New onboard view

[tchemi]

I agree with max. I experienced the camera moves when accelerating / braking or shifting. That is what I called the kick in the butt.
Camera longitudinal position is affected by acceleration / deceleration.


@Vin, Talking about Gforce, I'm not sure your head will rotate under deceleration. The Gforce effect is based on how many energy your body has stored and how strong you will try to change the direction of this vector. Your body will continue forward will the bike brakes. In any case, your sight won't rotate. Your eyes will stay focus on the horizon.
And you will say, yes, you don't talk about cam direction but cam height. If you deactivate auto lean, It's like you are locking your legs around the tank and your arms on the steering bar. This way, it is just like the rider body manage all the negative force. It is not completly irrealist that the camera height dont' move.
Anyway, This could be achieved easily and this could be customized as the lean angle and tilt are today.

The best possible solution should to make the arms act like springs as in MXB

[HornetMaX]

The best possible solution should to make the arms act like springs as in MXB

I'm tempted to think they already are like that, that's why you see the cam movements when acc/brk/shift.
Even if the rides's ass is bolted on the seat (at least longitudinally), the torso can pitch fwd/back and that makes the camera move (translate) fwd/back.

[Vini]

I still don't see any cam movement. The "kick in the butt" is there because no bike in GPB has anything close to a seamless gearbox and the relative movement to the bike under braking is there because the forks compress.
In any case, I think we are agreeing that there could be a bit more feedback under braking (the bike just dropping out of the FoV is not really useful).

I don't think the view/rider should suddenly slide forward against the tank, that doesn't happen in real-life.
The rider positions his body for braking (done by f/b lean in GPB) and his muscles will counteract the g-forces that pull the torso forward. The muscles would be simulated as dampers, resulting in some backlash/variance in longitudinal cam position but that would only be a very minimal amount that (alone) will barely be noticable or give useful feedback (otherwise f/b lean would also feel way too "spongy").

The head/cam rotation, similar to the helmet rotation of Max' plugin, that I suggested would just be a way of getting the feedback you would normally get by other senses in real life (inner ear).

[HornetMaX]

I still don't see any cam movement. The "kick in the butt" is there because no bike in GPB has anything close to a seamless gearbox and the relative movement to the bike under braking is there because the forks compress.

If the rider is rigid on the bike and the fork compress, then there's no relative movement between bike and rider.
But there is, so the rider is not rigid (and hence the camera moves).
The fact the camera drection does not chnage (in mode 0 or in mode 1) is something else.

[Vini]

the cam (which doesn't align with the rider model) is not rigid on the bike but it also doesn't respond to g-forces. the bike is moving relative to the ground (rotating around the rear axis) while the cam isn't, resulting in relative movement between cam and bike.
manually tuck in all the way and then brake or accelerate.

[HornetMaX]

the cam (which doesn't align with the rider model) is not rigid on the bike but it also doesn't respond to g-forces. the bike is moving relative to the ground (rotating around the rear axis) while the cam isn't, resulting in relative movement between cam and bike.
manually tuck in all the way and then brake or accelerate.

If you manually tuck in all the way, then the rider is rigid and it is normal that the camera doesn't move (or at least not as much) as the rider itself doesn't move.

Do the test: auto rider lean fully off (so the rider is in its "middle" position, not tucked in), go on a straight, brake (or shift gears up).

[Vini]

It's exactly the same, it's just harder to tell what is actually happening because the cam is so far away from the cockpit.
Plus usng fully manual lean and keeping the stick in the neutral position is just as much of an input as tucking in is. It would only be different, if using auto lean + manual override.

If the cam was to react to g-forces, "rider lean" would have to be turned into "target rider lean" with some dampening calculations in between that dictate the actual rider lean.

[HornetMaX]

It's exactly the same, it's just harder to tell what is actually happening because the cam is so far away from the cockpit.
Plus usng fully manual lean and keeping the stick in the neutral position is just as much of an input as tucking in is. It would only be different, if using auto lean + manual override.

If the cam was to react to g-forces, "rider lean" would have to be turned into "target rider lean" with some dampening calculations in between that dictate the actual rider lean.

I think that's exactly what is done for MXB and, from what I see, for GPB too: the rider has spring and dampers, the rider lean command is in fact a target lean one.
So yes, to me the camera reacts to g-forces.

[Vini]

but you just said the rider remains rigid when tucking in, meaning the rider lean is currently not a "target input" in GPB.
maybe we should just ask piboso what is actually the case.

..and, as i wrote earlier, i don't think all this is really relevant anyway because if you accurately simulate the g-forces and counteracting rider muscles, the effect of the difference in longitudinal cam position (delta between target and actual rider lean/cam position) alone (without any cam rotation) is so insignificant that it's pretty much useless as feedback (the cockpit disappearing under you even takes away feedback you would normally get from the handlebars). i mean, even if it was already there, it is so insignificant that we cannot agree that it's there.

[HornetMaX]

but you just said the rider remains rigid when tucking in, meaning the rider lean is currently not a "target input" in GPB.

It is a target input when the "stick is centered" and the torso can move ... when you're tucked in, laying on the tank, well, then you're essentially one with the bike.

maybe we should just ask piboso what is actually the case.

Agree.

But for MXB the answer I got is: the rider legs and arms are springs/dampers.

[Vini]

that differentiation only makes sense when talking about manual override. just do the test but only tuck in half way or something if you believe that the "input type" suddenly flips from target to actual lean once you reach max. lean (or some other magical value). i just said it because when the cockpit is closer, it's easier to see that it's the bike that's moving and not the cam.

[HornetMaX]

it's easier to see that it's the bike that's moving and not the cam.

If the bike moves relative to the cam, the cam moves relative to the bike. I really don't see what you're saying ...

What I am saying is that, with manual rider lean and no input,  when we shift up / brake we see the camera move (or the bike move, if you prefer, but it's the same thing).
This means that there's a relative movement between the bike and the cam, driven by forces. This is consistent with what PiBoSo told about the rider in MXB (spring/damper arms/legs).

[tchemi]

i just said it because when the cockpit is closer, it's easier to see that it's the bike that's moving and not the cam.

I'm using the second 1P view, the closest one. And even if your explainations are good, I can't see the bike going "under" me. I clearly see myself making front and back slides on the seat.
And that corresponds quite well with what I can feel when riding. Before I had the alcantara seat, I was quite often smashing my balls on the tank and quite often seated on the back seat cover.

[Vini]

it's easier to see that it's the bike that's moving and not the cam.

If the bike moves relative to the cam, the cam moves relative to the bike. I really don't see what you're saying ...

What I am saying is that, with manual rider lean and no input,  when we shift up / brake we see the camera move (or the bike move, if you prefer, but it's the same thing).
This means that there's a relative movement between the bike and the cam, driven by forces. This is consistent with what PiBoSo told about the rider in MXB (spring/damper arms/legs).

the cam (which doesn't align with the rider model) is not rigid on the bike but it also doesn't respond to g-forces (so it's not "target lean"+dampers). the bike is moving relative to the ground (rotating around the rear axis) while the cam isn't, resulting in relative movement between cam and bike.
manually tuck in all the way and then brake or accelerate.

[HornetMaX]

You've lost me vin97.

Have a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tdtbT_--gs

Full manual rider lean, 1st onboard view, with mode = 1 (new one).

First 12 seconds I show my controls: right joystick is rider f/b (up/down) and bike lean (left/right); left joystick is rider l/r (left/right) and clutch/rear brake (up/down).

Now look between 0:25s and 0:30s: I *only* use the front brake (no rider lean input). You say "the bike moves below me". I say it's the camera that under inertial forces moves forward.

Bonus part: between 0:50s and 0:58s I'm fully tucked in (my right joystick is fully up) and again I only press the front brake. Same thing happen: due to inertia, the camera moves forward. To me it's all good.

I'm too lazy to upload another video (my connection sucks) but do this: steady speed, no input at all, brake with constant force until the bike stops. The camera will move forward while braking but at the end, when the bike stops, as there's no more braking force the camera will go back to it's "middle" position. You can even see it bounce a bit ! The cam is springy !