Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - HornetMaX

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 383
Plugins / Re: MaxTM - A telemetry tool for GPB, MXB, WRS and KRP
« on: March 13, 2018, 08:29:32 PM »
Is there a way to turn down, or off, those three excruciatingly loud beeps when I go to the track. I have my sim volume set at 10 percent so the heart beat and the bike / wind noise are just a pleasant hum but those beeps are still WAY TOO LOUD. I like the telemetry tool but I am contemplating turning it off on a permanent basis because of how loud the beeps are.
Cheapo instant solution: open the file on_sound.wav (in MaxTM_data folder) with any sound editor and lower its volume (or replace the file with something yuo like more).

I will add an option (in the .ini file) to set the volume of the sound.

EDIT: I will *not* add the option. I use some cheapo windows function to play the sound (to avoid dependences with external libs) and guess what, it has no volume control. Bummer. Not worth adding an externali lib just for that. I'm sure you'll be able to modify the .wav as you want.

General Discussion / Re: TT game announced...
« on: March 09, 2018, 06:20:22 PM »
My crew had that absent stare, I'd get off the bike pronto :)

Support / Re: Brake input
« on: March 08, 2018, 09:33:50 PM »
In principle (and at a simplified level), this is wrong: kinetic friction force depends on the normal force (and friction coeff), not on surface.
The normal force is the circuit pressure times the total pistons area, so that doesn't change when you change the pads.

The calipers with the bigger pads had bigger pistons. 
Kinda thought that went without saying - Otherwise I wouldn't have had to change the m/c to match.
OK, makes more sense. But then it's not so straightforward that the modified system will give higher efficiency (lower force on the lever for the same braking force), as for the same lever force, the bigger MC will generate a smaller pressure: yes, this could be compensated by the bigger pistons, but the overall result will depends on the exact numbers (it could go either way).

Support / Re: Brake input
« on: March 08, 2018, 08:46:18 PM »
I think where we are coming unstuck is that we do not model the caliper piston numbers and diameters so we can go to a theoretically small MC without any unwanted side effects that would occur in real life as we struggled to shift enough volume to drive the pistons or too large in MC and end up with on/off braking and no modulatiion range.
Why you say that with a large MC you have no (or less) modulation range ?! You're still reasoning in terms of lever displacement I guess.
In terms of lever pressure, with a large MC you've more modulation (lesser slope in the curve between lever pressure and braking force).

But what you said may also be a reason why the input is lever force instead of lever travel: travel would need some additional params about the pistons sizes and number (even if to me, the real justification is that even on a real bike, you work more in terms of force than in terms of travel).

Anyway, all this becomes mostly academical given that you can tune the input deadzone, linearity and gain, indepenently on whichever physics settings of MC, levarage etc. :)

Bigger pads increase the overall efficiency of the system - you need less pressure on the lever to achieve the same braking force becuse there's more friction at the end.
In principle (and at a simplified level), this is wrong: kinetic friction force depends on the normal force (and friction coeff), not on surface.
The normal force is the circuit pressure times the total pistons area, so that doesn't change when you change the pads.
Bigger pads may have other advantages of course (like thermals or wear).

As for quality - that's more about feedback/feel.  The R1 Radial m/c didn't affect how hard I could brake compared to the one that came with the bike but totaly affected the feel. 
The lighter return spring and more direct plunger direction of a radial m/c probably played the biggest parts but I'm sure if there was a Brembo employee here he'd be telling us about the bore surface treament/o-ring materal/alloy perosity.....  ;D
And I'd tend to believe him (well, up to a point): it may well be that the perceived quality is mostly driven by how "rigid" all the components are (MC, hoses, calipers etc) than anything else.

Support / Re: Brake input
« on: March 08, 2018, 07:03:19 PM » while I've done a few m/c swaps, they've been more about improving the quality of the unit rather than adjusting the travel/lever force.  The earlier ones were all about the same size, had about the same travel and took about the same force.  It wasn't until the calipers were changed that there was less force required at the same travel.
Yeah, hard to compare if the quality is changing. But when you say "bigger pad/pistons ==> less force required" the you're also saying "smaller MC ==> less force required".
BTW, what would justify the quality difference between the different MC in your opinion ? I have my idea ... :)

And you're still factoring in travel in the overall feeling: probably makes sense in real life, but not in GPB.
In GPB it seems to be a simple "input displacement vs braking force" relationship: smaller MC = steeper line.
(I say seems as I thought disc thermals where somehow simulated, no longer sure since PiBoSo last comment).

Support / Re: Brake input
« on: March 08, 2018, 05:46:31 PM »
But unless GPB somehow simulates the "flexibility" of the hydraulic circuit (or the lever), there's no travel to speak of.
There's only force on the lever.

Yeah I understand that too - but I'd argue that that flexibility is exactly what you're swapping master cylinders to fine tune in the first place - so perhaps it should be getting simulated.
...and that "no travel to speak of" is an oversimplification.  I prefer pretty soft levers(in real life) - not spongy but on the spongy side of normal.
...and there is most defiantly lever travel between on and full-on.
Yeah there is, but aren't better hoses (stainless, braided) just trying to avoid/minimize that ?
Also, I'm pretty sure your brain doesn't actually "reason" in terms of lever displacement: could you imagine a brake lever with a very light spring behind it (and no "hydraulic" feedback) work fine ? It would be tremendously hard to use. On a real lever, what you modulate is probably more the force you apply. The displacement is just a side effect. Zero displacement is probably a simplification and it may turn out to be a bit weird to use, but keep in ind that car-simmers do like load cells for brake pedals ...

This whole thing is simply about swapping m/cs in the pits and  how a smaller m/c makes for what I'd consider a more wooden feel on the brakes - it just feels the wrong way round.
I never swapped a MC in real life. What do you expect to happen in real file when you lower the MC diameter ?
Would you need to apply more or less force on the lever to get the same braking force as with the bigger MC ?

I'd expect less, hence the "wooden" feeling (or less progressive as h was saying before).

Support / Re: Brake input
« on: March 08, 2018, 02:20:25 PM »
Ach, I agree on your 1st sentence but your last goes against it no ?
If brakes are reacting too quickly, you should increase the MC size (at lest in GPB).

No, because the force and travel are related inversely.  Going to a larger master cylinder will require less lever travel but more force wheras going to a smaller m/c will require more lever travel but less force.
But unless GPB somehow simulates the "flexibility" of the hydraulic circuit (or the lever), there's no travel to speak of.
There's only force on the lever.

The more important sentence is the middle one.  When I pull back on my joystick I mentaly equate it to lever travel rather than force. changing m/cs in GPB's pits has the opposite effect to what I'd expect to happen.
But as Pib said, this is not what GPB does: brake input = force on the lever (so pressure in the circuit), not lever travel.
So the change in MC size behaves correctly: smaller MC => less joystick travel for the same braking force.

Support / Re: Brake input
« on: March 08, 2018, 01:46:36 PM »
IRL a smaller MC is used to create the reverse of this situation and give a more progressive feel at the lever.
To me it should be the opposite: smaller MC means you get more disc pressure (hence more force) for the same amount of lever pressure, so that is somehow less progressive no ?

Certainly feels counter-intuitive to me.  I understand that a larger m/c will require more lever force....

...but my mind equates joystick travel with lever travel - the thing in my hand that I'm moving in both cases. if the brakes are reacting too quickly and I want to introduce more travel into the joystick I'd expect to be lowering the m/c bore size.
Ach, I agree on your 1st sentence but your last goes against it no ?
If brakes are reacting too quickly, you should increase the MC size (at lest in GPB).

Off Topic / Re: Headphones sound virtualization, for free !
« on: March 08, 2018, 11:10:00 AM »
I use a logitech headphone with 7.1 virtual surround. I think it does the job.
If it works like the GSX, windows/the game thinks you have a 7.1 setup and will output to that accordingly. Then your headset will downmix to stereo doing some magic, but not the "full magic": for example, height information of the source is totally lost. This can only be transferred with true source postion + an HRTF.

Not a biggie in GPB (bikes tend to stay on the track :) ), but in other games ...

Off Topic / Re: Headphones sound virtualization, for free !
« on: March 08, 2018, 10:10:10 AM »
Forgot to add:
  • Dolby Headphones seems to be bad, but Dolby Atmos Headphones seems to be good.
  • It weems Windows 10 has some sort of virtualization built in. Can't test (I'm on 7), some links below.

Support / Re: Brake input
« on: March 08, 2018, 09:39:19 AM »
Ideally, there's no lever displacement at all (after the initial displacement to put the pads in contact with the disc), it's just pressure from that point on.
Putting a smaller mc (again, ideally) would probably require more displacement to put the pads in touch (no braking force up to that point), so the mc setting should alter that sort of deadzone (to put the pads in touch), but it's probably a tiny detail and it gets messy with the brake input deadzone setting.
I'd be in favor of not overcomplicating this and consider that as soon as you move the stick, you're applying pressure to the discs (pads already in touch), unless you have configured a deadzone on the brake input, of course. It's already a bit hard to grasp (for casual players) with the mc and levrage settings :)

Off Topic / Re: Headphones sound virtualization, for free !
« on: March 08, 2018, 09:29:14 AM »
Ok, just to get this cleared up for me: GPB does not have binaural audio ("proper headphone audio") by itself but since it's OpenAL (which passes positional info), it can be easily produced via software or hardware without much trickery (like letting the game output 7.1 and then convert it to binaural)?
I'm wondering if there is a noticable difference between the different solutions (OpenALSoft, CMSS-3D, Dolby Headphone), as my soundcard only supports Dolby Headphone.
OpenALSoft and CMSS-3D process each sound source according to its position in 3d space. When outputting to headphones they can use an HRTF (or something else to output to 5.1 / 7.1 setups). In principle, that's the right way of doing things.

Dolby Headphones (and the GSX 1000) do something different: they tell windows that you're using a 7.1 system, so that windows (and the game) will output a 7.1 sound. After that, they transform the 7.1 into stereo binaural. The difference is that dolby headphones and the GSX do not use the  audio source position in the 3d world *directly*: the game itself will use this info to output 7.1 (via openAL), then this is converted to bianural. So that's less good, at least in principle (but more flexible).

From what I've read around, dolby headphones seems to be bad for games (no surprise, it has been designed more for movies).
The GSX stuff seems to be pretty good overall, on par with the CMSS-3D in general but it may be worse for openAL games. How worse I cannot say, maybe the difference is minimal.
You can probably compare OpenALSoft with HRTF (my original post on it is here) to your dolby headphones in GPB. Just remember to switch dolby headphones off in your soundcard when you use OpenAlSoft.

I think PiBoSo could consider using OpenALSoft instead of plain OpenAL and add an in-game option to configure what your audio output is, 5.1, 7.1, 2.0 or heaphones, using one (configurabe) HRTF when headphones is selected. It would need to detect if something like CMSS-3D is there, in which case the processing could be delegated to the sound card. If not, OpenALSoft would do the processing.

All the stuff needed seems to be free/open source, but maybe it's a PITA to code properly.

Plugins / Re: MaxSCL - A tool to edit .scl files (engine sounds)
« on: March 08, 2018, 07:44:43 AM »
Both fair requirements, they'll be on top of todo list (if I touch this stuff again).

Support / Re: Brake input
« on: March 08, 2018, 07:37:23 AM »
I'd say input displacement dictates the pressure. Braking force then should also depend on discs temperature (iirc discs thermals have been implemented, if not, or in older betas, then input displacement dictates the braking force). Better if Pib can confirm though :)

Off Topic / Re: Headphones sound virtualization, for free !
« on: March 08, 2018, 07:32:53 AM »
thanks for the link, max!
would be amazing to have proper sound in gpb.
In general sound in GPB is proper (from the spatialization point of view), thanks to the usage of OpenAL. It may lack a bit of finesse when using headphones in case you don't have CMSS-3D or similar stuff.

I chatted with the guy that posted on reddit and he confirmed that for games like GPB (using OpenAL), the best solution is to have either a soundcard with CMSS-3D, or to use OpenALSoft with an HRTF. But again, all this is only relevant if you're using headphones: if you have 5.1 or 7.1 setup you should be fine (no need for extra stuff) and if you're on 2.0 or 2.1 you're dead no matter what.

The tricks above are only interesting for games that do not have proper headphones support, which is the vast majority of them: some recent titles have sound options specific to headphones (and CS:GO does implement an HRTF).

I confirmed with the guy that a solution like the GSX-1000 would in principle be worse than my current sound card with CMSS-3D: with the GSX GPB would be tricked into thinking I have a 7.1 setup, then the GSX would transform this via some sort of simplified HRTF.
With my soundcard, positional info of each sound source will be used to process them via the HRTF: that is better.
The advantage of the GSX is that as soon as a game supports 51 or 7.1, the GSX will be able to spatialize that, no matter the audio system used by the game (openAL or anything else). It wont be as good as the OpenAL+CMSS-3D combo, but it will work on way more games.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 383