GP Bikes beta7b released:
http://www.gp-bikes.com/?page=downloads
Changelog:
fix: replay crash
fix: rider lean override
fix: joystick freelook pitch
fix: freelook tilt
fix: live timing track data
thx piboso!
Quote from: PiBoSo on October 29, 2015, 11:44:50 AM
GP Bikes beta7b released:
http://www.gp-bikes.com/?page=downloads
Changelog:
fix: replay crash
fix: joystick freelook pitch
fix: freelook tilt
fix: live timing track data
Fresh install or just over the old b7?
Always prefer fresh install. doesn´t take that long....
125 unridealble, 500 after 1-2 lap begins to lose the front, 1000 at least driveable. in some tracks and in some turns the bikes lean only a bit (for example aragon on the S).
Personally i'd like these thing solved rather than smoke (bit someone is happy just for this it seems..). 125 is the ticket to GPB, if it is unrideable and embarassing, who'll buy the SIM?
Quote from: fabio93bg on October 29, 2015, 12:27:12 PM
125 unridealble, 500 after 1-2 lap begins to lose the front, 1000 at least driveable. in some tracks and in some turns the bikes lean only a bit (for example aragon on the S).
Personally i'd like these thing solved rather than smoke (bit someone is happy just for this it seems..). 125 is the ticket to GPB, if it is unrideable and embarassing, who'll buy the SIM?
+infinite
wow, many differing views here - so far i have tried the 125 and one of the 500's, on Victoria and on A1 Ring, and i found that overall there's a huge improvement with the way both bikes handled.
there is still room for improvement (isn't there always? ;D), but my first impressions so far are very good. a big step forward, imo. ;)
btw, my testing was done on the previous b7, still busy downloading b7b
what issues are guys having with the 125, can i ask? to say 'it's unrideable' doesn't help anyone - if you want to see physics improvements, it's essential to give specific and detailed info on what isn't working.
i am by no means a great rider, but i found a big step forward with the 125 with my initial tests, even though i don't ride it that often...
Thnx for the quick fix Piboso!
Quote from: fabio93bg on October 29, 2015, 12:27:12 PM
in some tracks and in some turns the bikes lean only a bit (for example aragon on the S).
Please make sure to
only give your feedback based on 'stock content'. Piboso is responsible for the 3 stock bikes (well 4, if counting the other 125cc) on the 'Victoria' track. Any other bike or track might be subject to conditions that are in the hands of the respective modder and may not reproduce conditions that are backed by Piboso.
If you have feedback of behaviour of Piboso's content then feel free to post it here, otherwise the feedback is basically not worth a penny. Let me give you an example: I was trying to run with Murasama on mod track Sepang v0.9. I found that you literally had to 'crouch' around the first chicane, because the bike seemed to be reluctant to lean. I left the server and entered Victoria, cross-checked with the lean on the Victoria in Honda Corner and corner after Lucky Heights and there it was perfectly fine. So Piboso cannot be blamed.
The virtual rider in GPB seems to have a calculation of the grip level, based on track conditions and maybe other factors. That is why you cannot lean very far on grass or on wet surface. My conclusion is, that on tracks where you seem to not be able to lean appropriately, grip level seems to be sub-par.
@Piboso: Can you confirm my assumption above please?
@Moderators: I guess there needs to be some sort of stickied info to make sure everybody is aware of that and Piboso only gets fair feedback based on his actual content. If so, the feedback will be much more helpful to him.
pushing the 125 as it should you cant keep the front, you' ll fall just like the previous beta. the generale feeling is nothing is you can't do a turn properly beacuse you everytime risks to fall. I remember 125cc in beta4. and it was not perfect obviously, but fun and challenging, nothing like this. the 500 is better bit if you push it after 1-2 laps it will ne Aldo unpredictable on when you' ll far for the front end. oh, and for me it wheelie a bit too much. The best thing on this beta is the braking.
Quote from: Stout Johnson on October 29, 2015, 01:02:11 PM
Thnx for the quick fix Piboso!
Quote from: fabio93bg on October 29, 2015, 12:27:12 PM
in some tracks and in some turns the bikes lean only a bit (for example aragon on the S).
Please make sure to only give your feedback based on 'stock content'. Piboso is responsible for the 3 stock bikes (well 4, if counting the other 125cc) on the 'Victoria' track. Any other bike or track might be subject to conditions that are in the hands of the respective modder and may not reproduce conditions that are backed by Piboso.
If you have feedback of behaviour of Piboso's content then feel free to post it here, otherwise the feedback is basically not worth a penny. Let me give you an example: I was trying to run with Murasama on mod track Sepang v0.9. I found that you literally had to 'crouch' around the first chicane, because the bike seemed to be reluctant to lean. I left the server and entered Victoria, cross-checked with the lean on the Victoria in Honda Corner and corner after Lucky Heights and there it was perfectly fine. So Piboso cannot be blamed.
The virtual rider in GPB seems to have a calculation of the grip level, based on track conditions and maybe other factors. That is why you cannot lean very far on grass or on wet surface. My conclusion is, that on tracks where you seem to not be able to lean appropriately, grip level seems to be sub-par.
@Piboso: Can you confirm my assumption above please?
@Moderators: I guess there needs to be some sort of stickied info to make sure everybody is aware of that and Piboso only gets fair feedback based on his actual content. If so, the feedback will be much more helpful to him.
ok, maybe some calculation. but why in the previous beta we hadn' t the problem?
and, my bike in real life has not calculation on how it should lean, i decide how much i have to lean the bike.
and, if this calculation was in the game, 125cc should not lean at all to prevent falling
After trying the 125, i thought it was me that had problems with strange crashes as i easily lost the front tire. Now fortunately i read that others have the same problem. I think that physics got worse with this new beta
Quote from: fabio93bg on October 29, 2015, 01:06:43 PM
pushing the 125 as it should you cant keep the front, you' ll fall just like the previous beta. the generale feeling is nothing is you can't do a turn properly beacuse you everytime risks to fall. I remember 125cc in beta4. and it was not perfect obviously, but fun and challenging, nothing like this. the 500 is better bit if you push it after 1-2 laps it will ne Aldo unpredictable on when you' ll far for the front end. oh, and for me it wheelie a bit too much. The best thing on this beta is the braking.
;D
Quote from: fabio93bg on October 29, 2015, 01:13:00 PM
ok, maybe some calculation. but why in the previous beta we hadn' t the problem?
There might be several reasons. For one, VR is being developed constantly and it might be totally different from one beta to the next. Also, maybe grip conditions on Victoria might have changed.
Btw: Piboso was reluctant to allow GPB for modding. But he eventually decided to allow GPB to be modded even in its development state which all of us are very happy for. But we owe it to him not to hold it against him. And to base feedback on mod content just is out of place. Fortunately, most users are aware of that.
Quote from: fabio93bg on October 29, 2015, 01:13:00 PM
and, my bike in real life has not calculation on how it should lean, i decide how much i have to lean the bike.
In contrast to real life, the average GPB user only has a Xbox controller (or similar). If you are happy enough to have a more advanced means of control, GPB supports hardcore mode where you can freely lean in any lean angle you like without any VR behaviour. I myself only have a normal controller and am happy with the way VR allows me to easily play this sim.
Bike: Varase 500cc
Track: Victoria
Server: GPBOC
Problem: Core.exe Crash.
When entering server for first time and before you do anything else, try going straight to "Live Replay". I get a core.exe every time I do this.... Just wondering if anyone else can confirm this too?
If on entering server for first time I go to track and do some laps and then try going to "Live Replay" it works fine. :)
Hawk.
Got a missing bike error when entering GBPOC4....trying to review the case Hawk described above... :o (VArese,Victoria,GPBOC4)
But i have all mod bikes installed in B7b, maybe that´s the reason....too much bikes :)
Quote from: C21 on October 29, 2015, 02:41:38 PM
Got a missing bike error when entering GBPOC4....trying to review the case Hawk described above... :o (VArese,Victoria,GPBOC4)
But i have all mod bikes installed in B7b, maybe that´s the reason....too much bikes :)
The only MOD bike I have installed is the Ricco's M1, as that is the only one that has been actually updated for beta 7, and is the only MOD installed on GPBOC server. :)
Hawk.
Great to see this development moving forward here..... I'm still a newbie of course but I hope to be around for a while and knowing this title is in an ongoing development is important. S!
more cores..
Quote from: Hawk UK on October 29, 2015, 02:18:37 PM
Bike: Varase 500cc
Track: Victoria
Server: GPBOC
Problem: Core.exe Crash.
When entering server for first time and before you do anything else, try going straight to "Live Replay". I get a core.exe every time I do this.... Just wondering if anyone else can confirm this too?
If on entering server for first time I go to track and do some laps and then try going to "Live Replay" it works fine. :)
Hawk.
Concur Hawk same for me. I was using Mura.
Had far too many core.exe crashes since b7..
Can this be a good thing? Surely piboso can find the problem now..? Pointless doing anything else until it is fixed imo.
Thanks PiBoSo.....i like this beta .....the front is ok now.....braking its perfect
Also noticed that we now have to wait till riders pass before we are able to respawn after a crash - Just thinking that this will create problems when we have a full grid of riders and therefore a lot of riders spaced out on track during a race.... With some races this will mean fallen riders will have to wait a very long time before they are able to respawn.
I'd have thought letting the track authors edit the "Min/Max" lines would've been a better option or leaving as it was before in b6c, as this will now create bigger problems and a lot more riders rage quitting during races in my opinion. :)
Just my thoughts, but does anyone think this is the better of the two options we've had?
Hawk.
@Hawk
Il take this option all day long lol.
In theory it should be better - no smashing into a respawned rider.
I can see what you are saying, we better have a race and find out ;D
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on October 29, 2015, 04:15:49 PM
Had far too many core.exe crashes since b7..
Can this be a good thing? Surely piboso can find the problem now..? Pointless doing anything else until it is fixed imo.
Eek - I have only been using stock game - no paints, no mod bikes etc. And the only core I have had was the replay one which seems to have been fixed with the exception of the initial replay shenanigans Hawk spotted. Will await cores then......
Other:Server findings so far (probably needs someone else to check too):
fix: whitelist and blacklist update (EG: allow me to change the whitelist when someone joins an event LATE! ::)
Only seems to work with removing a player from whitelist then using update command. Adding a player - no change
Edit: Save session now works - for some reason it didn't like saving to a folder within folder.????? Glitch I think
It would be really helpful if the new stuff and the fixed stuff came with a description of exactly what they should accomplish (what we should see) and how they should be utilised to do this - which would take all the assumption and guesswork out (MOAFs)
Quote from: Napalm Nick on October 29, 2015, 04:45:33 PM
It would be really helpful if the new stuff and the fixed stuff came with a description of exactly what they should accomplish (what we should see) and how they should be utilised to do this - which would take all the assumption and guesswork out..
a big +1 for me on that point, Nick
as for the crash/respawn option, i'd also take the new option over the old any day of the week, and twice on a sunday.
my thinking in this regard is pretty simplistic - you crash, you suffer the possibility of a big holdup before you can rejoin the race - much like in real life.
at least this way, the
only aggrieved party is the guy who crashed.
currently, you respawn and possibly take out some poor guy who is having an otherwise great race, and now there are two parties affected - the guy who crashed once and now gets crashed into again, and the other guy who did nothing wrong, but whose race is spoilt through someone else respawning.
it's a no-brainer, imo - although, that being said, i still believe the 3 or 4 seconds of being a 'ghost' on respawn would be the better option for all parties - even though that avenue has been discussed, and worse than being rejected, seems to have been deemed unworthy of even any response from the devs. oh well, we can't all get what we want, i guess.
also, with both the b7 and b7b installs, i have yet to suffer even one core crash, although i haven't tried going online yet.
not had any cores with replays either, stock victoria track, stock and mod bikes. not a one. maybe i'm just lucky, lol
anyhoo - still testing (and loving) the new version, much improved in my view. ;)
I hoped also entering the ghost in the training...
yes, i'd love a ghost bike to race against - this is by far the best way to improve one's skills, to be able to 'race' against yourself, and so to help with seeing where to improve times and so on, but it seems this is something the devs feel strongly against, so i guess there's no point in pushing the issue.
...at this stage of development, anyway, lol
Quote from: Hawk UK on October 29, 2015, 04:21:26 PM
Also noticed that we now have to wait till riders pass before we are able to respawn after a crash - Just thinking that this will create problems when we have a full grid of riders and therefore a lot of riders spaced out on track during a race.... With some races this will mean fallen riders will have to wait a very long time before they are able to respawn.
I'd have thought letting the track authors edit the "Min/Max" lines would've been a better option or leaving as it was before in b6c, as this will now create bigger problems and a lot more riders rage quitting during races in my opinion. :)
Just my thoughts, but does anyone think this is the better of the two options we've had?
Hawk.
I prefer your idea, but between b6 and b7 respawn, I stay with b7 one. Just the rider that crash get troubles (because his fault), and not the riders coming behind.
125 bikes - IMO harder to ride because losing the front more >:(.
BUT...... if you stay off max lean they are pretty good! So maybe this bike model just leans too much for its tyres? Could it be that simple?? Try it - once you train yourself not to bang max lean on its good! :D
*fix: drafting
I feel it. but it cause small bikes race to boring. we can't catch the slipstream.. (so,, especially CBR250R)
can we edit each bikes slipstream distance in each bike files? cfg's aerodynamics area?
and I saw falling rider dont in the ground. but now. rider is hovering few inches... ::)
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on October 29, 2015, 04:15:49 PM
Had far too many core.exe crashes since b7..
Can this be a good thing? Surely piboso can find the problem now..? Pointless doing anything else until it is fixed imo.
OK so your virus is spreading. Just been on server with 10 players and random cores have started happening to me and I hear and see it happening to many others. Not good I think cores have indeed got worse :(
Quote from: Napalm Nick on October 29, 2015, 07:52:14 PM
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on October 29, 2015, 04:15:49 PM
Had far too many core.exe crashes since b7..
Can this be a good thing? Surely piboso can find the problem now..? Pointless doing anything else until it is fixed imo.
OK so your virus is spreading. Just been on server with 10 players and random cores have started happening to me and I hear and see it happening to many others. Not good I think cores have indeed got worse :(
yes mate iv had a couple in testing (replays) but online has been a nightmare so far for me. no mods at all..
apart from core crashes... very happy with b7. ;)
I'm sorry but I understand nothing. I installed the B7 and does not let me to any server. It always stays in the "conected" screen. No I have not installed any Mod and circuits. This noon today have been playing on a server as always. Any help please?
Strange. If you were playing on GPBOC servers this lunchtime IE before 12:44pm then you were using Beta 7.
at approximately 12:54 the servers were updated to Beta 7b --did you update too?
Tip - I was jump-starting races 'cos I hadn't re-installed the plugin to separate the trigger buttons. :-[
Maybe that will help someone if anyone else is forgetful http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=95.0 lol.
Quote from: Adalgood on October 29, 2015, 08:10:25 PM
I'm sorry but I understand nothing. I installed the B7 and does not let me to any server. It always stays in the "conected" screen. No I have not installed any Mod and circuits. This noon today have been playing on a server as always. Any help please?
same
edit: wait like 2 mins
Quote from: Napalm Nick on October 29, 2015, 08:24:38 PM
Strange. If you were playing on GPBOC servers this lunchtime IE before 12:44pm then you were using Beta 7.
at approximately 12:54 the servers were updated to Beta 7b --did you update too?
Yes, I have now upgraded to 7B and still have the same problem. I can not wait for 5 min to go.
I have no other answer for slow connections if it isn't your firewall and you have everything basic B7b :(
On a plus point - when people join the servers the lag for players already there seems less. Anyone else notice?
I really like the new physical, but the problem of the cores in this beta will not let me enjoy this game .. :'(
I have kept a replay of two turns and not leaves me visionary it.
Quote from: Napalm Nick on October 29, 2015, 08:56:26 PM
Tip - I was jump-starting races 'cos I hadn't re-installed the plugin to separate the trigger buttons. :-[
Maybe that will help someone if anyone else is forgetful http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=95.0 lol.
i've seen this xinput plugin, and read what it's supposed to do - thing is, i don't really understand the question, so to speak, lol
i use a Logitech F310 gamepad, so maybe it's not even necessary for me?
i just don't quite get what is meant by having two axis on a trigger. i use left trigger for throttle, right for front brake, and can't quite get my head around how these would work with two axis.
so my question, i guess, is do i even need this, and if so, what am i supposed to be able to do with it?
signed
technically challenged dude 8)
Quote from: CapeDoctor on October 30, 2015, 04:29:01 AM
Quote from: Napalm Nick on October 29, 2015, 08:56:26 PM
Tip - I was jump-starting races 'cos I hadn't re-installed the plugin to separate the trigger buttons. :-[
Maybe that will help someone if anyone else is forgetful http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=95.0 lol.
i've seen this xinput plugin, and read what it's supposed to do - thing is, i don't really understand the question, so to speak, lol
i use a Logitech F310 gamepad, so maybe it's not even necessary for me?
i just don't quite get what is meant by having two axis on a trigger. i use left trigger for throttle, right for front brake, and can't quite get my head around how these would work with two axis.
so my question, i guess, is do i even need this, and if so, what am i supposed to be able to do with it?
signed
technically challenged dude 8)
Without xinput an xbox 'style' controller reports both triggers to be on a single joystick axis (one trigger is the positive values and the other trigger is the negative values of a single axis) and this means without it you cannot assign them to 2 different control functions i.e. brake and throttle in GPB.
Quote from: Adalgood on October 29, 2015, 08:10:25 PM
I'm sorry but I understand nothing. I installed the B7 and does not let me to any server. It always stays in the "conected" screen. No I have not installed any Mod and circuits. This noon today have been playing on a server as always. Any help please?
Have you got your bandwidth set to "High" in the settings menu? Maybe if it's still set to default setting(Low) then this maybe what is causing a long delay in connection to servers?
That was just a thought off the top of my head hoping it will help you. ;)
Hawk.
QuoteI'm sorry but I understand nothing. I installed the B7 and does not let me to any server. It always stays in the "conected" screen. No I have not installed any Mod and circuits.
if you don´t have the specific track the server is running you can not connect!
Try to connect to a server running victoria track which is the default one in any beta.
for me connecting time is between 30 seconds and 2 minutes.
Quote from: h106frp on October 30, 2015, 07:33:20 AM
Without xinput an xbox 'style' controller reports both triggers to be on a single joystick axis (one trigger is the positive values and the other trigger is the negative values of a single axis) and this means without it you cannot assign them to 2 different control functions i.e. brake and throttle in GPB.
ok thanks - so, just to be 100% clear, - with my Logitech gamepad controller, which currently has throttle and brake assigned to the triggers, i don't need this plugin, then?
Quote from: CapeDoctor on October 30, 2015, 08:44:30 AM
Quote from: h106frp on October 30, 2015, 07:33:20 AM
Without xinput an xbox 'style' controller reports both triggers to be on a single joystick axis (one trigger is the positive values and the other trigger is the negative values of a single axis) and this means without it you cannot assign them to 2 different control functions i.e. brake and throttle in GPB.
ok thanks - so, just to be 100% clear, - with my Logitech gamepad controller, which currently has throttle and brake assigned to the triggers, i don't need this plugin, then?
The triggers are axis ;D
Easy test: if u can make a burnout, so u dont need this plugin.
Quote from: CapeDoctor on October 30, 2015, 04:29:01 AM
i just don't quite get what is meant by having two axis on a trigger. i use left trigger for throttle, right for front brake, and can't quite get my head around how these would work with two axis.
so my question, i guess, is do i even need this, and if so, what am i supposed to be able to do with it?
signed
technically challenged dude 8)
Simplified answer (for TC dudes :) ): without xinput, left trigger outputs 0..+1, right trigger outputs 0..+1 but what GPB sees is the difference of the two (left-right) as they are combined into a single axis. So pressing only left ends up in a +1 seen by GPB, only right in a -1 and pressing both in a 0 (zero). With xinput each trigger has his own axis, so you can open throttle and bake at the same time.
So it's not absolutely needed, but I'd recommend to use the xinput plugin. You'll have to reassign all the functions (throttle, lean, etc).
Respawn: still fan of the "respawn where the bike stops". Everything else is sub-par to me.
MaX.
The new situation with not being able to re-spawn in the path of oncoming riders is a big improvement.
Without being able to look around to see where other bikes are it does become a bit of a random button pressing activity though.
Quote from: HornetMaX on October 30, 2015, 08:59:17 AM
Quote from: CapeDoctor on October 30, 2015, 04:29:01 AM
i just don't quite get what is meant by having two axis on a trigger. i use left trigger for throttle, right for front brake, and can't quite get my head around how these would work with two axis.
so my question, i guess, is do i even need this, and if so, what am i supposed to be able to do with it?
signed
technically challenged dude 8)
Simplified answer (for TC dudes :) ): without xinput, left trigger outputs 0..+1, right trigger outputs 0..+1 but what GPB sees is the difference of the two (left-right) as they are combined into a single axis. So pressing only left ends up in a +1 seen by GPB, only right in a -1 and pressing both in a 0 (zero). With xinput each trigger has his own axis, so you can open throttle and bake at the same time.
So it's not absolutely needed, but I'd recommend to use the xinput plugin. You'll have to reassign all the functions (throttle, lean, etc).
Respawn: still fan of the "respawn where the bike stops". Everything else is sub-par to me.
MaX.
Had no idea about this plugin, thanks Max!
Regarding respawn, I have to agree with you. It would be so much more realistic, not to mention the absence of frustration caused by a bike respawning right in front of you at 200+ kph.
Theres one more thing we are missing in GPbikes, the strategy of racing. I belive this was neglected due to the lack of consistency we are all experiencing (falling all the time). Riding 100% all the time is totally unrealistic. The tyres shouldnt be able to take it (nobody uses hard tyres), maybe even problems with fuel consumption could happen.
What about introducing a penalty system into the game? For example you would lose 10% engine power every time you fall. It would force us to ride more carefully.
Not for me unless we are 100% sure the physics is fixed. After that fine! :)
Edit: we have had to use the hard tyres in a few club races recently because we tended towards longer races (at certain tracks - Aragon was one I think).
Also we had to reduce laps because some people had setups that would guzzle the fuel. I was against this to try and make people find alternative setups/riding styles to get to the end, but it was all lost in translation across the players so laps were cut >:(
QuoteNot for me unless we are 100% sure the physics is fixed. After that fine!
+1
In the worst case i would have no engine after 5 laps ;D
Ok, I played with the graphical improvements that put GPbikes.ini friend Juju, I've delete and seems to already solved the problems of the cores.
sorry for my bad english..
Quote from: Davide74 on October 30, 2015, 11:58:33 AM
Ok, I played with the graphical improvements that put GPbikes.ini friend Juju, I've delete and seems to already solved the problems of the cores.
Can you post what you had in your gpbikes.ini before and what you have now ?
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on October 30, 2015, 12:00:06 PM
Quote from: Davide74 on October 30, 2015, 11:58:33 AM
Ok, I played with the graphical improvements that put GPbikes.ini friend Juju, I've delete and seems to already solved the problems of the cores.
Can you post what you had in your gpbikes.ini before and what you have now ?
MaX.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/136257968@N06/22602588125/sizes/h/
There was something strange in your old .ini as there were 4 [core] sections and some parameters repeated multiple times. Not sure if this is an issue or not though.
Also, the last line of the old file has a dot ("15000000."), which is bad.
You should keep only the last [core] section (without the dot ".").
If it is confirmed that can cause frequent crashes, then that's some interesting info for Piboso.
MaX.
P.S.
I always use the extra settings you had (replay size, bike_shadows, bike_reflections and texture_quality).
Davide, just looking at your before and after ini settings there, i can see what might have been the problem, and that is that you have several instances of the [core] sub-group, and i am pretty sure that you should only have one [core] sub-group, with all settings underneath it.
in your example, there are 4 of these core sub-groups, and maybe that was the problem?
just trying to make an educated guess, it's possible that it might not be the cause - but i have yet to suffer a single core crash from either b7 or b7b
here is how my ini file looks:
[GFX_DEFAULT]
x=1920
y=1080
bpp=32
fullscreen=1
refresh=0
[SOUND]
driver=0 ; 0 = default
max_sounds=32
efx=1
[master]
server=master.gp-bikes.com:10500
[core]
texture_quality=1
bike_shadow=1024
bike_reflections=2048
mouse_sensitivity=50
mouse_deadzone=0.01
mouse_linearity=1
mouse_smooth=2
replay=80000000
just what MaX answered at the time i sent this, lol ;)
But Davides BEFORE is the default one ? If so then everyones is wrong. Why is yours different Cape?
Something is not adding up Watson
True, I did not realize that was poorly copied!
http://forum.motonline-france.com/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=1259
Thanks for the answers ;)
Now is ok.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/639/22603085615_db131fc892_b.jpg
mine isn't totally default, sorry for any confusion - i edited the resolution entries and entered the [core] entries copied from my b6 ini file. other than that, i changed nothing else.
my point was really more about the multiple [core] groups from Davide's pic, which i've never seen before, and most likely is a reason for his issues.
hope that clears it up a bit.....from my side, anyway ;)
so, Davide, are you saying now with that ini file you no longer have a core crash, or were you just referring to the actual picture of the ini file?
Quote from: Davide74 on October 30, 2015, 12:31:25 PM
Now is ok.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/639/22603085615_db131fc892_b.jpg
You still have a dot (".") on the last line, it shouldn't be there.
MaX.
it works well CapeDoctor ;)
Quote from: HornetMaX on October 30, 2015, 12:35:42 PM
Quote from: Davide74 on October 30, 2015, 12:31:25 PM
Now is ok.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/639/22603085615_db131fc892_b.jpg
You still have a dot (".") on the last line, it shouldn't be there.
MaX.
ok thanks Max
Just been doing some testing and found that if you go to replay before going to track you get instant core crash, go to track and after replay works fine although I think other cores may occur for other reasons.
The other people I see getting core after core while others in the same server play on with no issue seems very much like the MXB and WRS crashes that occur. I've had these crashes myself in MXB, WRS and now GPB, only fix for any individual server/player problem combo is a server restart.
e.g.
PlayerA joins server1, core crash, re-join, core, re-join ,core, re-join, core with anything from 1 to 3 mins ish between crashes.
PlayerB joins server1, no crashes.
PlayerA joins server2 without changing anything in GPB, no crashes.
PlayerA rejoins server1, core after core again.
Restart server1, cores gone for PlayerA but now there's a possibility PlayerB will get the constant crash problem.
It's like a roll of the dice when you join any server currently, not sure all these other alterations are nailing it as it's pretty random and seems to be only a few at a time that get the issue, hence they blame their files or configs as others are playing fine.
Probably other problems too but this is worth considering, if only to help not waste peoples time. Easy way to eliminate the server as relative to the cause is to ask, has anyone had these repeated cores in single player testing?
Quote from: teeds on October 30, 2015, 12:37:29 PM
Just been doing some testing and found that if you go to replay before going to track you get instant core crash, go to track and after replay works fine although I think other cores may occur for other reasons.
Yes Hawker got that here http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=2778.msg41946#msg41946 s thats 3 of us concur
Quote from: teeds on October 30, 2015, 12:37:29 PM
The other people I see getting core after core while others in the same server play on with no issue seems very much like the MXB and WRS crashes that occur. I've had these crashes myself in MXB, WRS and now GPB, only fix for any individual server/player problem combo is a server restart.
e.g.
PlayerA joins server1, core crash, re-join, core, re-join ,core, re-join, core with anything from 1 to 3 mins ish between crashes.
PlayerB joins server1, no crashes.
PlayerA joins server2 without changing anything in GPB, no crashes.
PlayerA rejoins server1, core after core again.
Restart server1, cores gone for PlayerA but now there's a possibility PlayerB will get the constant crash problem.
It's like a roll of the dice when you join any server currently, not sure all these other alterations are nailing it as it's pretty random and seems to be only a few at a time that get the issue, hence they blame their files or configs as others are playing fine.
Probably other problems too but this is worth considering, if only to help not waste peoples time. Easy way to eliminate the server as relative to the cause is to ask, has anyone had these repeated cores in single player testing?
All suspiciously similar to the problems seen when using Dynamic tracks. Has Victoria been made Dynamic again? Do people get the same amount of cores at GPBOC 2 (NDS tracks)?
Just some more observations to report:
I'm definitely getting regular online core.exe crashes now. I hope this is because we're now using "Dynamic Surface" Tracks again at this time? It maybe a good idea to test an NDS track online to see if it's more stable. ;)
Also definitely taking longer to establish a connection to an online server now than was before in Beta 6c.
I can't quite put my finger on it yet, and it maybe because the 500 Varase wheelies too easily right now, but anytime my front wheel is just slightly off ground I cannot steer the bike at all... It's causing me a lot of problems right now with the 500's front end lifting at the slightest touch or bump..... Almost reminds me of the same problem we were experiencing in Beta 5, I think it was?
Also the effect of the bike wanting to stand upright under front braking seems too strong to me personally... again reminds me of an earlier beta.
I think I know why I cannot hear the knee slider on the 500..... the bike doesn't look like it's leaning far enough over for the rider to be able to scrape his knee's. Lol. And yes I have calibrated my joystick. ;) :)
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk UK on October 30, 2015, 01:11:29 PM
... anytime my front wheel is just slightly off ground I cannot steer the bike at all...
this is something i've also noticed with the b7 version, absolutely zero chance of steering, although admittedly i first noticed this with the Yamaha M1 mod bike, but i experienced it with the stock 125, as well - so safe to assume it's the same across the board.
anyway, i'll be sure to test with the rest of the stock bikes before saying much more on the subject, but with the M1 on Phillip Island track, i have to back off the throttle way more than would be necessary in reality, just to avoid the front wheel lifting and accompanying inability to steer the bike at all.
I like the weight of the pilot now when exiting the quick corners, corner 2 or Philip island or last corner, it took me a while to adjust but is now even better.
QuoteI'm definitely getting regular online core.exe crashes now.
+1
but
it´s really strange.
i entered gpboc1 this morning as the 1st player on the server.
connectin time was 6 seconds!
i drove a long run of 30laps (crashing multiple times) but got no core.
people connected and disconnected in that time but i could drive with o issue at all.
After 30 laps completed (about 55min playing time) i joined the replay. saved.
until that no issues.
selected other players in replay.
watched hawk for 1/2 a lap and davide.
game freeze. core.exe.
rejoined.
connecting time was a lot seconds more. about 50...
going straight to replay.
game freeze. core. exe.
rejoined.
connecting time as above about 45-60 seconds.
joined track.
after 2 laps core.exe again out of a sudden while driving.
QuoteI can't quite put my finger on it yet, and it maybe because the 500 Varase wheelies too easily right now
agree. still too easy.
QuoteAlso the effect of the bike wanting to stand upright under front braking seems too strong to me personally
i´m not getting warm with the front brake. the front brake in b6c was imho better. i could easy brake late into corner midpoint (for me it was good feeling close to real...you could still loose the front braking too much and too hard into corner)
braking like this is impossible for me with b7b right now.
i have no feeling for the front brake anymore, in b6c i was aware what the front did under braking. it was the ideal setup. i could set the brake points close to real ones on the track and it was a noticable difference in the different brake diameter. in 7b i lost the complete feeling for the brake.
QuoteI like the weight of the pilot now when exiting the quick corners, corner 2 or Philip island or last corner, it took me a while to adjust but is now even better.
+1
but it took time to adjust myself to it. right now i like it very much.
[positive]
The turn in of the bike is much improved against b6c, like it.
Also the rear sliding is more controlable, i mean when it kicks in.
Quote from: C21 on October 30, 2015, 01:28:00 PM
Quote from: HawkAlso the effect of the bike wanting to stand upright under front braking seems too strong to me personally
i´m not getting warm with the front brake. the front brake in b6c was imho better. i could easy brake into corner midpoint. impossible for me with b7b right now.
Absolutely agree on that Chris. Seems to me that in beta7b all the front braking now needs to be done and finished before leaning into a corner - that is not reality at all in my experience.
Hawk.
Quote from: Adalgood on October 29, 2015, 08:10:25 PM
I'm sorry but I understand nothing. I installed the B7 and does not let me to any server. It always stays in the "conected" screen. No I have not installed any Mod and circuits. This noon today have been playing on a server as always. Any help please?
My problem is to open the ports 10500 and 10510. There server to which I can not go because it makes me a "lost CONNECTION" screen and this is why I will have opened.
Now I have to close them to enter any server.
Thanks for the answers.
Also long connection time
Also multiple cores after a few laps today .... but 1hr playing late last night with no problems and similar number of bikes on line .. weird
Quote from: Hawk UK on October 30, 2015, 01:11:29 PMI can't quite put my finger on it yet, and it maybe because the 500 Varase wheelies too easily right now, but anytime my front wheel is just slightly off ground I cannot steer the bike at all... It's causing me a lot of problems right now with the 500's front end lifting at the slightest touch or bump..... Almost reminds me of the same problem we were experiencing in Beta 5, I think it was?
Also the effect of the bike wanting to stand upright under front braking seems too strong to me personally... again reminds me of an earlier beta.
I think the same way.
You cannot steer the bike on one wheel anymore and locking up the front is impossible at lean angle because the bike will simply stand itself up to a certain point.
You can actually brake harder when the bike is leaned over (100% possible to the very last moment) than when it is upright.
I am not a fan of the new braking at all.
Also, the GP1000 bikes now feel like tractors, the lean angle and corner is speed is way too low IMO.
I think the the core.exe crashes may result from the new netcode.
Just noticed the rear brake seems pretty good now.. you can skid and slide around at low speed and its controllable. nice 8)
I'm getting core.exe crashes all the time now on the GPBOC Victoria server..... I hope it is because of the Dynamic Surface because if it's not then I wouldn't be able to do race events at all as it is. :(
@Nick: Any chance of putting an NDS track up to test for online stability compared to Dynamic Surface please mate? :)
Hawk.
GPBOC 2 is running NDS with all B7 bikes?
Oh not the new new new FZ I will do that again tomorrow, hopefully with the Aprilia :)
Quote from: Napalm Nick on October 30, 2015, 08:18:58 PM
GPBOC 2 is running NDS with all B7 bikes?
Oh not the new new new FZ I will do that again tomorrow, hopefully with the Aprilia :)
Thanks Nick! Going to test now. ;D 8)
Hawk.
What NDS track are you using Nick? I cannot see your NDS server. :-\
Hawk.
A1 Ring mate. You can see em all here
http://stats.gp-bikes.com/servers.php?sort=comp
Quote from: Napalm Nick on October 30, 2015, 08:40:27 PM
A1 Ring mate. You can see em all here
http://stats.gp-bikes.com/servers.php?sort=comp
Never thought of looking at that. Lol :-[ ;D
Thanks mate.... Any chance of making it an open server so I can run the 500? Tomorrow will be okay if your short of time. ;)
Hawk.
Yep sure I will do it in the morning bud. ;)
Quote from: Napalm Nick on October 30, 2015, 09:03:16 PM
Yep sure I will do it in the morning bud. ;)
Okay Nick... No probs. Thanks mate. ;) 8)
Hawk.
....I have to say that the GP500 feels extremely good, much better than in the previous betas I've played.
in beta7b.. do the tyres compress into the track visually now?
or do i need glasses?
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on October 30, 2015, 10:09:10 PM
in beta7b.. do the tyres compress into the track visually now?
Not had time yet to check b7/7b, but in WRS I noticed it in then monster truck video (also visible with the sprint car), so maybe ...
MaX.
Quote from: vin97 on October 30, 2015, 10:05:43 PM
....I have to say that the GP500 feels extremely good, much better than in the previous betas I've played.
+1. a real pleasure to drive now, compared to b6 :D
fix: wet simulation
I will assume the above means the rain graphics - if not pls inform us.
Beta 7b Rain report:
Just run two identical length ONLINE sessions (one DRY and one WET) with Stock Bikes (Mura) and Victoria and recorded their replay.
The video below shows the wonderful wet simulation replay fix - IE: square rain spray is now Normal rain spray!
https://www.youtube.com/v/_n3X61OUWRY&feature=youtu.be
So happy to say fix confirmed! 8)
I have attached links to both replays if you would like to view and test your *NEW* super stable replay abilities.
The only comment I would like to again bring to PiBoSo's attention is the size of the replay files. Both these replays have only 2 minute Practice and Qualify sessions and a 1 Lap race
The dry replay file is 3.68Mb and the wet replay file is 17.3Mb - by my calculations over 4.5 times bigger!
So a complete practice, qualify and race session will be huge - and as we have seen before probably too big to load in and watch (always crashes in past or only shows a few minutes even with server maxed out at 999Mb replay value).
Replay files:
DRY (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ju45zh0rzzy4fsw/20151031-105044-victoria_.rpy?dl=0)
WET (https://www.dropbox.com/s/kwdmkqahivb3xjr/20151031-105940-victoria_.rpy?dl=0)
What is this please ?
new: improved replay helmet cam
'Tank Gyro' / 'Rider' ? I don't see any other relevant choices in the replay cameras for Victoria?
First impression of Beta7b (No modded content installed except for MaxHUD. All bikes on default settings, only running on Victoria, offline, helmet view, no rider assists except automatic clutch. Virtual rider auto F/B and L/R, Controller: custom):
+ 990 and 500 are much more stable on the front in slow corners and braking.
+ Overall handling improved.
+ Less prone to wheelie all the time (990/500).
+ TC and AW less aggressive (990).
- 125 still suffers from the same old front issues.
- 990 loosing the front in banked high speed corners (last corner at Victoria, inside line) if you decrease throttle.
- Core.exe running over the curve at turn 1 (990)
- Rear seems to give less warning before it let's go, can't feel initial slide: no slide... no slide... Boom, rear comes around (990).
- Rear brake does not close the trajectory enough in corners, have to test some more to give definite comment on this one (990/500).
- Still feels a little bit to wobbly on the front at approximately 30-40 degrees lean angle when you are standing the bike up out of the corner or adjusting trajectory (990).
Have not played that long, and only did a few laps on the 125 (front end problem remains, no point in riding more with that one IMO). Overall first impression, Big improvement on the front end on 500/900 compared to Beta6c. Still not perfect though. Rear needs more work, more controlled slides, more gradual loss of traction if you get my drift (pun intended). 125.. did anything change at all?!
Primary priority going forward IMO:
1.Core.exe,
2.Online stability,
3.Making the 125 rideable (especially if it's the bike that is going to stay in the demo)
900 and 500 psychics good enough for the time being. I think we can live with it until the other problems are fixed. Do you guys agree or disagree?
Gonna play around with TC, AW and EB settings on 990 (all default so far). Will update further impressions when I got some more mileage under my belt.
Cheers,
/David "Gonzo" Boda #46
Hi guys, I have Xbox One controller and this beta don't recognize it. Have somebody the same controller?
Oups, the replay crash (got to replay before going to track leading to a crash) was my fault.
Please update MaxHUD to 1.9.9g, that should fix it.
MaX.
Bonza Max :)
well discovered Max, will test this and update this post in a short while.
All working A O K. No more going-straight-to-replay crash, well done Max. :)
Quote from: davidboda46 on October 31, 2015, 12:03:29 PM
First impression of Beta7b (No modded content installed except for MaxHUD. All bikes on default settings, only running on Victoria, offline, helmet view, no rider assists except automatic clutch. Virtual rider auto F/B and L/R, Controller: custom):
+ 990 and 500 are much more stable on the front in slow corners and braking.
+ Overall handling improved.
+ Less prone to wheelie all the time (990/500).
+ TC and AW less aggressive (990).
- 125 still suffers from the same old front issues.
- 990 loosing the front in banked high speed corners (last corner at Victoria, inside line) if you decrease throttle.
- Core.exe running over the curve at turn 1 (990)
- Rear seems to give less warning before it let's go, can't feel initial slide: no slide... no slide... Boom, rear comes around (990).
- Rear brake does not close the trajectory enough in corners, have to test some more to give definite comment on this one (990/500).
- Still feels a little bit to wobbly on the front at approximately 30-40 degrees lean angle when you are standing the bike up out of the corner or adjusting trajectory (990).
Have not played that long, and only did a few laps on the 125 (front end problem remains, no point in riding more with that one IMO). Overall first impression, Big improvement on the front end on 500/900 compared to Beta6c. Still not perfect though. Rear needs more work, more controlled slides, more gradual loss of traction if you get my drift (pun intended). 125.. did anything change at all?!
Agree with most of what your saying there above David, but during my testing the first thing I noticed was that the 500 Varase wheelies far too easily now in beta 7b(a lot more than in Beta 6c).
The rear brake closing the trajectory was in my opinion far too great in beta 6c, so if you feel it's less in beta 7b then that should be a plus in my opinion. :)
Having seen and experienced what GPB Italia have done with the RSW500 physics I'm happy that most of the problems just seem to be down to unfinished tuning of the bike physics for Piboso's default bikes; so I'd agree that beta 7b is a positive step forward and I'm personally now excited and looking forward to see what the Bike Modders and Bike Physics Modders can bring to us for this beta.
Still a question mark over frequent online core.exe crashes for me, as when I was running the RSW500 on the GPB Italia server I didn't experience one core.exe crash, so this needs investigating to try and pin down what is happening: Is it the bikes, the server, the dynamic surface, or what?
Please Piboso, we still do need a beta 7c release to fix some annoying issues that have been reported that I'm sure could be easily fixed before you call it time-out till beta 8. ;)
But overall a positive step forward for sure. Thank you Piboso! ;) 8)
Hawk.
Quote from: HornetMaX on October 31, 2015, 12:36:59 PM
Oups, the replay crash (got to replay before going to track leading to a crash) was my fault.
Please update MaxHUD to 1.9.9g, that should fix it.
MaX.
Not sure how you found that it was MaxHUD creating the problem but very well spotted indeed Max....
Thanks for the fix! ;D 8)
Hawk.
new: replay orbit camera speed
Confirmed - replay orbit speed can now be changed with +/- (like the panning control in free), which is another cool tool for budding video makers :)
Being a bit dense, I cant figure this next bit out though...
A lot of replay commands have gone (but still work) and there is a Roll command (which I thought might be mouse-wheel or something but isn't). I checked the readme files for info but not in.
attached are the old and new command list - the new does not seem so intuitive? What is Roll? Where have all the other commands gone? I think there is a simple answer but I don't have my simple head on. ::)
I hope B7 is the start of more frequent incremental updates, the user feed back is more constructive as people get less annoyed at the more persistent niggling faults.
Quote from: h106frp on October 31, 2015, 01:35:45 PM
I hope B7 is the start of more frequent incremental updates, the user feed back is more constructive as people get less annoyed at the more persistent niggling faults.
+1 Absolutely agree with you H.
Hawk.
I notice a more overall positive vibe also.
Yea the front end is bliss in b7, lets me ride a bike more than just trying not to fall off it now 8)
Quote from: Hawk on October 31, 2015, 01:29:20 PM
The rear brake closing the trajectory was in my opinion far too great in beta 6c, so if you feel it's less in beta 7b then that should be a plus in my opinion. :)
i agree with that!
Also you can now ''kiddie skid'' into corners at ''lower'' speeds.. which is great.
Just in case you are wondering:
new: event name
position is shown in the attachment.
Also it surprises me how many people still ask 'how long a session is' or 'how many laps is the race' or miss that there are 'Limited Tyres' when they join an Event.
This page tells you everything (and the new 'Event name' highlighted)
fresh install, no plugins, no mods....
core.exe after 5 seconds into first lap of the highly anticipated beta7(b)
(http://i.imgur.com/voWUB1s.jpg)
Quote from: JamoZ on October 31, 2015, 02:45:00 PM
fresh install, no plugins, no mods....
core.exe after 5 seconds into first lap of the highly anticipated beta7(b)
(http://i.imgur.com/voWUB1s.jpg)
good one.. see you on beta8 then jamoz..
I get either multiple cores or no problems at all, seems to be server side issues
Quick bug report - 125cc Cup bike, Victoria, Wet. Fell into the gravel - think I was entering it in a spin didn't expect it to get faster. Hope it helps.
https://www.youtube.com/v/VgXDrPSl0_4&feature=youtu.be
Quote from: h106frp on October 31, 2015, 03:09:30 PM
I get either multiple cores or no problems at all, seems to be server side issues
Yes, the randomness seems very strange. Yesterday I was getting many core.exe's. Today I have not had one core.exe.... yet(Touch Wood! Lol).
Let's hope it gets better when things settle down, sometimes they do for some reason. :-\
Hawk.
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on October 31, 2015, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: JamoZ on October 31, 2015, 02:45:00 PM
fresh install, no plugins, no mods....
core.exe after 5 seconds into first lap of the highly anticipated beta7(b)
(http://i.imgur.com/voWUB1s.jpg)
good one.. see you on beta8 then jamoz..
Maybe, who knows what i`ll be doing in 2019....
fix: pitboard during practice
fixed confirm :) see attached
Quote from: JamoZ on October 31, 2015, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on October 31, 2015, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: JamoZ on October 31, 2015, 02:45:00 PM
fresh install, no plugins, no mods....
core.exe after 5 seconds into first lap of the highly anticipated beta7(b)
(http://i.imgur.com/voWUB1s.jpg)
good one.. see you on beta8 then jamoz..
Maybe, who knows what i`ll be doing in 2019....
:D what do you think of the handling?
fix: reconnection during warmup and race
As ever, I have made a few assumptions about the meaning of this so if I am wrong please enlighten....
just been testing this with others online and really, really impressed :o - if you lose internet connection you can continue the race on local PC and when the connection is regained you are still racing others!
tested this by disabling my Ethernet in a race and then because I simply didn't believe it did it again but pulled the Ethernet cable out of router hahaha! awesome.
Not to be confused with getting a core then being able to rejoin in race though which would be a daft hope
okay, so i tried to host a session a few times today - i can't see if i am actually visible online or not, but the session wasn't visible to anyone, apparently.
anyway, the session i started was Victoria Circuit, I chose most bike classes (would love to know where the 'Open' option is, i don't see that anywhere?) and selected the new RSW500 Aprilia for a few joyous laps around Victoria.
all was good from my side, but as i mentioned, i wasn't visible in the server list.
on top of that, now ever since then i am trying to get some more offline laps in, and no matter what bike i select, stock or modded, i get a 'missing bike' message.
it's almost as if the online session attempt totally buggered up my offline testing session..... :P
edit: i've even tried creating a new profile, but the 'missing bike' message remains....
Very strange - I have also been hit with this "missing bike" message whenever I try to connect to my own server! Double checked everything and am stumped at the moment. But I watch the rugby now so if you fix it let us know lol.
PS: usual cause of server not being seen is router ports not open / not having same track / using special characters in the server name.
Edit: and don't forget you can look to see what servers are visible here http://stats.gp-bikes.com/servers.php?sort=comp even the B6c servers that are still running
New Bug:
WET Track: Victoria
Bike: Murasama 990
This bug happened on the start grid of a quick race on the GPBOC server running with a WET Victoria track.
A rider ran into me after he crashed on the start grid causing my bike to crash too. When I reset the bike back on track I tried to open the throttle to get going again and the bike just wouldn't hardly move - it kept stuttering and eventually crashing again no matter how much throttle I gave it to get going again.
Here is the short replay file showing the incident in detail: https://mega.nz/#!XQciHJYC!mShQ5ZxnZBr7ZEfIp13h1qbrAI8QuDzvzFe4xtfoKRE (https://mega.nz/#!XQciHJYC!mShQ5ZxnZBr7ZEfIp13h1qbrAI8QuDzvzFe4xtfoKRE)
Note: Select rider "41 Hawk" from the replay rider menu to see the incident.
Hawk.
Quote from: Napalm Nick on October 31, 2015, 05:00:23 PM
Very strange - I have also been hit with this "missing bike" message whenever I try to connect to my own server! Double checked everything and am stumped at the moment. But I watch the rugby now so if you fix it let us know lol.
PS: usual cause of server not being seen is router ports not open / not having same track / using special characters in the server name.
Edit: and don't forget you can look to see what servers are visible here http://stats.gp-bikes.com/servers.php?sort=comp even the B6c servers that are still running
I tried to join your server and there was no peoblem when I tried first. But got cored on second corner. After I tried again and cored again on last corner. On my third attempt It said 'missing bike' on both silverstone and victoria servers. Even on FR server. (I tried to join with Murasama of course. )
Thanks for your report SuperT.
What the heck is going on here with this "Missing Bike" message? It is spreading like a virus from Capedoctor
Just re-downloaded the Mod Bikes (3) to both my games PC and the server GPBOC2 to ensure all same versions and still getting "Missing Bike".
What does this message mean? Missing on server/on client PC/on a car park in Timbuktoo?
Edit: Fixed it. Client reboot. Can now get on server OK
Edit 2: Problem was probably seen by anyone downloading the zipped version of the roadster from the database as this was found to be corrupt later today.
fix: data mismatch info
Test Report.
ecstatic to report this is confirmed fixed and the added info will save hours of Mod database checking and player head scratching (not that the databases will ever be less than 100% eh Matt? ;D
Great work PiB.
couple of examples attached
I've noticed over time that the front and rear tyres of bikes are not in touch with the track surface at certain points on tracks, including Victoria, especially going through the sharp right after Lurkey Heights I think it is(and I don't mean when pulling a wheelie or rear pops up when braking hard. Lol. ). The wheels do sometimes even lift off the track surface as though the bike is going over a bump too, although you don't feel that when riding. So something not right there. :-\
Also noticed when going through a replay, when clicking the time slider backwards with the mouse, the replay data seems to lose track of the rider you've got selected from the rider menu. It didn't used to do that.
Hawk.
probably a question to make me look foolish, but what exactly is the fix for the missing bike message?
i must remove the roadster - FZ6? is that it?
in this new beta contacts do not always lead to the fall of the pilots. right?
err....i don't quite get the question, mate - if you used Google to translate, it doesn't make much sense to me?
Quote from: CapeDoctor on November 01, 2015, 04:05:54 AM
probably a question to make me look foolish, but what exactly is the fix for the missing bike message?
i must remove the roadster - FZ6? is that it?
Not at all mate. I would suggest re-downloading the three mod bikes, deleting your old ones first not carrying out a merge. Late last night a corruption was found in the zipped version of the roadster on the database. You could just do this one if internet is slow. Reboot PC afterwards.
Here is an example that it would be interesting to see GP Bikes.on driver that does not look like a piece of wood (in game).for me the driver position is a defect in the beta 7.
http://www.wat.tv/video/casey-stoner-ou-moto-gp-1-3ww21_2flv9_.html (http://www.wat.tv/video/casey-stoner-ou-moto-gp-1-3ww21_2flv9_.html)
Yes use google translate, my english its bad ... Retry questione, when two opponents touch the crash down in the previous beta was immediate, it now appears that contact management is more realistic.. Understand?!? :) :P
Quote from: Vergio101 on November 01, 2015, 08:40:46 AM
in this new beta contacts do not always lead to the fall of the pilots. right?
I presume you mean: contact between bikes on track doesn't always lead the a crash in beta 7b?
Well I have come into contact with other riders on beta 7b and not crashed when usually I would have. Though for sure if you make hard contact with another bike you will crash as you would in reality. :)
Has Piboso adjusted the rider/bike collision model to allow for more forgiving contacts with other bikes and riders? I really don't know. If he has it's only a subtle change, but really it's a question that only Piboso can answer for us. Piboso? :)
Hawk.
Yes Hawk... You explained perfectly understood..
Quote from: Napalm Nick on November 01, 2015, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: CapeDoctor on November 01, 2015, 04:05:54 AM
probably a question to make me look foolish, but what exactly is the fix for the missing bike message?
i must remove the roadster - FZ6? is that it?
Not at all mate. I would suggest re-downloading the three mod bikes, deleting your old ones first not carrying out a merge. Late last night a corruption was found in the zipped version of the roadster on the database. You could just do this one if internet is slow. Reboot PC afterwards.
okay, now i get it, thanks Nick ;)
oh, just to confirm - the three mod bikes you refer to are the ones that have b7 compatible versions, i.e: Aprilia RSW500, FZ6 and the Yam M1, is that right?
Quote from: yoshimura on November 01, 2015, 09:11:25 AM
Here is an example that it would be interesting to see GP Bikes.on driver that does not look like a piece of wood (in game).for me the driver position is a defect in the beta 7.
http://www.wat.tv/video/casey-stoner-ou-moto-gp-1-3ww21_2flv9_.html (http://www.wat.tv/video/casey-stoner-ou-moto-gp-1-3ww21_2flv9_.html)
If I'm not mistaken, I think if you use the manual rider controls, the rider does have a greater range of movement and doesn't seem so wooden looking. I've not tried it since beta 5 so not really sure on that for beta 7b.
But certainly in auto-rider control, the rider is still too upright with straight arms until he dips behind the screen(Still too long before he dips down behind the screen). Even when pulling a wheelie the rider stays in position with straight arms instead of bending his arms and allowing the bike to come up to meet his chest as the bike lifts up at the front.
But yeah I agree the rider still looks a little wooden at times, but a hell of a lot better than he was before in beta 6 in my opinion. :)
Hawk
QuoteBut certainly in auto-rider control, the rider is still too upright with straight arms until he dips behind the screen(Still too long before he dips down behind the screen). Even when pulling a wheelie the rider stays in position with straight arms instead of bending his arms and allowing the bike to come up to meet his chest as the bike lifts up at the front.
But yeah I agree the rider still looks a little wooden at times, but a hell of a lot better than he was before in beta 6 in my opinion.
Fully agree on that.
Maybe a smooth transition from upright to tuck behind the windscreen would help in this case.
But the rider has to tuck in way earlier then now (using auto lean f/r)!
Quote from: Hawk on November 01, 2015, 09:33:10 AM
Quote from: yoshimura on November 01, 2015, 09:11:25 AM
Here is an example that it would be interesting to see GP Bikes.on driver that does not look like a piece of wood (in game).for me the driver position is a defect in the beta 7.
http://www.wat.tv/video/casey-stoner-ou-moto-gp-1-3ww21_2flv9_.html (http://www.wat.tv/video/casey-stoner-ou-moto-gp-1-3ww21_2flv9_.html)
If I'm not mistaken, I think if you use the manual rider controls, the rider does have a greater range of movement and doesn't seem so wooden looking. I've not tried it since beta 5 so not really sure on that for beta 7b.
But certainly in auto-rider control, the rider is still too upright with straight arms until he dips behind the screen(Still too long before he dips down behind the screen). Even when pulling a wheelie the rider stays in position with straight arms instead of bending his arms and allowing the bike to come up to meet his chest as the bike lifts up at the front.
But yeah I agree the rider still looks a little wooden at times, but a hell of a lot better than he was before in beta 6 in my opinion. :)
Hawk
Hawk,(personal opinion too complicated manual driver), I was talking about the movement implant in the game, automatic / manual
the developer to provide credible or no direction on a key aspect that gives 50% of simulation on the placement and positioning when driving ;)
I also immediately felt the rider has quite a big delay when tucking behind the screen. So what I did was assign the front lean to a button then as soon as I exit the corner where I feel her should start tucking I just use the front lean button. It seems to have helped me get the throttle down a little easier out of corners as I could keep the front wheel down a little more.
Yes this is known as manual override and is a feature. People should use it and if it gives an advantage, then good, you should be rewarded for using less 'assists'. Like manual gears and manual brakes, throttle etc etc etc. :-[
New Bug:
When the riders knee touches down on ribbed kerbs it kicks the rider off the bike. Also been told that it does this on the first corner kerb of Victoria too.
Hawk.
i'm wondering if there's not something more to this 'missing bike' problem -
possibly it's due to most of the mod bikes not being b7 compatible? or something....
here's a quick run-down of what's happened: after my initial problem when trying to run a server session yesterday, and then getting the 'missing bike' error, i tried a few things, including a new profile, and eventually (not sure exactly how) the problem disappeared and i could load bikes and race again.
i removed my old FZ6 folder, and added the new b7 version, although i've not selected the FZ6 yet to ride with, so not sure how relevant that is - anyway, on stock Victoria track, i then selected the Murusama which i rode without problem last night and earlier today.
then, i decided to try the GSVR, and was met immediately with the 'missing bike' error again.
this is all purely offline at this point, so not sure what exactly is happening here.
anyway, now i'm back to being permanently stuck with the 'missing bike' error. even selecting a stock bike again does nothing to change it.
at the moment, i'm still trying to figure out exactly what happened to get it fixed the first time around, as i thought it was connected to going online initially, but now it's happened in offline mode as well, i'm not sure.
still testing things out atm, and just posted this up for interest. will report back with any new info as soon as i have any. ;)
It is more than a possibility .....There are only 3 (update...4!) MOD bikes fully B7 compatible. I wouldn't use the others you are asking for trouble. If you kept B6c as well as 7 you can still ride them there. They are not 100% compatible with B7 that is why the bikes are being modified and trickled back into the Bike Mod when complete.
But yes there is an issue that seems to get locked in as far as Missing Bike message goes. Like I said before I cured it by DELETING then re downloading and re-installing the Mod bikes and rebooting everything.
Basically if you have more than 3/4 bikes in your bike folder now, and are using incompatible bikes you are asking for troubles.
edit: added word 'MOD'
Quote from: Napalm Nick on October 31, 2015, 11:09:06 PM
Taking a clip from your video I'm sure I saw marbles - which means my guess of Victoria being Dynamic again must be right??? I posted about seeing marbles before but deleted it cos I thought my eyes tricked me. See attached.
It would also go a long way to explain the recent influx of cores.
Tomorrow I will find out for sure!
yes it
is Dynamic again - I just built up my own groove offline to confirm it. I was about to take a screenshot to post here when guess what, it cored out. ::)
So this probably explains the influx of cores we are getting - lets face it that's why we use NDS tracks 99% of the time. On the plus side I would suggest these cores are happening less often so far on this release?
It also seems that temporary groove file generation no longer works in B7 - not sure whether to report this as a bug or if it has been done on purpose. It would be nice to have it back working for sure.
If anyone in the community doesn't follow Matty's latest BikeMOD version and then goes and installs bikes that have not been updated for Beta 7b then they are asking for online server connection problems. ::)
The BikeMOD database was originally created, not only to organise the bikeMODS into one place, but also to avoid a chaos of server connection problems. :)
I know it's difficult at beta changeover times, but it's in all our best interests to follow this established protocol to avoid the chaos that reined a few years ago. :)
Hawk.
Agree, and that is why the GPBOC servers only run Mod bikes and tracks released from the 'official' Mod databases.
If the developers would release them via the MOD rather than random links all would be fine. Frustrating.
Quote from: Napalm Nick on November 01, 2015, 02:56:29 PM
Agree, and that is why the GPBOC servers only run Mod bikes and tracks released from the 'official' Mod databases.
If the developers would release them via the MOD rather than random links all would be fine. Frustrating.
+1000 Nick. ;)
Hawk.
in the interests of providing better pertinent feedback for potential issues, i have removed all mod bikes from my B7 install, barring the 3 that have been updated for B7.
so far, so good. 8)
Good choice mate, now you are on my page ;)
what is ''hrsshots'' in documents?
F10 takes a high-resolution screenshot that will be saved as TGA into "hrsshots" directory.
(quoted from the readme file included with Beta7b)
Quote from: PeterV on November 01, 2015, 07:19:41 PM
(quoted from the readme file included with Beta7b)
ahahaha :-[ ok thanks peter.
Always this big tire problem after a burn, the tire surface becomes ice. :o
Quote from: yoshimura on November 02, 2015, 06:42:04 AM
Always this big tire problem after a burn, the tire surface becomes ice. :o
After crashing the tyres do get too hot also. This makes respawning a lottery as far as performance and handling of bikes after a crash is concerned. Sometimes it's as good to bail-out of the race than carry on it because the tyres just lose their grip when they get too hot, which is a good thing in one way, but to do that so much and for so long after crashing your bike is probably not right?
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk on November 02, 2015, 10:10:12 AM
Quote from: yoshimura on November 02, 2015, 06:42:04 AM
Always this big tire problem after a burn, the tire surface becomes ice. :o
After crashing the tyres do get too hot also. This makes respawning a lottery as far as performance and handling of bikes after a crash is concerned. Sometimes it's as good to bail-out of the race than carry on it because the tyres just lose their grip when they get too hot, which is a good thing in one way, but to do that so much and for so long after crashing your bike is probably not right?
Hawk.
+1 the tyre surface should cool off much faster. Maybe the core of the tyre should stay hot, but on the surface it should cool down much faster and there should be more grip.
Quote from: Hawk on November 02, 2015, 10:10:12 AM
Quote from: yoshimura on November 02, 2015, 06:42:04 AM
Always this big tire problem after a burn, the tire surface becomes ice. :o
After crashing the tyres do get too hot also. This makes respawning a lottery as far as performance and handling of bikes after a crash is concerned. Sometimes it's as good to bail-out of the race than carry on it because the tyres just lose their grip when they get too hot, which is a good thing in one way, but to do that so much and for so long after crashing your bike is probably not right?
Hawk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQKkgmFW5_s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQKkgmFW5_s) This is impossible in the simulation, the opposite happens why? physical doubtful ::) which is calculated based on the external and internal temperature of the tire casing?(in game) thank you to enlighten my ignorance ;)
+1 and it has been reported many times on the forum.
If only the problem was acknowledged maybe we could stop having to say about it ::)
I want to understand, that's why I ask the question again about the problem, external and internal temperature of the tire can be a secret ::)
look at this problem mr piboso tks :)
something else i should mention from my testing over the last few days - either i've just been insanely lucky, or the 'runaway bike' issue seems to have been largely addressed.
over several intensive testing sessions, i have only once had a bike stand itself up and run riderless, but this was for an acceptably realistic distance, and the bike dropped to the ground quickly after hitting the barrier at quite an oblique angle, the sort which with b6 would see the bike usually bouncing off and running on for who knows how long.
have i just been lucky, or anyone found the same, or different?
Quote from: CapeDoctor on November 02, 2015, 05:57:32 PM
something else i should mention from my testing over the last few days - either i've just been insanely lucky, or the 'runaway bike' issue seems to have been largely addressed.
over several intensive testing sessions, i have only once had a bike stand itself up and run riderless, but this was for an acceptably realistic distance, and the bike dropped to the ground quickly after hitting the barrier at quite an oblique angle, the sort which with b6 would see the bike usually bouncing off and running on for who knows how long.
have i just been lucky, or anyone found the same, or different?
yes about the same.. bike run away once, but the respawn button worked as it was rolling along.
lol, i forgot to hit the respawn button until it was stationary - it's now doable as soon as the bike is off-track and riderless, if i understand correctly?
Hmmmm interesting. At the A1 ring I watched my bike roll down that straight again for over a minute but I never thought to try hitting respawn (because it never worked before) so hopefully I will remember to try it next time.
Surely if this has a fix included it would have been in the changelog but my mind is open with hope.
Quote from: CapeDoctor on November 02, 2015, 06:14:00 PM
lol, i forgot to hit the respawn button until it was stationary - it's now doable as soon as the bike is off-track and riderless, if i understand correctly?
Not sure if it depends on the speed or not though.. the bike was going quite slow when i respawned.
After getting used to the new beta, I have to stay that I am very happy with the new physics and the overall feeling of the bike.
Minor things like less laggy replays and the knee-slider (volume needs to be increased, though) are also great but I am slightly disappointed that PiBoSo has not implemented a lot of the requested features/fixes (self-riding bikes/respawn, different/modern rider animations/riding styles, foot movements for rear brake and shifting, full control over rider movements, working dash and higher quality models in replays, helmet replay cam, full rider-bike-track collision model...).
Things like core.exe whenever you go to replay before going to the track need to be fixed (very bad when you simply want to watch a race live).
Exhaust smoke could actually be more at higher revs on the two-strokes.
The bike is very stable now, no more wobbling around on the straights and out of corners. Instead of that you need more force on the handlebars to turn it when the front wheel is light (which I prefer and which is more realistic).
After getting used to it, the braking also feels good but I still think that the grip when leaned over and the tendency of the bike to stand itself up is a little bit too high.
The low speed front wheel wobble fix was long overdue and it's great to ride without having to worry about it but the uphill/banked turn problem has increased IMO (clearly the case at Mugello turn 9).
I still think that the GP1000 needs more lean angle at some corners.
Especially at A1 Ring (middle and last sector), it is obvious that the cornering speed is way too low.
@Vin97: I'm sure Piboso has acted on the rider-less bike problem?
Although it does still happen from time to time I think the ratio of it happening has dramatically decreased compared to beta 6c. I'm sure the bike now falls over more often as it should do after crashing than it ever did in beta 6c? But you really don't think so?
Hawk.
I meant it should be possible to respawn as soon as the rider has fallen off the bike.
I agree that it's not happening as often as it used to but once is already enough at tracks like the Nordschleife to ruin your fun.
Quote from: vin97 on November 02, 2015, 07:12:25 PM
I meant it should be possible to respawn as soon as the rider has fallen off the bike.
I agree that it's not happening as often as it used to but once is already enough at tracks like the Nordschleife to ruin your fun.
My misunderstanding Vin. Sorry mate. ;) 8)
Hawk.
Quotebut I am slightly disappointed that PiBoSo has not implemented a lot of the requested features/fixes (self-riding bikes/respawn, different/modern rider animations/riding styles, full control over rider movements, working dash in replays, full rider-bike-track collision model...).
- self riding bike/respawn -> has been adressed, the self riding bike issue is less present as in last beta and you can respawn earlier. the only reason not to respawn early is a rider close to you. You can only respawn when the track is empty and no rider in a close boundary to you.
- full control -> can not comment this, not using full control.
- working dash -> agree in that, should be adressed as sson as possible.
- full rider-bike-track collision -> has been adressed also. improved compared to last beta, maybe not perfect but it´s still possible to have contact between two riders without instant crash.
QuoteThe bike is very stable now, no more wobbling around on the straights and out of corners.
- for my taste the wobble is still a bit too much compared to real life. Varese on Victoria still to much sobble but it can also be caused by the track not only the bikes physics. If you watch races of the 90´or 00´thebikes wobble less then in GPB.
Core when going to replay was fixed already vin by the new maxHud.
I'm surprised our leader did not put about the respawn change in the changelog, being such an important change. Much stuff to find ourselves it seems.
And I think we should all remember the release of B7 was done before PiB was happy with the physics and is still being worked on. Which means there should be another update coming 'soon' for us to play with :)
Thanks for the info, I have edited my post.
Quote from: C21 on November 02, 2015, 07:18:38 PM
- full control -> can not comment this, not using full control.
I wrote a long post about this in the old beta7 thread but PiBoSo deleted it along with all the rest.
Basically, when using full manual rider lean, the game will decide for you when it's time to (abruptly) tuck in (namely at 145 km/h) which upsets the bike a lot when being at the traction limit.
Quote from: C21 on November 02, 2015, 07:18:38 PM
- full rider-bike-track collision -> has been adressed also. improved compared to last beta, maybe not perfect but it´s still possible to have contact between two riders without instant crash.
Yes, the bike against bike and bike against track collisions are good.
What the game is still lacking is properly including the rider in those collisions. So for example when your rider hits the wall or another rider or bike, it sits your bike up or even makes it crash.
Or that when you are lowsiding, the bike will slide on the rider and give you a chance of recovering the bike.
have just had many opportunities to test if you can respawn when riderless bike goes runaway - and you can!
Again this really should have been in the changelog information. Poor old PiBoSo is selling his Beta 7 short! ::)
QuoteYes, the bike against bike and bike against track collisions are good.
What the game is still lacking is properly including the rider in those collisions. So for example when your rider hits the wall or another rider or bike, it sits your bike up or even makes it crash.
Or that when you are lowsiding, the bike will slide on the rider and give you a chance of recovering the bike.
Ok, was not aware that you meant it this way.
I´m convinced that this will be adressed in the next Beta´s.
I agree that a recovery of the bike should be possible even it is hard to do that (in real life).
I pray that the next beta will solve the online stuttering and core.exe issues that annoys me most!
It's a wonder this Beta, but it is impossible to roll on the problem of core.exe
In Victoria when you take some time and the track gets grip, it is impossible to run because it always gives core.exe
I hope this is the main problem of this simulator is already fixed. It can not be that after so much time and Betas this problem continues to be. We need an urgent solution now!
Quote from: Jose Reina on November 02, 2015, 08:49:35 PM
It's a wonder this Beta, but it is impossible to roll on the problem of core.exe
In Victoria when you take some time and the track gets grip, it is impossible to run because it always gives core.exe
I hope this is the main problem of this simulator is already fixed. It can not be that after so much time and Betas this problem continues to be. We need an urgent solution now!
+1
Yep, getting crash after few minutes everytime when playing online. it's weird but the same (at least looks like this) crash has occured in mx-bikes today while being on the only server in 'World'. confused.
here is the error description (by mx-bikes.exe):
Exception code: c0000005
Exception offset: 000839ef
OS version: 6.1.7600.2.0.0.256.1
Language code: 1049
Additional information 1: 0a9e
Additional information 2: 0a9e372d3b4ad19135b953a78882e789
Additional information 3: 0a9e
Дополнительные сведения 4: 0a9e372d3b4ad19135b953a78882e789
will add gp-bikes one later. sorry for posting about mxbikes in a gpbikes thread, but the problems seem identical (i guess, the games may use some masterserver or whatever and that's why i think the problems can be identical).
Quote from: Jose Reina on November 02, 2015, 08:49:35 PM
It's a wonder this Beta, but it is impossible to roll on the problem of core.exe
In Victoria when you take some time and the track gets grip, it is impossible to run because it always gives core.exe
I hope this is the main problem of this simulator is already fixed. It can not be that after so much time and Betas this problem continues to be. We need an urgent solution now!
This new beta is really a big step into right direction. I can also only confirm your observations concerning core.exe. The likeliness to get a core issue seems to be correlated with the time of the server running. So for me it is much related to dynamic track surface which seems to be re-enabled for Victoria track.
My further observations:
If I enter a 'fresh' server of Victoria, I am seem to be much less likely to be bothered by core.exe errors; whereas when I enter a crowded server or a server which has been running for quite some time, core errors seem to happen at a rate of about every 2 laps on average pretty constantly which makes online racing pretty annoying. If I re-enter the server and randomly ask the guys in the server about core.exe problems, those who entered server late all seem to have issues, whereas those who entered early report about less or no issues.
The interesting thing is: While some (those entering early) seem to be free or almost free of core errors, others (those entering late) seem to be more prone to cores at the samt time. This should be helpful for narrowing down the issue I think.
The probability of getting a core.exe error seems to be higher if I run closely to another bike. Dynamic track feature means that tack parts are being re-modelled in real-time according to the usage of riders (e.g. rubber on track, marbles). Maybe while riders are riding the very part of a track surface that is being re-modelled at the very time the rider is riding it, may cause a crash?
The probability of getting a core.exe error seems to be higher shortly after a new rider has entered the server.
--> Maybe these clues can be used for narrowing down the cause for many core errors on dynamic surface tracks?
Quote from: Stout Johnson on November 02, 2015, 10:45:45 PM
This new beta is really a big step into right direction. I can also only confirm your observations concerning core.exe. The likeliness to get a core issue seems to be correlated with the time of the server running. So for me it is much related to dynamic track surface which seems to be re-enabled for Victoria track.
Or it could be related to the server going nuts when players connect and disconnect. Or just going nuts over time due to something else.
MaX.
My problem seems to be different. When I connect to an empty server usually it cores within 2 laps. But if theres other people on the server it works just fine. It was like this even in the previous beta, regardless of the dinamic surface
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 02, 2015, 11:37:36 PM
Quote from: Stout Johnson on November 02, 2015, 10:45:45 PM
This new beta is really a big step into right direction. I can also only confirm your observations concerning core.exe. The likeliness to get a core issue seems to be correlated with the time of the server running. So for me it is much related to dynamic track surface which seems to be re-enabled for Victoria track.
Or it could be related to the server going nuts when players connect and disconnect. Or just going nuts over time due to something else.
Yeah sure, I am just guessing. But we do have the cross-check from NDS servers which seem to be much more stable in terms of core errors.
Wonder if piboso has any ideas as to what is causing it? Could be useful to us all if he does.. To test exact scenario's etc. Just a thought..
We did some tests a few months back (basically reproducing and coming to the same conclusions that PeterV did some 50 (was it?) years ago. There was no doubt the Dynamic - specifically the Groove - data was the cause. The more clients there was, the harder it became to share all this data out until accumalative de-synchronisation and subsequent eventual 'core' occurred. Almost like the bandwidth just couldn't handle it all.
Personally (since B7b and PiB did his replay fix and Max did his replay fix I have had cores but significantly less than pre-B7. My servers are now running Dynamic tracks and I haven't had a problem there (admittedly my ping is practically 0 to them which no doubt helps).
I would tentatively say whatever netcode and "dynamic optimisations" (as stated in the changelog) PiB has done has significantly improved it over 6c with hopefully more to come soon.
I have one nagging worry that maybe this engine can't be fixed, but I will keep that thought to myself a while.
Unfortunately it does not explain the "white line" core-crashes I get within one lap, playing offline. Today it even happened when the bike was airborn due to a crash. Half bike over the white line, other half still on track (bike was sideways in the air). Does it have anything to do with calculating the bikes position on track and changing circumstances, meaning crash, bike going from tarmac to grass, collision with other bike etc? I have no idea...
Cheers.
/David "Gonzo" Boda #46
Quote from: davidboda46 on November 03, 2015, 01:52:22 AM
Unfortunately it does not explain the "white line" core-crashes I get within one lap, playing offline. Today it even happened when the bike was airborn due to a crash. Half bike over the white line, other half still on track (bike was sideways in the air). Does it have anything to do with calculating the bikes position on track and changing circumstances, meaning crash, bike going from tarmac to grass, collision with other bike etc? I have no idea...
Cheers.
/David "Gonzo" Boda #46
Which track were you riding on David?
Hawk.
to add another few cents worth of petrol to the bonfire, lol - whereas with b6 i could regularly join an online session if it was empty or only one or two riders online, without problem, although i experienced sometimes a pretty big 'lag' type effect, but i could never join an online race, being stuck in a permanent state on the screen which says 'connected' yet never actually connecting - with b7, i have as yet been unable to join ANY server session whatsoever - even if it's empty, again just sitting permanently on the 'connected' screen.
so for me, the online side of things (which, ultimately, is what the sim is all about) has gotten worse.
worse, as in no online ability whatsoever. ???
i know i don't have the best internet speed around, but that doesn't explain why the problem has gotten so bad, yet my bandwidth speed is unchanged.
in offline mode, i am singing praises from the rooftops for the big improvements, but the lack of online negates that in a big way.
Wow that sucks mate.. Hope you get that sorted!
Many times since I started playing GPB iv'e been stuck on the ''connected'' screen. If I wait and wait im always met with a black screen.. Game crashed! If I cancel and retry, all is good usually.
Oh forgot to mention that due to the more stable bike physics, first person view is much more enjoyable and easier.
Quote from: davidboda46 on November 03, 2015, 01:52:22 AM
Unfortunately it does not explain the "white line" core-crashes I get within one lap, playing offline. Today it even happened when the bike was airborn due to a crash. Half bike over the white line, other half still on track (bike was sideways in the air). Does it have anything to do with calculating the bikes position on track and changing circumstances, meaning crash, bike going from tarmac to grass, collision with other bike etc? I have no idea...
Cheers.
/David "Gonzo" Boda #46
Offline B7b has been super stable for me (Win7 64bit/Nvidia/i5) and even online with the GPBOC servers has been 'acceptable and B7b is much more enjoyable than B6 even with the small fixes.
Maybe time for a system cleanup and re-install?
Quote from: CapeDoctor on November 03, 2015, 04:46:09 AM
to add another few cents worth of petrol to the bonfire, lol - whereas with b6 i could regularly join an online session if it was empty or only one or two riders online, without problem, although i experienced sometimes a pretty big 'lag' type effect, but i could never join an online race, being stuck in a permanent state on the screen which says 'connected' yet never actually connecting - with b7, i have as yet been unable to join ANY server session whatsoever - even if it's empty, again just sitting permanently on the 'connected' screen.
so for me, the online side of things (which, ultimately, is what the sim is all about) has gotten worse.
worse, as in no online ability whatsoever. ???
i know i don't have the best internet speed around, but that doesn't explain why the problem has gotten so bad, yet my bandwidth speed is unchanged.
in offline mode, i am singing praises from the rooftops for the big improvements, but the lack of online negates that in a big way.
CapeDoctor that is a very strange observation and piece of info there. I on the other hand, have gotten the full experience of the online part. I can join any server now, sometimes with a 2min delay until im connected and sometime even almost instantly. I can tell you that I double - checked the firewall to make sure the game was allowed. I forwarded the 2 ports that were mentioned to me and I changed the bandwidth setting ingame to high. I really am not sure if this has been the solution to my "connected" problem but it won't hurt to try and see.
I have noticed and probably something mentioned before a while ago, but I'll mention it again for b7b now. It does seem to me that the connection time with the "Dynamic Surface" tracks is greatly increased compared to the NDS tracks which connect by far a lot quicker.
Just thought I'd mention this so that those here posting about long waiting times(possibly not connecting at all) can test their connections with an NDS track to compare. ;)
Hawk.
Hawk the thing is... Cape and I are both from South Africa as you have probably read on other topics. So we are not sure if it is because of our location that we have not been able to connect. But one thing is sure, and that is that we had exactly the same problem. Since when I first played this game, my online never worked. I made a few posts on the forums years ago asking for help and noone could help. Piboso didn't bother to reply or to try help me out.
I am almost 100% sure our reason for long connection times has very little to do with the NDS/DS tracks.
Anyway, I am EXTREMELY happy to be able to play online now. One thing --- WHERE ARE THE RACES? :P
Quote from: Hawk on November 03, 2015, 09:33:41 AM
I have noticed and probably something mentioned before a while ago, but I'll mention it again for b7b now. It does seem to me that the connection time with the "Dynamic Surface" tracks is greatly increased compared to the NDS tracks which connect by far a lot quicker.
That may just be because the server needs to send to the new client the track status.
MaX.
Quote from: davidboda46 on November 03, 2015, 01:52:22 AM
Unfortunately it does not explain the "white line" core-crashes I get within one lap, playing offline. Today it even happened when the bike was airborn due to a crash. Half bike over the white line, other half still on track (bike was sideways in the air). Does it have anything to do with calculating the bikes position on track and changing circumstances, meaning crash, bike going from tarmac to grass, collision with other bike etc? I have no idea...
Cheers.
/David "Gonzo" Boda #46
Yes mate I agree and its all un-asked-for testing guesswork really. Makes me wonder if your problem is track related but we often hear of close proximity stuttering like you experience. I like your theory about standing on freshly created dynamic code.
Image my first impression of the game - 990 straight out on Victoria, fell off, bike went runaway for the best part of a minute (didn't know the respawn option was fixed), bike fell down a hole in the map, span round and round and then the game cored out.
Nearly uninstalled faster than a 'Jamoz test'. :D But it proves there are still track problems.
Personally I have no doubt longer connecting times are due to the client getting all the dynamic information before joining the session.
@Cape - did you ever get to test with DaReaper on your own servers? How about taking the plunge and stealing a laptop or something and setting up your own dedicated server on it (you can do it on your Games PC but that wouldn't prove much). This will give you a super low connection ping and if you cant join that then there is something wrong with your setup for sureamabob.
Quote from: dareaper46 on November 03, 2015, 09:54:50 AM
Anyway, I am EXTREMELY happy to be able to play online now. One thing --- WHERE ARE THE RACES? :P
They were stopped when we heard you had bought the game hehe ;D
Both the GPBOC servers have Polling enabled and short qually sessions and races programmed. If you find yourself online with others start a poll!
I'm sure structured races will return 'soon' once the meat had been fully stripped from the B7 bones
Quote from: Napalm Nick on November 03, 2015, 10:17:27 AM
@Cape - did you ever get to test with DaReaper on your own servers? How about taking the plunge and stealing a laptop or something and setting up your own dedicated server on it (you can do it on your Games PC but that wouldn't prove much). This will give you a super low connection ping and if you cant join that then there is something wrong with your setup for sureamabob.
well, mate, it's possible there's something wrong on my side, but i have yet to figure out what. my ports are sorted, everything seems to be fine, i can see the online sessions, but have so far been unable to join any of them, just sitting on the 'connected' screen - i leave it for over 5 minutes, time enough to have a cuppa, but still no joy.
i twice tried to host a session, but in both instances dareaper46 couldn't see the session. i get the feeling no-one could see the sessions, so not sure what's happening here.
i set my bandwidth connection to 'medium', will try 'high' setting just to make sure, but with b6 i could join a session even on the 'low' setting, so again, a bit clueless.....
something else i noticed, if it helps, when i initially look at the world servers sessions, the ping seems not too bad, for most of them a sub 200 - lets say an average of about 180.
however, when trying to connect, and sitting forever on the screen saying 'connected', when i quit that screen and try and join again, i then see that the average ping has increased drastically across the board - as in, an average of over 400 ping on each server....!
i'll check my router settings again, maybe there's something i missed...but that's where i am at the moment. stuck in no-man's land :(
Yeh Im feeling your pain. First step would be to get connected to a server running an NDS track for sure.
Don't shoot me I am just reacting to what details you provide - but are you 100% sure your Windows AND 3rd party firewalls are allowing the connections to be made? Turn it all off if you can, run as admin, hit it with a stick!
Creating your own dedi server would be a good test of everything. Imagine if you have your dedi server up and running and you can see it in the server list webpage (and we can join it), you have halved the system for diagnostics purposes.
Quote from: Hawk on November 03, 2015, 02:17:34 AM
Quote from: davidboda46 on November 03, 2015, 01:52:22 AM
Unfortunately it does not explain the "white line" core-crashes I get within one lap, playing offline. Today it even happened when the bike was airborn due to a crash. Half bike over the white line, other half still on track (bike was sideways in the air). Does it have anything to do with calculating the bikes position on track and changing circumstances, meaning crash, bike going from tarmac to grass, collision with other bike etc? I have no idea...
Cheers.
/David "Gonzo" Boda #46
Victoria
Which track were you riding on David?
Hawk.
Victoria. Default 990. Happened when I had a clean install. Later it also happened with 125 ITA and 500 Aprillia. I have yet to install any other tracks, and no other bikes except for the above mentioned and the FZ6.
Cheers.
/David "Gonzo" Boda #46
I have a "crazy" idea. It does require permission from "the Man". I was thinking about the never ending core.exe problem and came to the conclusion that it needs more time and manpower to fix (if possible). So this is my suggestion for a solution:
There are a lot of programming schools in the world, here in Sweden we have Hyper Island for example. Students do projects during their semester and sometimes it involves "working" for already established companies. What if we would offer some students the challenge to try to fix the core.exe, as a school project? It would not cost anything, Piboso would keep his rights to the project and the students (if they succeed) can put it in their CV. They could also be offered to be credited when V1.0 is released (you know like, Main programmer: Piboso, Programming assistants: John Doe/Jane Doe). This way Piboso could focus more on the other stuff and if the students don't succeed he still would not have "lost" anything.
What do you guys, and mainly Pibiso, think of the idea?
Cheers,
/David "Gonzo" Boda #46
Why not?
I still think there's only one person that can, should and hopefully will tackle the problem ...
MaX.
in PiBoSo we trust ;D
another core feedback:
i only have had one or two core's since the newest release of beta7b.
so for me personal everything is alright referable to the core problem with that system: click (http://www.sysprofile.de/id181781)
Hm. Testing nearly 1h offline - no core problems.
Running online for 2.5 laps - core error.
That's a shame because the new beta is so much fun. Lookin' forward to a fix!
many hours of testing under the belt, probably around 12 hours in total, all of it offline - only one core, and that was the usual thing - changed my bike, returned to the same track, and core.
so, only once for me, which is negligible, including several crashes at Victoria - half on, half off track crashes included. no cores.
that goes hand-in-hand with not being able to join online. so there's definitely a correlation between core errors and online, just from what i'm seeing in the forums.
A couple of friends want to buy the game, they are testing the demo and love the physical! One of them is a modder the Rfactor, which has several circuits created by the same and are a true wonder.
But they say that when the problem is fixed core.exe buy it, while problem continues to be that they will not pay for something you can not play and ... they are right.
I stopped playing a while because I broke your computer, now I have a new one and pretty good, but again with the illusion that Piboso has updated the game and find that now give me more core.exe before, is a little frustrating and depressing.
I'm really tired and want to play online with people, not because it gives you power core.exe, and having to re-enter, or find another server to test if it does not core.exe on that server, and so all the time. At the end of two hours you want to play, you do only 1 hour, for the rest of the time you are entering or trying to play another game server and creating core.exe to give you a bit of seriousness and not fix this problem and It happens to many riders.
I'm happy for those who have the problem of core.exe, but make no mistake, there but you are lucky that you do not pass, not so the other riders have that "fuck" and suffer the problem of core.exe,
so I ask carefully a solution to this problem that we suffer more than half of the drivers.
Piboso, and take many years with this simulator, and continues to have problems. Currently is the more people are using, so I think it's a great time to step up and solve some problems that cause is falling behind. You just have to fix the core.exe and some other problem, that alone, would be GPB very playable and a lot more people would be interested in it because I would not have trouble playing, we all know people who have bought the GPB but did not play because has many problems ... It's time to fix them and then can do great things (championships without problems) and this will attract many more people will be interested in buying it.
Everyone wins, you sell more licenses, and I and the rest of the field, we will be glad to have "the best simulator motorcycle" and to have fun and play without problems, and will gradually getting more and more people, because as I say, if the problem of core.exe tubiese, many more people would have purchased the license.
I play and I played many years simulators (Rfactor, vrcpro, assetocorsa, etc) and I know many people, and those friends tell them that GPB are purchased, but when asked by not cheating them and tell them that "even He has problems", and they tell me when you bought it manages, while no. And like me, many other users know many people who might be interested in buying it, but so that serious problems are not solved, this simulator will not move in the right direction.
It is an opinion of mine, from the point of view of a person who has the GPB and another person who does not have it but are interested in.
I hope you will listen and try to fix the core.exe and other important issues.
impossible to do more than one tour of Victoria on the Italian gp125 server crash core.exe :'( :-\
Quote from: yoshimura on November 04, 2015, 02:30:18 PM
impossible to do more than one tour of Victoria on the Italian gp125 server crash core.exe :'( :-\
Quote from: Hustin_Jawkins on November 03, 2015, 09:53:12 PM
Hm. Testing nearly 1h offline - no core problems.
Running online for 2.5 laps - core error.
That's a shame because the new beta is so much fun. Lookin' forward to a fix!
The same for me.... :-\
Quote from: yoshimura on November 04, 2015, 02:30:18 PM
impossible to do more than one tour of Victoria on the Italian gp125 server crash core.exe :'( :-\
The problem is not our server, because they are excellent !! the problem occurs mostly with the rubberized track.
Unfortunately we can not solve this problem, we have to wait for the solution to be Piboso, or use tracks NDS >:(
I not doubt you, I'm angry at a problem that will probably never be solved !! it is shameful >
I am a customer, I think I have the right to a right software!!
guys, before you get too worked up about customer rights and so on, just try and keep in mind that the sim is still under development.
it can get frustrating, sure, but it's seldom much different for any other software.
once the V1 public release is available, and it doesn't work, then sure, you may complain, but it's a bit early to be getting so upset still.
patience, gentlemen, good things come to those who wait.
Do we have an NDS version of Victoria?
Cheers,
/David "Gonzo" Boda?
Quote from: CapeDoctor on November 04, 2015, 06:58:29 PM
guys, before you get too worked up about customer rights and so on, just try and keep in mind that the sim is still under development.
it can get frustrating, sure, but it's seldom much different for any other software.
once the V1 public release is available, and it doesn't work, then sure, you may complain, but it's a bit early to be getting so upset still.
patience, gentlemen, good things come to those who wait.
As long you are not here. It may not enough ...
I unfortunately took from the beta3 or 4, and I do not remember, but there are people leading from the first beta.
What you say is fine if you take some time, you've just started and this may be a minor problem for you, since she does not know the whole simulator, but there are people who for many years and also the problem of core.exe therefore what you just supposed to wait for many others have already waited too long. We need as a solution to core.exe, we much much much time with that problem, I mean years, many many years.
Development does not mean a bad development, stop apologize >:(
Quote from: davidboda46 on November 04, 2015, 07:04:30 PM
Do we have an NDS version of Victoria?
Cheers,
/David "Gonzo" Boda?
The Victoria track in Beta 6c was NDS, but the Beta7b version is a Dynamic Surface track. Maybe if you or anyone else have the old Beta 6c installer you can extract the Victoria NDS version to test the difference? ;D
Hawk.
PS: If anyone can send me a download link for the beta6c Victoria track I will put it into the Track Downloads Database as an NDS version for current and future comparison testing. ;)
i will post it now the beta 6c victoria, just wait the upload
Quote from: Hawk on November 04, 2015, 07:21:42 PM
Quote from: davidboda46 on November 04, 2015, 07:04:30 PM
Do we have an NDS version of Victoria?
Cheers,
/David "Gonzo" Boda?
The Victoria track in Beta 6c was NDS, but the Beta7b version is a Dynamic Surface track. Maybe if you or anyone else have the old Beta 6c installer you can extract the Victoria NDS version to test the difference? ;D
Hawk.
PS: If anyone can send me a download link for the beta6c Victoria track I will put it into the Track Downloads Database as an NDS version for current and future comparison testing. ;)
Hi Hawk.
I have all the installers since beta2... I've been around a while I guess :P Anyways, since Janaucarre beat me to it I will let him fix it. But for future notification, if anyone needs a beta v2-v7, just pm me. I even have an alpha7 but it's in a password protected rar and I don't know the password... :-\
Cheers,
/David "Gonzo" Boda #46
Quote from: janaucarre on November 04, 2015, 07:30:38 PM
i will post it now the beta 6c victoria, just wait the upload
Brilliant! Thanks Janau and David ;D 8)
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk on November 04, 2015, 07:21:42 PM
The Victoria track in Beta 6c was NDS, but the Beta7b version is a Dynamic Surface track. Maybe if you or anyone else have the old Beta 6c installer you can extract the Victoria NDS version to test the difference? ;D
Hawk.
PS: If anyone can send me a download link for the beta6c Victoria track I will put it into the Track Downloads Database as an NDS version for current and future comparison testing. ;)
Just run the beta6c installer with the "-extract" option (as explained here: http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=24.0 (http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=24.0)).
You'll have all beta6 files in a folder (as if they were installed), so just unzip tracks.pkz ad you'll have beta6's Victoria. You'll probably need to rename it properly (foldler name, flies names and references in .ini and .cfg files).
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 04, 2015, 08:48:45 PM
Quote from: Hawk on November 04, 2015, 07:21:42 PM
The Victoria track in Beta 6c was NDS, but the Beta7b version is a Dynamic Surface track. Maybe if you or anyone else have the old Beta 6c installer you can extract the Victoria NDS version to test the difference? ;D
Hawk.
PS: If anyone can send me a download link for the beta6c Victoria track I will put it into the Track Downloads Database as an NDS version for current and future comparison testing. ;)
Just run the beta6c installer with the "-extract" option (as explained here: http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=24.0 (http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=24.0)).
You'll have all beta6 files in a folder (as if they were installed), so just unzip tracks.pkz ad you'll have beta6's Victoria. You'll probably need to rename it properly (foldler name, flies names and references in .ini and .cfg files).
MaX.
Thanks for the info Max. ;D
Already done the name changing. It will be named "Victoria_NDS" to avoid conflict with the original "Victoria" track. ;)
Hawk.
Quote from: Jose Reina on November 04, 2015, 07:07:05 PM
Quote from: CapeDoctor on November 04, 2015, 06:58:29 PM
guys, before you get too worked up about customer rights and so on, just try and keep in mind that the sim is still under development.
it can get frustrating, sure, but it's seldom much different for any other software.
once the V1 public release is available, and it doesn't work, then sure, you may complain, but it's a bit early to be getting so upset still.
patience, gentlemen, good things come to those who wait.
As long you are not here. It may not enough ...
I unfortunately took from the beta3 or 4, and I do not remember, but there are people leading from the first beta.
What you say is fine if you take some time, you've just started and this may be a minor problem for you, since she does not know the whole simulator, but there are people who for many years and also the problem of core.exe therefore what you just supposed to wait for many others have already waited too long. We need as a solution to core.exe, we much much much time with that problem, I mean years, many many years.
Jose Reina +100000000000 ;) I'm fully agree with you.
This "epic tale"is like "The lord of the rings"
Are 8 years, I am waiting the end of the Movie!
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/ThWO7VZ42eVBS/200.gif)
Quote from: skerp on November 04, 2015, 09:22:38 PM
Quote from: Jose Reina on November 04, 2015, 07:07:05 PM
Quote from: CapeDoctor on November 04, 2015, 06:58:29 PM
guys, before you get too worked up about customer rights and so on, just try and keep in mind that the sim is still under development.
it can get frustrating, sure, but it's seldom much different for any other software.
once the V1 public release is available, and it doesn't work, then sure, you may complain, but it's a bit early to be getting so upset still.
patience, gentlemen, good things come to those who wait.
As long you are not here. It may not enough ...
I unfortunately took from the beta3 or 4, and I do not remember, but there are people leading from the first beta.
What you say is fine if you take some time, you've just started and this may be a minor problem for you, since she does not know the whole simulator, but there are people who for many years and also the problem of core.exe therefore what you just supposed to wait for many others have already waited too long. We need as a solution to core.exe, we much much much time with that problem, I mean years, many many years.
Jose Reina +100000000000 ;) I'm fully agree with you.
This "epic tale"is like "The lord of the rings"
Are 8 years, I am waiting the end of the Movie!
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/ThWO7VZ42eVBS/200.gif)
Lol!!
But once you see the film theres no need to watch it again.. :)
Core.exe crashes are very frustrating, but the fact this is a project keeps me coming back.. All the finished games ive played over the years I get bored of fairly quickly and then await the next game.. ::) with GPB so far theres always a new update to look forward to, even if it takes a while.
yes guys, i know exactly how long it has been - and while i can understand the frustration, it does not condone the attacks on the dev's.
for the record, although i have only joined the forum recently, and been active here only since beta 6, i first tried the demo of b2, several years back, yes,(not 8 years, though, that is an exaggeration)
so i am well aware of the time involved - so not look at the time i have been registered here, as that does not reflect how long i have been aware of the development of this sim.
also, considering the other projects running in tandem - MX, WRS, then it's easier to understand.
if it had taken this length of time, and the devs were ONLY working on GPB, then i might be a little frustrated, too.
whatever the reasons, getting angry at the devs will never help the situation, this should be easy enough to understand, no?
8 years of development not to be heard ::)
appointment in 8 years.
Ok, fact check:
- beta7 generally well received, many people seem to like it
- core.exe errors still very prevalent
- high frustration potential, since one wants to ride but if one gets kicked from the game every 2-3 laps, it is very frustrating
- most core.exe errors obviously correlated to dynamic track feature (NDS servers seem to be rather stable with few core errors)
Getting rid of the dynamic track feature, would help in the short term but not in general. The dynamic track feature is very nice and a very unique feature that helps set Piboso's sims apart. So it should stay, I think that it is out of the discussion. But with the current problems it causes it
needs to be tackled asap.
Proposal to the devs:Would it be possible to start from square one, begin all new with the programming of the dynamic track feature? Then Piboso could upload new versions of the beta for us as a community to test under real conditions. That Piboso could incrementally start to develop a dynamic track feature that works without causing core.exe errors. As soon as the problem might act up bad, it would be easier for him to narrow down the cause of it, because e.g. the problem started to occur when version beta7c1.08 was released while it worked fine when beta7c1.07 was used by the community.
This approach would help in many ways:
- the community would have the advantage of having a beta version that could be used for online races
- this would help to keep frustration down for users who do want to use the sim online, because gameplay is very well
- this would help to keep frustration down for the devs too, as there would be more helpful feedback rather than constant complaining
- the dynamic track feature might be re-coded very easily with the constant feedback from the community
- devs could make use of the generally very helpful community around here
- the core.exe problem does occur on every single sim from Piboso, so it really should be tackled asap, it would help all the projects
- it would help with the reception of the sims among new customers very much
- modders would be much more willing to get alive again; and there have been very nice mods already; getting the modding alive again would make for very good promotion for Piboso's sims; not only GPB, I think that there is much potential for WRS really, if only good modders would be attracted (and they are only attracted if their mods are used by a wide range of players; and they won't come with broken online play)
What do you guys think? What do the devs think?
What I'd do:
- Have an in-game option to allow to use a DS track as an NDS one. This will avoid having to keep 2 copies of each track (the DS one and the NDS one). The option will have to be client side (for offline) and server side (for online). It doesn't look complex to put in place and may be useful even once DS works fine.
- Do some serious debug on the various core reasons. In order:
- Offline (and online) crashes due to ODE/Normalization error: these should be relatively easy to trap, allowing to output detailed debug info when the crash happens. Notice that it may be that all these errors are in fact due to track issues (and not software issues). However, I do think GPB should not crash even if the track has a problem (hole, not connected surfaces, etc).
- Offline crashes (other than ODE): sometimes going to a track, then back to the main menu, then switch bike and go to track again makes GPB crash. It shouldn't happen, it's a sign that something is seriously wrong somewhere.
- Online server going nuts: sometime the online server goes wild, laps are no longer detected, lap times not transferred, live data stops, etc.
- Online client crashes: these are the hardest to work on, for obvious reasons. There's a tiny hope that in fact they are due to one of the reasons of the previously listed problems.
IMPORTANT: if anybody has a systematically reproducible offline crash, you should report it with exact instructions on how to reproduce.I'm sure Piboso does not need to be told how to debug this stuff. But risking to be Cpt. Obvious, what I'd do as last resort would be to provide debug beta versions (maybe just a debug core.exe is enough) with stripped out features. For example (not necessarily meaningful):
- core1.exe with no audio support
- core2.exe with no shaders
- core3.exe with no 3d grass
- etc.
Quote from: CapeDoctor on November 05, 2015, 04:20:54 AM
yes guys, i know exactly how long it has been - and while i can understand the frustration, it does not condone the attacks on the dev's.
for the record, although i have only joined the forum recently, and been active here only since beta 6, i first tried the demo of b2, several years back, yes,(not 8 years, though, that is an exaggeration)
so i am well aware of the time involved - so not look at the time i have been registered here, as that does not reflect how long i have been aware of the development of this sim.
also, considering the other projects running in tandem - MX, WRS, then it's easier to understand.
if it had taken this length of time, and the devs were ONLY working on GPB, then i might be a little frustrated, too.
whatever the reasons, getting angry at the devs will never help the situation, this should be easy enough to understand, no?
No exaggeration
The First "Alpha" of Year 2008. if calculations that we in 2016 soon, the counts are simple. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_K4iRrhPI4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_K4iRrhPI4)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oAc7WPhjSSs/ThPhxDKGJdI/AAAAAAAAAo0/4Qb1kmJa39g/s1600/communication_feedback.gif)
so far, all my b7 testing has been done on Victoria stock circuit.
after reading about several issues others have experienced with problems while going uphill, i decided to try one of my formerly favorite tracks, Mugello, to see what it'd be like. i say formerly, as i now experienced firsthand definite issues on the uphill bits, more specifically the first right hand turn after the straight (still called San Donato?) and then again on the uphill section between Arrabiata 1 and 2.
i have basically the same problem with any bike i've tried there so far - please excuse my noobish attempts at trying to explain it, lol - what it feels like, is that halfway(or some point close to it) the camber of the track suddenly dips, and even though i am trying to stay on one line, with no extra input, the bike suddenly starts turning in a hell of a lot, and very quickly, almost as if it's being dragged into the corner - result, if i don't completely back off the throttle on what is essentially a flatout section, is that the front end dips in and i lose it.
in the first turn, i could see from my rubber marks that i was losing it at virtually the exact same place in the turn every time.
i most certainly did not have this problem with b6.
now, as this is not a stock track, i don't want to bitch to the dev's about it, just thought it should be discussed here with others, maybe to help identify the problem.
as the track is unchanged between versions, the problem must lie with the bike physics - the same problem occurs with stock and mod bikes.
i hope i've explained the issue sufficiently, i've just said what it feels like - as if the track camber suddenly increases positively at an alarmingly quick rate.
obviously it's not the track, so something in the physics is causing this.
although Victoria track does have some uphill/downhill sections, they are not as extreme as Mugello, and i can't say i've experienced the same problem there.
anyway, keen to hear what others experienced here.... :)
i have tried the 500cc at cadwell park and it was a great pleasure, i think that's not the same pleasure with a 1000cc because less leaning
Quote from: Stout Johnson on November 05, 2015, 08:31:52 AM
Ok, fact check:
- beta7 generally well received, many people seem to like it
- core.exe errors still very prevalent
- high frustration potential, since one wants to ride but if one gets kicked from the game every 2-3 laps, it is very frustrating
- most core.exe errors obviously correlated to dynamic track feature (NDS servers seem to be rather stable with few core errors)
Getting rid of the dynamic track feature, would help in the short term but not in general. The dynamic track feature is very nice and a very unique feature that helps set Piboso's sims apart. So it should stay, I think that it is out of the discussion. But with the current problems it causes it needs to be tackled asap.
Proposal to the devs:
Would it be possible to start from square one, begin all new with the programming of the dynamic track feature? Then Piboso could upload new versions of the beta for us as a community to test under real conditions. That Piboso could incrementally start to develop a dynamic track feature that works without causing core.exe errors. As soon as the problem might act up bad, it would be easier for him to narrow down the cause of it, because e.g. the problem started to occur when version beta7c1.08 was released while it worked fine when beta7c1.07 was used by the community.
This approach would help in many ways:
- the community would have the advantage of having a beta version that could be used for online races
- this would help to keep frustration down for users who do want to use the sim online, because gameplay is very well
- this would help to keep frustration down for the devs too, as there would be more helpful feedback rather than constant complaining
- the dynamic track feature might be re-coded very easily with the constant feedback from the community
- devs could make use of the generally very helpful community around here
- the core.exe problem does occur on every single sim from Piboso, so it really should be tackled asap, it would help all the projects
- it would help with the reception of the sims among new customers very much
- modders would be much more willing to get alive again; and there have been very nice mods already; getting the modding alive again would make for very good promotion for Piboso's sims; not only GPB, I think that there is much potential for WRS really, if only good modders would be attracted (and they are only attracted if their mods are used by a wide range of players; and they won't come with broken online play)
What do you guys think? What do the devs think?
Is there any chance of getting a reaction on this proposal from Piboso or at least one of the moderators? Feel free to tell me it is garbage, but some sort of statement would be very welcome.
HI,
that's a good idea, but i can't say for piboso.
Quote from: janaucarre on November 07, 2015, 07:46:57 AM
HI,
that's a good idea, but i can't say for piboso.
a response assistance would be so substantial
Is he? Who knows, cant say I'm inspired to give feedback anymore. Plenty of enthusiastic and interested questions in this thread about the B7 changes, zilch interest in any of it. Surprises me when the founder members ask a question still lol, nutters.
Not after in-depth replies personally, but I can't understand why there is no engagement, but anyway I have no right to expect or hope for anything as I have been told so sitting here with my thumb up my ass is the way ahead. ;)
Edit: only fair to say there has been some interest in the feedback here by the developer but it took more time than we hope. Never mind, apologies for getting on my soap box.
Staring at the connected screen for more than 10 minutes, yes my ports are opened.
Quote from: Boerenlater on November 09, 2015, 07:26:55 PM
Staring at the connected screen for more than 10 minutes, yes my ports are opened.
Not a solution but ... when I connect to an online server I keep on moving the mouse pointer: usually, after a few seconds the mouse pointer freezes (as is the PC was doing some CPU intensive tasks), the it stays frozen for a few seconds and a few seconds after I'm in. If I don't see it freezing I just abort and reconnect, because most of the time it just stays on the connect page. No freeze no party :)
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 09, 2015, 07:42:02 PM
Quote from: Boerenlater on November 09, 2015, 07:26:55 PM
Staring at the connected screen for more than 10 minutes, yes my ports are opened.
Not a solution but ... when I connect to an online server I keep on moving the mouse pointer: usually, after a few seconds the mouse pointer freezes (as is the PC was doing some CPU intensive tasks), the it stays frozen for a few seconds and a few seconds after I'm in. If I don't see it freezing I just abort and reconnect, because most of the time it just stays on the connect page. No freeze no party :)
My mouse also freezes during connection(30 secs to 3mins+ depending on the server and circuit being connected), but then is free again for about 30-60 secs while it brings up the track screen.
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk on November 09, 2015, 08:10:23 PM
My mouse also freezes during connection(30 secs to 3mins+ depending on the server and circuit being connected), but then is free again for about 30-60 secs while it brings up the track screen.
Right. My point is that if you don't get the initial freeze, you can abort: it's never gonna connect.
Dink dink dink dink dink................................................Dink... We're in!
So, after playing B7B for a while now, and also testing on tracks other than Victoria, I have to say that the front end problem is still present, although to a lesser extent than in the B6-betas. The front end tuck now mostly occur in uphill turns, and the problem is worsened even more if the turn is banked. It is also more frequent when applying throttle, lessening the load on the front. It seems to me that the virtual rider is not having enough control (pressure) over the handlebar, when the front goes lighter the wheel and forks start acting like they don't have weight and just starts to swing back and forth. The problem also seem to occur when you have some lean angle and apply the throttle. Then it feels like the front cant decide if it should point into the corner or straight forward, resulting in a handlebar shake.
Having said all this, I still think the main development focus should be on the Core.exe problem. Modders (btw, you guys are doing an awesome job) can make bikes that are more rideable in the meantime, until the core.exe i solved. I love GP-bikes, but it feels like all I've been doing is hot-laps for the last couple of years. For me, racing with (against) others is the nr 1 priority, after so many betas. And as for sales, I would say that a more easy to ride bike (similar to the GP125 ITA) is a good way to get people hooked on the game, and to get them to buy it. Once they have done that, they will probably raise the bar and start "riding for real" on more difficult bikes. Maybe the beta should have 125/moto3 "newbie", like a novice practice bike, and it could also be included in licensed game for offline riding, but not allowed online? Just my 2 cents...
Cheers,
/David "Gonzo" Boda #46
QuoteIt is also more frequent when applying throttle, lessening the load on the front. It seems to me that the virtual rider is not having enough control (pressure) over the handlebar
+1
That´s what i have seen in many replays also. If the load on the front is released leaning back to the upright immediatly the front is lost (e.g. i can replicate that everytime on the downhill section right hander on Victoria).
Quote from: C21 on November 10, 2015, 08:58:30 AM
QuoteIt is also more frequent when applying throttle, lessening the load on the front. It seems to me that the virtual rider is not having enough control (pressure) over the handlebar
+1
That´s what i have seen in many replays also. If the load on the front is released leaning back to the upright immediatly the front is lost (e.g. i can replicate that everytime on the downhill section right hander on Victoria).
+1 here too. Seems like the counter-steer in order to get from the lean in the upward direction seems to cause it. But for me it has improved vastly in b7, it is till there but very much improved from beta6. It is a good thing to discuss though. We should keep this as one of the topics
after core.exe error is eliminated. ;)
Removed this out of the Owners Club area to here. Brands Hatch really shows the uphill/downhill/lean physics anomaly. Trying to decide if it should really happen the other way round. I mean going up a hill on a tight left will lessen the angle from
track to bike but the
bike lean angle wont change. Here the bike lean is increasing until the inevitable crash. Opposite for downhill
Quote"Throwing this info into my theory now - running at max lean (but slowly) around the first corner at Brands you can physically see the amount of lean is reducing linearly with the increase in angle causing the turning arc to widen. On the uphill bends the lean angle increases as the track angle increases causing the 'tightening' of the line - often resulting in such a turn as to lose the rear.
Thinking about myself riding steep angles on a curve - shouldn't that phenomenon be the other way round??
Note there is no real banking in this example either"
https://www.youtube.com/v/nEBnJC8_2B4
All thoughts appreciated. Hope it helps explain what appears to be happening physics wise at least.
I know the virtual rider won't let you lean further than grip allows, so it looks to me like the grip on the front end is diminishing as you go through the downhill bend and the V/rider is lifting the bike to compensate...... Don't ask me what the V/Rider is doing on the uphill bend.... Seems almost like he's leaning and leaning until he loses it. Something isn't right. :-\
Just my thoughts.
Hawk.
same for cadwell park
Quote from: Stout Johnson on November 10, 2015, 09:25:17 PM
+1 here too. Seems like the counter-steer in order to get from the lean in the upward direction seems to cause it.
This has always been the impression, even in past betas, even if it's hard to tell if one loses the front because of the countersteer or if it countersteers because it's losing the front.
Never managed to convince myself of one or the other.
Quote from: Stout Johnson on November 10, 2015, 09:25:17 PM
But for me it has improved vastly in b7, it is till there but very much improved from beta6.
Yep, vastly improved for me too. Proof: Ledenon track is almost rideable with beta7.
Quote from: Napalm Nick on November 10, 2015, 09:33:28 PM
Removed this out of the Owners Club area to here. Brands Hatch really shows the uphill/downhill/lean physics anomaly. Trying to decide if it should really happen the other way round. I mean going up a hill on a tight left will lessen the angle from track to bike but the bike lean angle wont change. Here the bike lean is increasing until the inevitable crash. Opposite for downhill
As said in the past (far past, many were not here at the time) to me it's as simple as that: the virtual rider does not seem to take into account the
local camber of the track(*) so you have to manually compensate for that. When it leans too much, you can compensate by leaning less (avoiding the crash). When it leans too little, there's nothing you can do other than run wide (or not as tight as you'd expect).
(*) By "local camber of the track" I mean not only the basic camber, like in a banked straight, but also the camber induced by the turn being on a slope (case @ brands).
To visualize this: imagine a flat straight section, then take the right border of the section and raise it till reaching a bank angle of 30deg.
- If you run in the middle of the track section in the same direction as the track (i.e. parallel to it) the "local" camber you see is 30deg , with no slope (0 deg).
- But if you run in a direction that is not parallel to the track (e.g. you're climbing, going to the right of the section) then you see less camber and some slope.
- At the extreme, if you're running perpendicular to the track, you see zero camber and a 30deg slope.
If the virtual rider doesn't take this into account (and Nick's video is the best proof of that), then it will misjudge the max lean angle and either lean not enough (and run wide, open the trajectory) or lean too much (and crash).
BTW, nice U turn Nick :)
Thanks for the comments guys helps me get a better understanding.
Brands really shows it well everywhere because most of the corners have steep elevation changes and either no or some banking (wrt sea level ;))
Its like an extreme visualization of Victoria's turn after Lukey.
I mean even the 125ITA is tough to get round here! try it!
Wouldn't it be nice if we could turn off the Riders 'lean compensation characteristic' just to see what happens...
Quote from: Napalm Nick on November 10, 2015, 10:44:43 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if we could turn off the Riders 'lean compensation characteristic' just to see what happens...
Uh ? That piece of code is in charge of translating your (bike) lean input into a steering torque.
Only way to turn it off is to use DST/DSA.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. I can't do it, I can't I can't.... :'( ...<blubbering mess>
Come back Klax all is forgiven.
Well blow me down if my GPBOC 2 beta 7 totally stock server wasn't showing a core and normalization error message when I just checked it.
Never seen the servers 'core out' before :o
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 10, 2015, 10:36:45 PM
Quote from: Stout Johnson on November 10, 2015, 09:25:17 PM
+1 here too. Seems like the counter-steer in order to get from the lean in the upward direction seems to cause it.
This has always been the impression, even in past betas, even if it's hard to tell if one loses the front because of the countersteer or if it countersteers because it's losing the front.
Never managed to convince myself of one or the other.
I'm pretty sure it's the countersteer that causes the crash.
Crashes like these have happened to me a lot of times (in every beta):
https://www.youtube.com/v/mL2iils7lqU
Ah, the old rider animation, so beautiful :DQuote from: HornetMaX on November 10, 2015, 10:36:45 PM
Quote from: Stout Johnson on November 10, 2015, 09:25:17 PM
But for me it has improved vastly in b7, it is till there but very much improved from beta6.
Yep, vastly improved for me too. Proof: Ledenon track is almost rideable with beta7.
Hmm, I have made different observations.
At A1 Ring the understeer effect through the middle sector is much greater than in beta6 and at Mugello the 'oversteer' effect is much greater (in beta6 you could go full lean through turn 9 if you gave it some throttle, completely impossible now).
But I think your onto something, Max.
There is some parameter the virtual rider is not taking into account when calculating the steering force.
Quote from: vin97 on November 10, 2015, 11:36:09 PM
I'm pretty sure it's the countersteer that causes the crash.
It's hard to say for me: is it countersteering because you're asking him to pick up the bike or is it countersteering that much because the front is already gone and when he tries to pick the bike up he has no grip ? I tried to look at the telemetry of such crashes (in past betas) but I haven't been able to conclude. Visually (just looking at the video) it's hard to.
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 10, 2015, 11:43:34 PM
Quote from: vin97 on November 10, 2015, 11:36:09 PM
I'm pretty sure it's the countersteer that causes the crash.
It's hard to say for me: is it countersteering because you're asking him to pick up the bike or is it countersteering that much because the front is already gone and when he tries to pick the bike up he has no grip ? I tried to look at the telemetry of such crashes (in past betas) but I haven't been able to conclude. Visually (just looking at the video) it's hard to.
Won't debug mode show you which it is? It does show the counter steer forces and which way they are applied does it not? So why no use debug mode and recreate the same situation you have in the video and you should be able to see what it causing it, no?
Just a thought of the top of my head and I'm probably wrong, but.... :)
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk on November 10, 2015, 11:47:33 PM
Won't debug mode show you which it is? It does show the counter steer forces and which way they are applied does it not? So why no use debug mode and recreate the same situation you have in the video and you should be able to see what it causing it, no?
No, because what we'd like to know is is the front was gone before or after the countersteer started.
In other words, if the countersteer caused the lost of the front or if the (excessive) countersteer is an effect of it.
It's hard to see visually.
Right, we would need the exact telemetry data for that but I don't really see how the front wheel could have lost traction on it's own in that specific situation.
It tucks in at the exact moment the rider moves the bike upright.
And from my experience, 'true' lowsides (not caused by the countersteer force) look different in that the rider is not able to stand the bike back up, not even by a few degrees (though it is possible for the bike to remain stable at it's current lean angle for some time as also seen in this video).
I also remember being very suprised when I crashed because I was riding in third person view and normally you get some small warnings before you crash (even if you won't have time to react), in this case I thought I made the corner (and didn't even notice that the front was gone) but then the bike just kept falling :D
Well it looks to me like the bike was accelerating hard while still in a lean and GPB is sensing the front end getting light and therefore judging that the grip on the front tyre oversteps it's limits due to the light forces on the front end while leaning at that angle? It's not something that should happen in real life, but as a bug in GPB possible?
Again just a thought. ;)
Hawk.
Yeah vin, your one is a "special" one I'd say, it's not the usual "tuck in, lose the front" crash.
I've had it too multiple times and it seems to me that the reason for the front to lose grip all of the sudden is that you're on the throttle heavily (and in your case you're even shifting gears, which could make it worse if the shifter is not perfect). If the front was already at its limit, the extra effort requested by the thrust and/or by the countersteer (to pick up the bike) could send it past its limit.
But it's likely true that if the virtual rider didn't try that hard to pick up the bike, you probably wouldn't crash. But it's not easy to put this kind of "hey I'm sliding the front but I don't panic" behaviour in the virtual rider.
I wouldn't say that it's a special kind of lowside.
In this one the cause is just much more obvious precisely because the front is so close to the limit.
The shifting was done after the front was already gone.
Quoteit leans too much, you can compensate by leaning less (avoiding the crash). When it leans too little, there's nothing you can do other than run wide (or not as tight as you'd expect).
Fully agree on that.
If you lean less (e.g about 50 degrees) no crash, if you lean more (e.g. about 60 degrees) -> crash , loosing front.
QuoteNo, because what we'd like to know is is the front was gone before or after the countersteer started.
In other words, if the countersteer caused the lost of the front or if the (excessive) countersteer is an effect of it.
That´s the problem we can not analyse in detail.
Do we loose the front because:
- maximum tyre grip exceeded
- too much countersteer by VR at leaning upright
- VR countersteer to prevent loss of the front (nothing you can see on the data)
One question..
As I can configure the GPBikes.ini to save more repetition time
Quote from: Davide74 on November 11, 2015, 10:50:01 PM
One question..
As I can configure the GPBikes.ini to save more repetition time
Under [Core] in gpbikes.ini :
Quotereplay = 100000000
(in this way are 100mb)
Quote from: Blackheart on November 11, 2015, 11:00:56 PM
Quote from: Davide74 on November 11, 2015, 10:50:01 PM
One question..
As I can configure the GPBikes.ini to save more repetition time
Under [Core] in gpbikes.ini :
Quotereplay = 100000000
(in this way are 100mb)
Thanks mate!
guys i have a problem with GPbikes beta7 as it tried to enter the online servers but does not enter , let logging in for over an hour but nothing happened , did everything desabibiltei firewall antvirus and no use
Can anyone help me?
Happens the same to me. The only way to be online is create a server.
Quote from: Rodrigovis on November 14, 2015, 09:47:25 PM
guys i have a problem with GPbikes beta7 as it tried to enter the online servers but does not enter , let logging in for over an hour but nothing happened , did everything desabibiltei firewall antvirus and no use
Can anyone help me?
Be sure to have the latest bikemod installed.
Rodrigo - also read this from earlier in this thread http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=2778.msg43335#msg43335
and you must find an NDS track to try and connect to that. You are likely to be affected worse because of the distance. Maybe that will work better than the Dynamic tracks, let us know.
PS: is the Victoria NDS version still coming I cant remember what was decided?
thank you guys
I'll see what I can do here que ...
MX Bikes is running fine only GPbikes and wrs exhibit this problem .
the computer with this new facility was formatted not installed anything in the game to try to get it as standard .
Quote from: Napalm Nick on November 10, 2015, 09:33:28 PM
Removed this out of the Owners Club area to here. Brands Hatch really shows the uphill/downhill/lean physics anomaly. Trying to decide if it should really happen the other way round. I mean going up a hill on a tight left will lessen the angle from track to bike but the bike lean angle wont change. Here the bike lean is increasing until the inevitable crash. Opposite for downhill
Quote"Throwing this info into my theory now - running at max lean (but slowly) around the first corner at Brands you can physically see the amount of lean is reducing linearly with the increase in angle causing the turning arc to widen. On the uphill bends the lean angle increases as the track angle increases causing the 'tightening' of the line - often resulting in such a turn as to lose the rear.
Thinking about myself riding steep angles on a curve - shouldn't that phenomenon be the other way round??
Note there is no real banking in this example either"
https://www.youtube.com/v/nEBnJC8_2B4
All thoughts appreciated. Hope it helps explain what appears to be happening physics wise at least.
this is game killer for many my friends and peoples who want good bike sim. piboso why not fix bugs first and then add more things like exhaust smoke which has nothing to do with physics. fix physics and core then finish the product.just my opinion and i like the sim
thanks for the previous video showing the angle increase/decrease.
it's illustrating the exact same problem i was trying to describe in an earlier post here: http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=2778.msg42941#msg42941
as opposed to my backward way of trying to describe the problem, this illustrates it clearly and concisely.
the good and the bad.....
the good - it's not just me (lol)
the bad - obviously, needs to be addressed by devs.
8)
I think it's not acceptable:
If I lean a bike in a 100 km/h corner lean too much in reality is crazy, because there is force centrifuge (maybe it could be in a 20 km/h corner, but not in a faster corner). If I throtteling or braking in the corner OK, but without that I think it's not only enervant, it's very unrealistic. Under this circumstances I no interest to buy the complete version.
Olaf, this is the reason we have these threads discussing problems - the better feedback we can provide, the easier for the devs to solve it.
to simply say 'it's bad, i will not buy' does not help the situation, which is: still under development.
if this was the final product, i would be happy to join in the shouts of unhappy customers, but it's simply too early to be saying those things.
let us hope the physics will be further improved - already, this beta 7 version physics is much better than beta 6, so improvements continue... ;)
With regard to the angle issues during turns, it might be worth comparing the lean angles you're finding to on-boards for SBK and the likes to see how well they match up. I ran a couple of laps around Phillip Island on a moto 3 (Beta 6 mod but still runs around fine), and compared the lean angles to a gopro video from when I raced my Ninja 250 there a few months ago. To be honest, the angles all seem pretty good, at least for the low-speed bike end of things. That's not to say there isn't an issue though, it does seem to be fairly upright for the turn in the video. That said, the turn there is pretty tricky, I ran a track day there in a mates MX5 a couple of years ago and even in a car it gets very light until you start to head back uphill.
That said, I just had a go at Brands then, and it does seem that the front washes away considerably more than what I would expect. maybe it's something to do with running bikes from Beta 6 though?
Quote from: TimT36 on November 20, 2015, 12:39:21 PM
That said, I just had a go at Brands then, and it does seem that the front washes away considerably more than what I would expect. maybe it's something to do with running bikes from Beta 6 though?
PiBoso has already isolated and debugged an issue with the computed bike lean angle in B7. We eagerly await B8 :)
Saweeet!
im geting core exe when i change category from gp1000 to gp500 in menu,it goes away if i reinstall clean but i have done that 4 times already.....
Quote from: valentinik46 on November 21, 2015, 07:15:58 PM
im geting core exe when i change category from gp1000 to gp500 in menu,it goes away if i reinstall clean but i have done that 4 times already.....
Best thing to do until Piboso solves the problem is to just restart GPB each time you change bikes/category. Works for me. ;)
Hawk.
ok thanks hawk
one thing i realy dont understand is that when downshifting and braking loads of times gear dont change ... i dont see why it happens
I remember having the same problem I think I was using to much rear brake
yeah mostly with the rear brake but there is no logic on that i belive
You only need to brake a touch less on the rear and you will be ok then
Why would you use the rear brake when downshifting?? ??? if you brake hard (front brake) and the rear end goes light or lifts.. rear brake is the last thing you want ;D
Quote from: Daniel_F on November 22, 2015, 08:00:09 PM
yeah mostly with the rear brake but there is no logic on that i belive
If you're using the clutch than yes, using rear brake should not prevent from downshifting. But it does at the moment, it has already been reported (and it's a bug I think).
But if you're not using the clutch, then it's normal.
but what if the rear wheel is in the air.. clutch is in, foot (finger ::)) is on the rear brake and stops the wheel. what happens when you release the clutch?
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on November 22, 2015, 09:03:56 PM
but what if the rear wheel is in the air.. clutch is in, foot (finger ::)) is on the rear brake and stops the wheel. what happens when you release the clutch?
This! Hehe! ;D ;D
http://www.youtube.com/v/wl1ruqzPCPc
Hawk.
i just dont understand what would prevent you from downshifting while rear braking or braking since its a total independent systems
EngageMaxSpeedDiff this is the paramater in the cfg file (if you go up in the numbers) that stop that behavior but i dont understand the meaning of that parameter
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on November 22, 2015, 09:03:56 PM
but what if the rear wheel is in the air.. clutch is in, foot (finger ::)) is on the rear brake and stops the wheel. what happens when you release the clutch?
Either the clutch slips, or the brake disc slips, or the engine stalls.
Quote from: Daniel_F on November 22, 2015, 09:18:58 PM
i just dont understand what would prevent you from downshifting while rear braking or braking since its a total independent systems
EngageMaxSpeedDiff this is the paramater in the cfg file (if you go up in the numbers) that stop that behavior but i dont understand the meaning of that parameter
If enough torque is being transferred by the gearbox (engine to rear wheel, or vice versa), you may not be able to disengage the current gear. The parameter that drives that is: DisengageMaxTorque (1000 for the murasama).
EngageMaxSpeedDiff checks something else (namely, that the speed difference with the gear to engage is not too big).
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 22, 2015, 09:31:34 PM
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on November 22, 2015, 09:03:56 PM
but what if the rear wheel is in the air.. clutch is in, foot (finger ::)) is on the rear brake and stops the wheel. what happens when you release the clutch?
Either the clutch slips, or the brake disc slips, or the engine stalls.
So i guess in GPB that would mean... ''Clunk'' no downshift?
need to try this now :D would the brakes or clutch actually slip in GPB?
or if chain is loose it can jump a teeth :P yes that was the parameter wrongly copied ... anyway the rider (even without shift help) he pulls the cluth (at least visual) when downshifting
Now that I think about it, it's almost certainly a bug.
It happens to me a lot and the big problem is, that it sounds like the bike just downshifted but it actually didn't.
When braking near the limit, this bug will send you wide because you don't have enough engine brake.
The fact that you get the downshifting sound makes me think that it's a bug.
I also don't get why you are not able to upshift when riding over curbs (on a lot of tracks).
That explanation would probably suggest a fix to the 125ITA and sometimes the FZ which will not shift sometimes in hard braking or accelerating areas. Not shifting when I click it (usually downshift) is the main reason I fall off these bikes! Maybe those torque settings need a visit?
Quote from: Daniel_F on November 22, 2015, 10:00:03 PM
anyway the rider (even without shift help) he pulls the cluth (at least visual) when downshifting
I checked on the varese (no shift help): I don't see the rider pulling the clutch when downshifting.
If you have shift help on (shift help, not auto shift of course), then it pulls the clutch when shifting down and it's visible.
Quote from: vin97 on November 22, 2015, 10:28:11 PM
It happens to me a lot and the big problem is, that it sounds like the bike just downshifted but it actually didn't.
Just tried on the varese (no shift help + it has no shifter): brake with the rear, try to downshift (or upshift) = no shifting, but no sound at all. To me that's correct. If you brake lightly, it will shift. That's the max disengage torque in action.
The only bug I see is the one already reported: pull the clutch, brake with the rear, you can't up/downshift. That's wrong for me.
The other weird thing I see is the one that has always been here: on bikes with no shifter and with shift help off, I don't see why we are able to shift up without lifting the throttle and to shift down without using the clutch. Eventually I may be persuaded that we can shift up without using the clutch nor lifting the throttle, but not that we can shift down without the clutch (in any situation).
just tested varese and indeed no hand movement but on murasama there is... but if its that way we would never ever could downshift without a clutch or a broken gearbox :P rear braking or not
Quote from: Daniel_F on November 22, 2015, 11:59:32 PM
just tested varese and indeed no hand movement but on murasama there is...
True. Guess that Piboso overdid the "shifter" thing a bit on the murasama.
Quote from: Daniel_F on November 22, 2015, 11:59:32 PM
but if its that way we would never ever could downshift without a clutch or a broken gearbox :P rear braking or not
Yeah that's what I think too.
We should probably have 2 shift help options (shift up help and shift down help), then:
- For bikes with no gearbox electronics: shift up help lifts the throttle a bit hen shifting, shift down help pinches the clutch a bit when shifting. If shift help down is off, you can't shift down without using the clutch. If shift help up is off, you can't shift up without lifting the throttle a bit.
- For bikes with a simple shifter (e.g the murasama): you can shift up without lifting the throttle (no matter the setting of the shift up help). Shifting down still requires clutch or shift down help.
- For bikes with seamless gearboxes (let's say motogp bike since 2014): you can shift up and down without lifting the throttle nor using the clutch, no matter the shift up/down help status.
All the above, plus the bug fix "I brake with the rear, clutch fully pulled, and I can't shift down".
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 22, 2015, 11:39:21 PM
Quote from: vin97 on November 22, 2015, 10:28:11 PM
It happens to me a lot and the big problem is, that it sounds like the bike just downshifted but it actually didn't.
Just tried on the varese (no shift help + it has no shifter): break with the rear, try to downshift (or upshift) = no shifting, but no sound at all.
Possible but I was not talking about the two-strokes since they don't have engine brake anyway.
Also, this happens regularly to me
without using the rear brake (the rear wheel is just light).
QuoteThe parameter that drives that is: DisengageMaxTorque (1000 for the murasama).
Sorry to coorect you Max but the value is "100" not 1000.
If it is 1000 it will ever disengage..
Quote from: C21 on November 23, 2015, 07:18:11 AM
QuoteThe parameter that drives that is: DisengageMaxTorque (1000 for the murasama).
Sorry to coorect you Max but the value is "100" not 1000.
If it is 1000 it will never disengage..
Uh it may be 100 (can't check now but I can believe you).
But if it is 100 and we put it to 1000, then shouldn't it always disengage ?
I mean, the lower the DisengageMaxTorque, the more likely is you can't shift down (e.g. when braking with the rear) ?
Quote from: vin97 on November 23, 2015, 01:06:27 AM
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 22, 2015, 11:39:21 PM
Quote from: vin97 on November 22, 2015, 10:28:11 PM
It happens to me a lot and the big problem is, that it sounds like the bike just downshifted but it actually didn't.
Just tried on the varese (no shift help + it has no shifter): break with the rear, try to downshift (or upshift) = no shifting, but no sound at all.
Possible but I was not talking about the two-strokes since they don't have engine brake anyway.
Also, this happens regularly to me without using the rear brake (the rear wheel is just light).
The engine brake has nothing to do with the problem, so using a 2s is OK.
Actually it is better, because if you use the murasama, everything is "messed up" by the fact it has a shifter.
Personally I haven't had issue with downshifting with the murasama.
QuoteUh it may be 100 (can't check now but I can believe you).
But if it is 100 and we put it to 1000, then shouldn't it always disengage ?
right, corrected that.
edit:
tried that (change the value at Murusama to 1000), but GPB crashed (core.exe after chosing track and start connecting).
Obviously the value is beyond the limit ;)
Quote from: C21 on November 23, 2015, 07:55:53 AM
tried that (change the value at Murusama to 1000), but GPB crashed (core.exe after chosing track and start connecting).
Obviously the value is beyond the limit ;)
Hmm weird ... it may indicate it's not what we think it is ...
::)
The engine brake does matter in the four strokes because when you count on the engine helping the bike to slow down, you will not make the corner if the engine is still in a too tall gear.
I am not saying that the engine brake causes the bug but it definitely occurs in the four strokes regularly (for whatever reason) while it doesn't seem to in the two-strokes (at least not as often, I'm pretty sure that it actually did happen a few times).
Maybe I'll upload a video of the bug.
To clarify, it only happens in straight hard braking zones when the rear wheel has almost no traction. But I definitely wasn't hallucinating all the time.
There is a false downshifting sound and the rear wheel even jumps up but the gear does not change.
The part about the rear wheel jumping is even more strange, now that I think about it.
It's like the gear is actually engaged for a split second but instantantly jumps out again.
Quote from: vin97 on November 23, 2015, 10:23:25 AM
::)
The engine brake does matter in the four strokes because when you count on the engine helping the bike to slow down, you will not make the corner if the engine is still in a too tall gear.
Really ? Nice to know ::) (look, I can make the eyes too !!)
When you brake with the rear and can't downshift, you don't hear any sound (which is correct, as the current gear can't even disengage).
If you hear a false downshifting sound, it's probably a gear that can't engage (and not the current one that can't disengage), which may be due to something else (the max speed difference, likely, which is unrelated to braking or engine brake).
The rear "jumping" when braking and downshifting hard is totally normal and you can see in many real videos.
Rear unloaded, engine brake makes it slide (even lock, on some occasions), which compresses the rear suspension, which kind of sends it up in the air, where the suspension extends back, then it falls again on the track etc etc. No bug, it's actually a very nice thing that shows how good GPB physics is.
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 23, 2015, 11:02:12 AMThe rear "jumping" when braking and downshifting hard is totally normal and you can see in many real videos.
Rear unloaded, engine brake makes it slide (even lock, on some occasions), which compresses the rear suspension, which kind of sends it up in the air, where the suspension extends back, then it falls again on the track etc etc. No bug, it's actually a very nice thing that shows how good GPB physics is.
The bug is that this happens without the gear actually engaging (in these situations I also get the false sound).
Quote from: vin97 on November 23, 2015, 11:57:18 AM
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 23, 2015, 11:02:12 AMThe rear "jumping" when braking and downshifting hard is totally normal and you can see in many real videos.
Rear unloaded, engine brake makes it slide (even lock, on some occasions), which compresses the rear suspension, which kind of sends it up in the air, where the suspension extends back, then it falls again on the track etc etc. No bug, it's actually a very nice thing that shows how good GPB physics is.
The bug is that this happens without the gear actually engaging (in these situations I also get the false sound).
It can happen even if you just shut the throttle and the rear is light enough. To me it's unrelated to the downshift issue(s).
Obviously the rear wheel can jump under braking even when you are not downshifting at all.
I have enough experience in GP Bikes by now that I can tell whether it was caused by downshifting or not.
Look at this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsuGTkUL01c&t=4m53s) I recorded a while back.
These are examples of two different kinds of rear wheel jumping in direct succession.
On the first braking maneuver, the last downshift to first gear clearly makes the rear wheel jump up and on the second braking maneuver it's just the rear wheel being light and the suspension doing it's thing.
I just thought it might be helpful to know that not only can you get false audio but also completely messed up physics (bike behaves as if the gear was engaged shortly).
Sadly, I don't have a video for this specific situation handy right now.
Quote from: vin97 on November 23, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
I just thought it might be helpful to know that not only can you get false audio but also completely messed up physics (bike behaves as if the gear was engaged shortly).
Sadly, I don't have a video for this specific situation handy right now.
Never seen that: if you stumble on it again, you should post the replay (the telemetry too, if possible).
I noticed an odd one after the first straight at spa- only just started using manual rear brake so still getting used to it.
Too much rear brake so bike wont downshift but pressed down shift a few times- OK fair enough probably would not try this in real life. Let off front brake, turn in and bike down shifts on it own - lose rear - bit strange.
Is it that i have a 'simulated' incomplete downshift that then occurs once the gearbox load is removed or just a bug?
core.exe feedback:
for me stability is working fine with beta7b.
no cores at all for me until now.
sometimes when i use rly hard front brakes (talking about murasama) also dont downshift but only from 3rd to 2nd and 1st so i belive engine break plays its part there (as rear break) to dont let me downshift,
i belive its engine break because it never happened in the 2t bikes (i belive not 100% sure here)
anyway to downshift a bike with a conventional gearbox you need to use the clutch, if the virtual rider without helps dont use the clutch we shoulnt be able to downshift as we do... and if he does it shoulnt never be a fail downshift cause of the brakes or engine braking
By the way just tested to change the parameter to 5000 (yes im an animal :P) and downshift works just fine
Quote from: h106frp on November 23, 2015, 01:19:51 PM
Too much rear brake so bike wont downshift but pressed down shift a few times- OK fair enough probably would not try this in real life. Let off front brake, turn in and bike down shifts on it own - lose rear - bit strange.
Uh, you're not using the pre-load thing right ? (in the settings/inputs, when you define the buttons to up/down shift).
Quote from: Daniel_F on November 23, 2015, 01:49:28 PM
sometimes when i use rly hard front brakes (talking about murasama) also dont downshift but only from 3rd to 2nd and 1st so i belive engine break plays its part there (as rear break) to dont let me downshift,
Yes, this can happen. But when you're unable to downshift, do you hear a shift sound or nothing at all (like when you use rear brake) ?
To me: no sound = gearbox unable to disengage due to maxdisengagetorque limit (this can happen if braking with the rear or due to engine brake). No bug.
If you hear a sound and the gear still doesn't go in (what vin7 was saying) then it's something else.
No, not using the preload setting. Now i know not to try rear brake/downshift its not an issue just ease of the brake before downshifting, just an observation from the other day on spa.
Always though preload was only for upshift and you always use the clutch for downshifting
Quote from: h106frp on November 23, 2015, 02:22:55 PM
No, not using the preload setting. Now i know not to try rear brake/downshift its not an issue just ease of the brake before downshifting, just an observation from the other day on spa.
Still strange it "downshifted by itself" ...
Quote from: h106frp on November 23, 2015, 02:22:55 PM
Always though preload was only for upshift and you always use the clutch for downshifting
Don't know, to be honest I have no idea why we have a pre-load shifting option in GPB.
The old way of quickshifting, maybe for the older 2 stroke race bike support. Hold the shift against the loaded driven gear (wont engage) and as soon as you shut the throttle a bit it will slip into the next gear with no clutch (as i understand it). Obviously prone to disaster with downshifting ;D
Quote from: h106frp on November 23, 2015, 02:30:54 PM
The old way of quickshifting, maybe for the older 2 stroke race bike support. Hold the shift against the loaded driven gear (wont engage) and as soon as you shut the throttle a bit it will slip into the next gear with no clutch (as i understand it). Obviously prone to disaster with downshifting ;D
Yeah but as GBP quickshifts even without preload (at least at the moment) ...
To be fair, you will lose a lot of time if you don't shut the throttle shortly when upshifting on the 500s because you will just highside if you upshift at any mroe than let's say 50% throttle.
Quote from: vin97 on November 23, 2015, 02:54:49 PM
To be fair, you will lose a lot of time if you don't shut the throttle shortly when upshifting on the 500s because you will just highside if you upshift at any mroe than let's say 50% throttle.
On a straight ?
Quote from: vin97 on November 23, 2015, 02:54:49 PM
To be fair, you will lose a lot of time if you don't shut the throttle shortly when upshifting on the 500s because you will just highside if you upshift at any mroe than let's say 50% throttle.
yes we should always shut the throttle to shift up on any bike without a quick shifter. no need for clutch either.
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 23, 2015, 11:02:12 AM
The rear "jumping" when braking and downshifting hard is totally normal and you can see in many real videos.
Rear unloaded, engine brake makes it slide (even lock, on some occasions), which compresses the rear suspension, which kind of sends it up in the air, where the suspension extends back, then it falls again on the track etc etc. No bug, it's actually a very nice thing that shows how good GPB physics is.
Yeah nice one! this is probably my favorite part about GPB.. 8)
this is also why im a little baffled as to why some guys are using the rear brake ''whilst'' downshifting.. you either let the clutch out slowly (too fast too soon it will give you some nasty chatter) or blip and rev match.. rear brake as well would be dangerous (probably.. never tried)
to me when i get false downshift i hear a sound but no normal shifting sound like gears scrathing sound maybe i can make a video if you want
Quote from: Daniel_F on November 23, 2015, 08:06:23 PM
to me when i get false downshift i hear a sound but no normal shifting sound like gears scrathing sound maybe i can make a video if you want
Yes please, if you can. Maybe that's what vin96 was describing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMM5a0pvEO8&feature=youtu.be
wtf lol :o ;D
That is what I mean, only that it also happens when you are not using the rear brake at all and as I said, it's not only the sound but the bike even reacts physically to the false downshift which cannot be seen properly in this video because the rear wheel is just sliding around.
another one only front braking on this one (engine break at max to force the behavior)
https://youtu.be/k2TDR-ZBXGw
very good demonstration of the bug!
OK, I think I see what's happening, at least partially.
With the 990 when you downshift it pinches the clutch briefly, automatically (don't ask me why, I don't know) and it also blips the throttle, even with shift help off.
So in the two videos the sounds you hear is the clutch that disengages and re-engages (and it's normal that this shakes the bike up a bit).
You can see this clearly if you enable the physics debug mode: each time you downshift, the clutch gets pinched and the throttle blipped.
On the varese, there's no "auto-pitch-the-clutch-when-downshifting", so this doesn't happen: you can't downshift, but you don't upset the bike (and you don't hear the weird sound).
BTW, I tried to set "SemiAutomatic" to zero (in the gearbox section of the bike .cfg) and I was expecting the "auto-pitch-the-clutch-when-downshifting" to disappear, but it was still there.
Anyway, I still think what I said before (plus the fact I don't see why on the 990 we'd have an auto-clutch+blip when shifting down):
QuoteThe only bug I see is the one already reported: pull the clutch, brake with the rear, you can't up/downshift. That's wrong for me.
The other weird thing I see is the one that has always been here: on bikes with no shifter and with shift help off, I don't see why we are able to shift up without lifting the throttle and to shift down without using the clutch. Eventually I may be persuaded that we can shift up without using the clutch nor lifting the throttle, but not that we can shift down without the clutch (in any situation).
I think that solving the bug (can't shift while pulling the clutch and rear braking) may already take away some strange behaviours. I'll open a thread (or two) in the bug section, let's see.
Sounds plausible.
I might do some tests with the Varese, though because I seem to remember the same thing happening sometimes.
I could be wrong, it was a couple of months ago, before I started revmatching manually.
yesterday i was on the italian misano server with more than 13 riders.
i got 2 cores in the garage while refreshing the tyres.
one more joining the garage from track with the "esc" button and another one entering the setup section while in pitwindow.
Could one have the thought of developers on the opinions, criticisms on the forum,is whether or not we have the credit, all our formulations.tks.
as talking to a wall......
Hi,
last time i played GPbikes was 2 yers ago, now i downloaded it again, seems that physics still a bit glitchy.
tried to race online, but i cannot connect to any server... It says missing bikes or mismatch with the track? What happend to that game? Reminds me a bit on rfactor, where you have to downloads lots of modified stuff to race online. :-\
Yes go to the Bikes section to download mods. Stock bikes are a bit broken at the moment.
Quote from: KawaKasper on December 08, 2015, 06:58:30 PM
Hi,
last time i played GPbikes was 2 yers ago, now i downloaded it again, seems that physics still a bit glitchy.
tried to race online, but i cannot connect to any server... It says missing bikes or mismatch with the track? What happend to that game? Reminds me a bit on rfactor, where you have to downloads lots of modified stuff to race online. :-\
HERE (http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=2626.0)is a link to the Bike MOD. I contains most current bikes and will be updated on the 14th with all current bikes.
Tracks can be downloaded HERE (http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=45.0)
And you can have a look HERE (http://stats.gp-bikes.com/servers.php) to see all servers running with the bikes and tracks listed
Hope this helps :D
The game keeps crashing. Seriously, this needs to be fixed. >:(
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on December 09, 2015, 12:41:33 PM
The game keeps crashing. Seriously, this needs to be fixed. >:(
you show more infomation of crashing to fix
My final post (and video) on the
inspiring(!) Beta 7b release, for 2015!
Just wanted to re-iterate what is fast becoming top of my list of fixes due to how it affects my fun of onboard view, fast and exciting rides. More prevalent now due to recent bike releases (awesome) and Hotlap track choices.
So the video below is nothing new and is only a demonstration of what our dear H first posted about here (http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=2900.0). That's the place for more discussion about it. Thanks H. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/v/5aYtId8bViE&feature=youtu.be
Happy New Year to you all. ;D
Quote from: Napalm Nick on October 29, 2015, 04:45:33 PM
Other:
Server findings so far (probably needs someone else to check too):
fix: whitelist and blacklist update (EG: allow me to change the whitelist when someone joins an event LATE! ::)
Only seems to work with removing a player from whitelist then using update command. Adding a player - no change
PiBoSo - please note despite what I said above, the whitelist
will now update in B7b when adding a player - I have retested it now some port conflicts were sorted. Thank you!