yes maybe while the pivot setting physics is not working as expected it would be better to not have settings available for the default bikes, even if they don't do anything.
I was wondering about the clamp offset too. Its not something I have ever touched on any bike road or race but then again I rarely touch anything modern with a spanner (spanners are still used nowadays right?) so probably have never seen it. I will have to research what it does even.
Quote from: Napalm Nick on November 14, 2015, 09:22:38 AM
I don't think it will be as good as 'God', but yes maybe while the pivot setting physics is not working as expected it would be better to not have settings available for the default bikes, even if they don't do anything.
But there's no reason to say it's not working as expected: given the way the bike is simulated in GPB (multibody approach), pivot adjustment comes basically for free, like (for example) the rake angle setting. I just can't understand the reasons behind the choice.
I thought I read somewhere here that it wasn't used yet because it needed work on the effect it has. Maybe I assumed this had to be the reason as it is a not-used feature. (Certainly can't find anything in a quick look). Anyway ours is not to reason why I guess.
There's a nice explanation of Rake Angles for a motorcycle here: http://bikearama.com/theory/motorcycle-rake-trail-explained/ (http://bikearama.com/theory/motorcycle-rake-trail-explained/) Though I've not really felt these effects in GPB as of yet.
In fact I would go as far to say that the physics on some bikes are not set-up to allow for differences in real life set-up, often opposite way around than in reality to achieve what you want; if achieving what you want from a setup is even possible in a lot of cases. I'm sure this is why a lot of riders just settle for the default settings because they provide a stable ride they can work with when racing?
Maybe some modding physics guys and testers are just happy to get a bike performing to a stable rideable result instead of making sure that with setup changes you should be able to change the balance of the bike and the way it handles to individual rider preferences, ie: a bit of oversteer or understeer on the front or rear or a nice balance between both by using a combination of all the various bike settings in the garage. I've yet to find a bike in GPB that you can confidently do this with setup changes. But I'm sure it will come. :)
Hawk.
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 14, 2015, 09:26:35 AMBut there's no reason to say it's not working as expected: given the way the bike is simulated in GPB (multibody approach), pivot adjustment comes basically for free, like (for example) the rake angle setting. I just can't understand the reasons behind the choice.
lol there are so many things in GP Bikes you could say this about
The Aprilia RSW500 has the swing arm pivot working.
Cool now we need feedback as to how it influences the 'feel'.
Maybe tomorrow for me zzzzzzzzzzz