Messages

Going to the right pit box could be done like the sighting or warm-up lap. Adding a red arrow in our pit box

That's already the case in WRS.

MaX.

It's already (obviously) possible in WRS so it shouldn't be a big deal to port to GPB.

Will add to wishlist, it make sense.

MaX.

[not]

I have 2 questions now :

Cheater

1) How should I put the chassis, the fork and the swing arm in 3dsmax scene before export ?

I have no idea: 3d modelling is really something I do not plan to look into, no time for that.
But for sure our modders know, given we already have plenty of bikes working.
For my tool it doesn't really matter, as far as iot is OK for GPB.

2) How should I collect all the coordinates points ?

Which coord points ? The O* (O_sw, O_fu, O_st, O_ch) ?

These are just offsets to be able to move the components around.
In the .geom file they are all assumed to be in (0,0), then each component is moved to its correct position.

3) is there a specific point defines as reference who would be at the center of the 3dsmax scene univers ? or can we just put the model as we want and after define the new location of each points ?

Can't answer this. I suspect that in 3ds you'll have to model/export each part separately and each will have his own reference point. In the .geom file, the points of a component are relative to that reference point. Example:

• Swingarm in 3ds has reference point O_sw in (5,5) (let's keep it 2d). The swingarm joint is 1 left of this point, so in (4,5).
• In the .geom file, the coord of the joint will be (-1,0).
• In my tool you can move around O_sw as you want, but the joint will always be 1 left of O_sw

MaX.

my controller (Speedlink strike gamepad) rumbles in the game 

Really ? In which situations ?

Good list and understandable to read, maybe post topic 17 and 18 are the same?

Fixed, thx PeterV !.

MaX.

[WARNING: (fairly basic) math/geometry inside. Number-allergic people can skip]

WARNING: (fairly basic) math/geometry inside. Number-allergic people can skip 

Hi all,

I think I managed to create some sort of visual representation of the .geom file of GPB. Two important points first:

• This stuff is messy, hence I'm not 100% sure it is correct. Looks correct to me, but only Piboso could confirm. I doubt he'll waste his precious time to do this (and I can't blame him for that decision) so ...
• Thanks to neoraptor, who had the initial (and smart) idea to use GeoGebra for that task !

You can use GeoGebra in your browser (GeoGebra Web) but the standalone application (Downloads) works better for me. In any case, it's free.

I've attached the .ggb file: it contains the 990 data in the "Spreadsheet".
If you want to change some data manually it is possible. If youwant to put another .geom model, do this:

• Copy/Paste the entire .geom file (except the collision sections) into Excel/ or similar (I used LibreOffice)
• Normally it will ask you to parse the data as a fixed/delimited file: use dleimited with "=" and "," as separators.
• Now select all the lines between "type" and "t-cam" (4 columns, A-D), copy it and thenm paste it into GeoGebra Spreadsheet (starting from the right cell, A4).
• You will have to enter manually the wheel sizes (front, rear) in cells B1 and B2: you can find them in GPB .tyre files (at the end, "Radius").

The sliders allow to change the bike configuration: SwingArm length, SwingArmPivot (no effect in GPB at the moment) and Rake are bike's parameters, while FLength and SwingRot are the "state" of the suspensions (how much the front fork is extended and how much the rear swingarm is rotated).

There are 2 bikes shown: the one the top is in the chassis reference frame, the wheels do not touch an horizontal line.
The one on the bottom is in the "world" frame: here the road is horizontal and the wheels are on it.

On the top part you have the individual components in their own reference system. You cam move them moving around the O* points (no impact on anything).

One thing you can see is how the various parameters influence important quantities as Wheelbase, effective rake, trail etc.

One thing I don't know at all , is what "rear_length" does in the .geom file. It seems to have no effect at all.

MaX.

Well, what about the content that clearly ripped from other games? Most of our bikes & tracks are ripped or converted. Never heard anyone say anything about that.
As soon as a bike gets released its halleluya bonanza, and noone questions where the base content came from...

At the price of going a bit (more) off topic here, let me clarify the position on the subject:

• As stated by Piboso very recently, mods "ripped" from other games are tolerated but not encouraged here on the forum.
• Because of that, Piboso prefers to have absolutely no discussion on the forum about ripping stuff (recently a few messages have been deleted due to discussion about some software to potentially rip tracks from other games). Legal issues are probably the last thing he'd like to have, probably even after a third hand growing between his eyes (hey, could be useful on some occasions).
• As a personal note, if you rip a bike and then redo/improve half of it, I'm inclined to no longer consider it a "rip", even  if legally it is (and anyway that's just my opinion).

Concerning sounds, the sounds in GPB are all encrypted because created for GPB by an independent sound engineer: this alone should make Piboso's position on the subject clear.

I personally have no particular problem with you using sounds from another game, just don't mention the game name and/or the tools you used (if any) on the forum. Don't make it super-clear that you ripped stuff. This way I don't know, Piboso doesn't know and we are all peace and love, make wheelies not war etc etc.

MaX.

fyi, it`s not ripping when the game is open for modding...
The files are unencrypted and usable for anyone to do as they please...

That's extremely arguable and I'm almost sure it's not the case: I doubt very much that you can take material from game X to do stuff in game Y, even if game X is "open for modding".
"Open for modding" may mean that you can reuse the creative content IN the game, but not outside it and for sure not for a (competitor's) game.

If the content has been created by a user (and not by the company that has created game X) then you'll have to ask permission to that user (or to read his license terms, if he's taken the time to write them).

I know, life sucks ...

MaX.

For someone who is not very familiar with that level of engineering... what do those "forward rotating engines" change to the physics of the bike?

Centrifugal forces of the internal moving engine parts if i`m not mistaken

Nice try JamoZ, but no, that's not it

A backward rotating engine has 2 main effects:

• a smaller tendency to wheelie.
• a smaller gyroscopic effect

The explanations for both phenomena are pretty simple too (yeah, you can read this !!):

• If the engine is forward rotating (i.e. the crankshaft spins like your forward wheel), when the engine revs up you need a torque to do that and (action reaction principle) an opposite torque will be applied to the chassis: this means that when you rev up, the bike will tend to pitch backward (wheelie). On a backward rotating engine it's the opposite: the bike will tend to pitch forward. The smaller the tendency to wheelie, the more you can open the gas (or the more the anti-wheelie control will not kick in). Drawback of backward rotating is that you need an additional transmission shaft (as you still want your rear wheel to turn in the "right" direction): so more mass, more friction, potentially a less compact engine etc.
• On a bike you have 3 main rotating parts: front wheel, rear wheel and engine's crankshaft. They act as gyroscopes: when their rotation axis direction is changed (e.g. when leaning the bike or when the bike turns) they generate "unwanted"(*) torques.  For a forward rotating engine the 3 parts are all rotating in the same direction and the "unwanted" torque is greater than in the case of a backward rotating engine (where the crankshaft, rotating in the opposite direction, "cancels out" part of the effect of the wheels).

MaX.

(*)
Gyroscopic torques/forces are not always "unwanted": the ones generated by the wheels make the bike stable (when spinning fast enough). However, too much gyro torques and the bike will become hard to steer/handle, less agile.

[@Piboso:]

2 sugeestions (potentially) for bike physics:

• Assuming GPB simulates the reaction torque of the engine revving up (torque applied to the chassis), it would be nice to have the possibility to model forward backward rotating engines. They are pretty popular in MotoGP (e.g. see the table here)
• Seamless gearbox ?

@Piboso: what do you think ?

MaX.

I have no clue about how all that stuff works. If someone could make some kind of tutorial, and if we had a seperate sound modding section it woulp help alot for anyone to experiment with sounds. Maybe we could also create a shared sound samples database?

Food for thought...

http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=432.msg3135#msg3135

MaX.

Didn't meen to cause any problems, just giving an honest reason for a vote and a suggestion  so the guy can get a quicker result for the information he after, the game bloody hard when you start playing and I flew over the fence's a lot, not just this track. I would expect most new people would, loading the TRP into tracked show's there the possibility to fall though the floor, I can only go by what little Sim racing experience I have from playing GTR1 15 years ago and the common opinion was if you could not reset the car on track is was unfit for championship use.  things are different here it seems.

Well, giving a 1 to Paul Ricard readiness for racing was a bit harsh. But if can document where the problem happens (video, drawing, whatever_, the creator may have a look and solve the problem.

MaX.

The sounds are from Assetto Corsa, of course i`ve changed them a bit. What`s wrong with the engine file? I`m not an expert so i just copied warlocks engine file and changed the volume levels a bit.
I don`t plan the change it as i just wanted a different sound for the bike which i accomplished. Feel free to edit or change the sounds

Unfortunately creating a new sound is not as easy as taking an existing sound and replacing the .wav files.
Also, I can hear some sort of overlapping sounds in some samples (offhigh, offlow, onhigh ...).

Tip for comparing sounds easily:

• the "stock" sound uses the engine.scl file which itself references the samples sb2_idle.wav, sb2_offhigh.wav, sb2_offidle.wav etc.
• the "new" sound should use a new .scl file, let's say engine.new.scl, itself referencing the new samples, maybe named as sb2_idle.new.wav, sb2_offhigh.new.wav, sb2_offidle.new.wav etc.
• to switch between the two sounds, open the sfx.cfg of the bike and change the line "scl = engine.scl" to "scl = engine.new.scl" back and forth.

Probably easier than swapping files (and does not overwrite the original files).

MaX.

Yes indeed, that would be great if you could do that, but I think a rating from 1 to 10 would be better than 1 to 5 to give a broader option of choice for so many tracks to Poll

I will send you a PM with a list of tracks that are used for the online servers, in alphabetical order.

I think that most serious studies affirm that a scale with 7 grades is what humans are typically able to separate (except situation where you an quantify stuff and hence a finer scale can be OK).
I counted the average biker/player, so I reduced that to 5 No big deal anyway, 5 7 or 10.

I'm not sure we really need to separate surface from race ready, up to you guys to decide.

Also, the like/don't like thing is probably unnecessary. If you really want it in, maybe it should be in the same format as the others (How much you like that track,1-10). But I fear people will not make the distinction between the previous questions (how technically good a track is) and the "personal taste" question (which is independent from the technical quality of the track).

Send me the tracks, send me the questions: it will take me 20min at worst.

The poll can be kept open indefinitely or closed after a while. I can manually alter the results or do some specific computations (in case you want some uber-complex statistical analysis).
The poll results (in a fixed format report) will be available for all, any time.

Why do we need a rating for each track? Is it that important? I don't really care about the rating... If there are players on a track I'll join them, even if the track 'sucks'. I think these polls are not really needed...

Track ratings are useful, not only to inform track modders that improvements are needed, but also to allow, especially new members of the community, to see which tracks are the best and which are not.

Now go take a happy pill and chill out. Hehe  

For happy pills, ask docfumi 

MaX.

I voted low because you cant ride if you fall though the floor. shame that would be the best track in the game.

The way noviac  done his rating would work better than a poll, having all the tracks listed so people could just copy and paste and put there rating, be a lot faster or were waiting a year for results.


                   graphic      surface     race rdy            like/dislike
Albi                 6              8              7                     dis
paul                9               7             1                     like
Avus               6               8             7                    like
Dijon              8                6             8                    like

You mean for me to post a list of the server tracks and people just post their ratings for those tracks? But would people spend the time to type out a list of the tracks with their ratings and post(There is a lot of tracks)?
If this is what the community prefers then I'll do it that way, but I just would not think people would be bothered to type out a list themselves with the ratings rather than just use a poll?

But hey guys. Let me know if this is a better option for you, than a poll, and I'll do it.

If you want, I can setup a better poll using Google Docs (Forms).
Just an example created in 3min: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1rsMiS1hXLkUao7sm1f3EIM6SVspuhHPcBZlUWKqiI2Q/edit?usp=sharing

MaX.

I'll report but I still prefer the *.ini solution because this way I could allow Peter to upload/change tracks at my racing server by simply editing the dedicated.ini files and placing the tracks to his dropbox.
If I could handle the bikes folder the same way it would be fantastic.

The suggestion is already in the suggestions recap. I'm gonna add the bikes stuff.

MaX.