GP Bikes beta6c

[Hawk]

Agree with you guys.

I can understand why Piboso changed the respawn time to respawn straight away; this is something everyone was asking for due to complaints that waiting for a safe gap  respawn in beta 5 often caused a situation were you could be losing nearly a whole lap on occasions which  totally ruined a riders race. So yes, I do like the immediate respawn but it just needs the respawn position tweaking so that as others have said here, the rider respawns on the side of the track.
The only problem I can see with respawning off the track surface is that there must be circuits(especially anyone who creates a street circuit) were there could be a wall immediately off track surface were respawning a rider off track would respawn the rider either inside a wall or building or behind those objects and unable to get back on track surface?? Just a thought. 
So I think in the long term, the best option would be to respawn right on the edge of the track surface were, okay, at times there will be collisions, but I personally think those collisions will be cut down by 99%.
Either this or we just accept that the only circuits suitable for GBP are the purpose built race tracks that I think will always have enough room just off the track surface to position a respawned rider to get back on track?

Just a few thoughts to bear in mind. 


Hawk.

Somehow being able to force the respawn to be on the opposite side of the AI path through the area could be the best option..... if it is even possible to program such thing.

What AI path? There isn't any AI in GPB and as far as I know, Piboso is not going to implement any AI into GPB.

Seems like the current respawn points are on the centre line of the track surface at the moment. So seems the best option is to do what happened in beta 5, which was to respawn on an offset of the track centre line taking the track width into account.


Hawk.

[HornetMaX]

GP Bikes simulates frame flex, separate for front and rear, assuming the engine is infinitely stiff.
Swingarm lateral stiffness is included in the rear stiffness.
Front longitudinal flex and swingarm torsional stiffness are simulated too, but unused because they are too stiff in real life.
Forks flex is not simulated, because in real life they are as stiff as possible to allow sliding.


Edit: correction about swingarm flex, after a check of the source data.

Just to be sure: you've introduced two "springs" (or at least two are currently in use), where exactly are they located ?
Because what I see in the files does not seem to match what you're saying above.

Also, it's not because the fork is "as rigid as possible" that it's not flexible: the effect is indeed unwanted (unlike for the swingarm), but you can't have bigger fork tubes due to their impact on aerodynamics.

MaX.

P.S.
Am I wrong or my post in reply to the above just disappeared ? I didn't even get a notifiation about the delete  Weird

[dude]

Beta4 was the best for me cause it had the most "stable" physics and I could do a lot of laps without any shake, lowsider or shaking.

[yoshimura]

Beta4 was the best for me cause it had the most "stable" physics and I could do a lot of laps without any shake, lowsider or shaking.

with good setup the motorcycles are very good

[Hawk]

Beta4 was the best for me cause it had the most "stable" physics and I could do a lot of laps without any shake, lowsider or shaking.

with good setup the motorcycles are very good

+1

Hawk.

[Abigor]

Beta4 was the best for me cause it had the most "stable" physics and I could do a lot of laps without any shake, lowsider or shaking.

with good setup the motorcycles are very good

Can you give me a good setup on 990 ?.....Please 

[Hawk]

Beta4 was the best for me cause it had the most "stable" physics and I could do a lot of laps without any shake, lowsider or shaking.

with good setup the motorcycles are very good

Can you give me a good setup on 990 ?.....Please 

I'm sure Yoshi was talking about a bike(like the R6) who's physics file was more or less in proper order, not the default bikes for sure. The default bikes need their physics file/s sorting out or tweaking as Piboso has mentioned. 

Hawk.

[yoshimura]

Beta4 was the best for me cause it had the most "stable" physics and I could do a lot of laps without any shake, lowsider or shaking.

with good setup the motorcycles are very good

Can you give me a good setup on 990 ?.....Please 

I'm sure Yoshi was talking about a bike(like the R6) who's physics file was more or less in proper order, not the default bikes for sure. The default bikes need their physics file/s sorting out or tweaking as Piboso has mentioned. 

Hawk.

exact thought.Hawk_UK

[SwarleyRuiz]

Perdon por escribir solo en castellano pero es que el ingles y yo no nos llevamos muy bien.

Tengo un problema con el skin del piloto y es que cuando guardo el tga dentro del juego me aparece todo en negro cuando es blanco y no se como hacer para que se vea correcto.

gracias de antemano, saludos.

impr pant

[SwarleyRuiz]

Perdon por escribir solo en castellano pero es que el ingles y yo no nos llevamos muy bien.

Tengo un problema con el skin del piloto y es que cuando guardo el tga dentro del juego me aparece todo en negro cuando es blanco y no se como hacer para que se vea correcto.

gracias de antemano, saludos.

impr pant

?

JAJAJAJAJA Hacer una captura de pantalla

[hygroovy]

Just to say I'm loving 6c. I get a much better feel for the bike's handling (which is a hard thing to define), and its not quite so harsh (I can touch the kerbs when I'm doing my attempt at a Marquez impression!). At the same time, it doesn't seem like its just been made easier, it seems...more real. And that's the aim right?

[davidboda46]

After playing Beta6c for a while, I've come to the following conclusions:
1. Front way to light, you end up "dragging it" through the turn, even with the slightest throttle. At low speeds the handle bar shakes when the wheel is at an angle, like the bike can't decide if it should stand up or lean into the corner.

2. The effect of the rear suspension creates a chain reaction to the front suspension that can't be stopped. After power sliding out of the corner the rear suspension decompress which seems to compress the front and sends it into an uncontrollable wobble. Maybe the chassis flex also has a part to play in this. Basically it feels like the bike behaves like an unstoppable rocking chair.

3. The front can't handle camber. As soon as there is camber in a corner the front folds, either straight away, or when you are trying to straighten the bike up. The "dragging" effect described in "1".

Question? Is the bike to reactive to the inputs, or is it the virtual rider that messes up the balance of the bike, or is it both? I still think that Beta4 had the best feeling so far. At least when you fell, you usually understood why, In Beta6c, most of the time it feels like a mystery when you hit the dirt. I like the feeling of the rear in beta6c, so if that could be combined with more of the front feeling from Beta4, it would be a step in the right direction according to me.

PS: I am just talking about how the bikes feel, don't know about the "real"-psychics behind it. I've tried the standard bikes, and the mods: the 600:s, the 1000: and the Moto2 bikes (mostly on Victoria). I think the psychics work better with the less powerful machines because the input effects are simply less. The more powerful the bike is, the more obvious the problems become. DS

Those are my 2 cents at the moment...

Cheers,

/David "Gonzo" Boda #46   
   

[PeterV]

After playing Beta6c for a while, I've come to the following conclusions:
1. Front way to light, you end up "dragging it" through the turn, even with the slightest throttle. At low speeds the handle bar shakes when the wheel is at an angle, like the bike can't decide if it should stand up or lean into the corner.

2. The effect of the rear suspension creates a chain reaction to the front suspension that can't be stopped. After power sliding out of the corner the rear suspension decompress which seems to compress the front and sends it into an uncontrollable wobble. Maybe the chassis flex also has a part to play in this. Basically it feels like the bike behaves like an unstoppable rocking chair.

3. The front can't handle camber. As soon as there is camber in a corner the front folds, either straight away, or when you are trying to straighten the bike up. The "dragging" effect described in "1".

Question? Is the bike to reactive to the inputs, or is it the virtual rider that messes up the balance of the bike, or is it both? I still think that Beta4 had the best feeling so far. At least when you fell, you usually understood why, In Beta6c, most of the time it feels like a mystery when you hit the dirt. I like the feeling of the rear in beta6c, so if that could be combined with more of the front feeling from Beta4, it would be a step in the right direction according to me.

PS: I am just talking about how the bikes feel, don't know about the "real"-psychics behind it. I've tried the standard bikes, and the mods: the 600:s, the 1000: and the Moto2 bikes (mostly on Victoria). I think the psychics work better with the less powerful machines because the input effects are simply less. The more powerful the bike is, the more obvious the problems become. DS

Those are my 2 cents at the moment...

Cheers,

/David "Gonzo" Boda #46   

And David is 100% right, he said it like it is. And it is said before Beta6 is a step backwards not forwards.

[PiBoSo]

Master server updated to fix a clients' list bug.

[HornetMaX]

After playing Beta6c for a while, I've come to the following conclusions:
1. Front way to light, you end up "dragging it" through the turn, even with the slightest throttle. At low speeds the handle bar shakes when the wheel is at an angle, like the bike can't decide if it should stand up or lean into the corner.

2. The effect of the rear suspension creates a chain reaction to the front suspension that can't be stopped. After power sliding out of the corner the rear suspension decompress which seems to compress the front and sends it into an uncontrollable wobble. Maybe the chassis flex also has a part to play in this. Basically it feels like the bike behaves like an unstoppable rocking chair.

3. The front can't handle camber. As soon as there is camber in a corner the front folds, either straight away, or when you are trying to straighten the bike up. The "dragging" effect described in "1".

For 1 and 2 there's at least a hope that re-tuning the gains of the "virtual rider" will improve the situation. Notice that both behaviours do happen in real life, they are just  too much present in beta6.
Point 3 is the real PITA (physics-wise): it has been there in all betas I can recall and it has been improved only very very marginally.

MaX.