Come back :'(
http://www.youtube.com/v/5tOaDSXRe4Q%26
;D
P.S. I love u Piboso
LOL glad someone posted at last. The bike can get carried away with itself and not want to stop in some places.
DD
Ha ha ha ha ha nice ! xD
It happens to me often as well. x)
The best is when a wall is next to the bike, this last just follow it and the corner is past without any problems. xD
In the beta 7 it will have an auto-pilot. :p
;D It's very funny, but if it happens in the race , it is a bigggg problem :)
Quote from: Blackheart on January 13, 2015, 08:19:52 AM
;D It's very funny, but if it happens in the race , it is a bigggg problem :)
Been there, done that :)
MaX.
Yeah but do you have the T-shirt Max lmao
DD
Iv quit out of a race before.. The bike headed towards the barrier across the gravel.. Hit the barrier and started heading towards the track again lol.
I could here some bikes coming so I left.. To save the carnage lol. It can be funny but it mainly pisses me off to be honest..
Imagine if you had a fully animated rider you could control to run after the bike!!!!! Oh shit wot fun.
Yeah in a race its a shit for not just the rider but for all, then again irl if theres a crash in front of you its your job to avoid it and many times you cant.
DD
At the moment if we had an animated rider we would spend more time running after the bike than actually riding it lol.
I agree but in most cases the bike should be on the floor 2miles behind lol.
Its horrible watching the bike roll and roll and being helpless to stop it.. For playability sake let us at least steer the bike to put it down!
Thats unrealistic I know.. But so is..
Sinking rider..
3rd person camera..
Grip levels off the track..
Riding on ice after a burnout..
Riders broken left arm..
And much much more..
Yeah im having a moan lol :)
Yep much much more lol. But imagine if it was more realistic with damage!!! Id spend all my time in the pits lol
Can we have animation to repair the bike please. Pass me that hammer Bob the BIG one lol
DD
Lol yeah damage would be mega!! Its all good stuff and id like to see it happen in gpbikes.. Realisticly though its a million miles away..
The bike is too stable when its rolling on its own but I guess whatever makes that happen is needed for other parts of the physics model?
Also the bikes cant handle camber.. Why? The front end is unstable.. Why?
Physics problem? Geometry problem?
Virtual rider problem?
Track surface problem?
It aint gonna fix itself thats for sure...
So yeah.. Imo a damage model at the moment would be bad because there's too much random crashing.. (personal opinion obviously) but once everything is sweet.. Its a must!!! 8)
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on January 14, 2015, 03:58:52 AM
Lol yeah damage would be mega!! Its all good stuff and id like to see it happen in gpbikes.. Realisticly though its a million miles away..
The bike is too stable when its rolling on its own but I guess whatever makes that happen is needed for other parts of the physics model?
Also the bikes cant handle camber.. Why? The front end is unstable.. Why?
Physics problem? Geometry problem?
Virtual rider problem?
Track surface problem?
It aint gonna fix itself thats for sure...
So yeah.. Imo a damage model at the moment would be bad because there's too much random crashing.. (personal opinion obviously) but once everything is sweet.. Its a must!!! 8)
My personal opinions on the above:Camber Handling and those WTF moments:I think this issue is down to a
possible problem with the tyre model(maybe too simple a model for what is needed for a race bike?). Also I think some poor track surfaces are to blame for the exaggerated effects of this same problem too?
Virtual Rider: I believe Piboso has already stated that the virtual rider still needs some work to get it working properly; this maybe why when using full manual rider movement helps stabilise the bike more than when using auto-rider movements?
Track Surface Problems:I think many current tracks have a track surface build problem that requires a total track surface rebuild for use with GPB, as GPB seems very sensitive to any changes in track surface cambers/heights and bumps. The difference in the performance stability of, for example, Silverstone since it's track surface was rebuilt recently is in my unbiased opinion incredible from what it performed like before the track surface rebuild. A major improvement indeed.
But the bike handling problems mentioned above do seem to get exaggerated once tracks start to get rather bigger changes in track surface heights and cambers, but even more so if the track surface build presents problems for GPB.
Physics/Geometry?:To be honest, I don't believe their is a physics problem with GPB anymore(apart from the virtual rider issue, and
maybe from a possible issue with the tyre model?)....... I believe any problems with bike handling now are down to the bike physics and track surface builds.
Having said that, their is obviously still a major problem with bikes carrying on down the track without a rider after a crash at times; seems to me that the gyroscopic effect is probably too much and needs to be dumbed down(if no rider on bike) so that the bike loses stability and falls over, but this is just a thought off the top of my head.
Anyway. Just some thoughts of mine..... :P :)
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on January 14, 2015, 09:52:35 AM
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on January 14, 2015, 03:58:52 AM
Lol yeah damage would be mega!! Its all good stuff and id like to see it happen in gpbikes.. Realisticly though its a million miles away..
The bike is too stable when its rolling on its own but I guess whatever makes that happen is needed for other parts of the physics model?
Also the bikes cant handle camber.. Why? The front end is unstable.. Why?
Physics problem? Geometry problem?
Virtual rider problem?
Track surface problem?
It aint gonna fix itself thats for sure...
So yeah.. Imo a damage model at the moment would be bad because there's too much random crashing.. (personal opinion obviously) but once everything is sweet.. Its a must!!! 8)
My personal opinions on the above:
Camber Handling and those WTF moments:
I think this issue is down to a possible problem with the tyre model(maybe too simple a model for what is needed for a race bike?). Also I think some poor track surfaces are to blame for the exaggerated effects of this same problem too?
Virtual Rider: I believe Piboso has already stated that the virtual rider still needs some work to get it working properly; this maybe why when using full manual rider movement helps stabilise the bike more than when using auto-rider movements?
Track Surface Problems:
I think many current tracks have a track surface build problem that requires a total track surface rebuild for use with GPB, as GPB seems very sensitive to any changes in track surface cambers/heights and bumps. The difference in the performance stability of, for example, Silverstone since it's track surface was rebuilt recently is in my unbiased opinion incredible from what it performed like before the track surface rebuild. A major improvement indeed.
But the bike handling problems mentioned above do seem to get exaggerated once tracks start to get rather bigger changes in track surface heights and cambers, but even more so if the track surface build presents problems for GPB.
Physics/Geometry?:
To be honest, I don't believe their is a physics problem with GPB anymore(apart from the virtual rider issue, and maybe from a possible issue with the tyre model?)....... I believe any problems with bike handling now are down to the bike physics and track surface builds.
Having said that, their is obviously still a major problem with bikes carrying on down the track without a rider after a crash at times; seems to me that the gyroscopic effect is probably too much and needs to be dumbed down(if no rider on bike) so that the bike loses stability and falls over, but this is just a thought off the top of my head.
Anyway. Just some thoughts of mine..... :P :)
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on January 14, 2015, 09:52:35 AM
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on January 14, 2015, 03:58:52 AM
Lol yeah damage would be mega!! Its all good stuff and id like to see it happen in gpbikes.. Realisticly though its a million miles away..
The bike is too stable when its rolling on its own but I guess whatever makes that happen is needed for other parts of the physics model?
Also the bikes cant handle camber.. Why? The front end is unstable.. Why?
Physics problem? Geometry problem?
Virtual rider problem?
Track surface problem?
It aint gonna fix itself thats for sure...
So yeah.. Imo a damage model at the moment would be bad because there's too much random crashing.. (personal opinion obviously) but once everything is sweet.. Its a must!!! 8)
My personal opinions on the above:
Camber Handling and those WTF moments:
I think this issue is down to a possible problem with the tyre model(maybe too simple a model for what is needed for a race bike?). Also I think some poor track surfaces are to blame for the exaggerated effects of this same problem too?
Virtual Rider: I believe Piboso has already stated that the virtual rider still needs some work to get it working properly; this maybe why when using full manual rider movement helps stabilise the bike more than when using auto-rider movements?
Track Surface Problems:
I think many current tracks have a track surface build problem that requires a total track surface rebuild for use with GPB, as GPB seems very sensitive to any changes in track surface cambers/heights and bumps. The difference in the performance stability of, for example, Silverstone since it's track surface was rebuilt recently is in my unbiased opinion incredible from what it performed like before the track surface rebuild. A major improvement indeed.
But the bike handling problems mentioned above do seem to get exaggerated once tracks start to get rather bigger changes in track surface heights and cambers, but even more so if the track surface build presents problems for GPB.
Physics/Geometry?:
To be honest, I don't believe their is a physics problem with GPB anymore(apart from the virtual rider issue, and maybe from a possible issue with the tyre model?)....... I believe any problems with bike handling now are down to the bike physics and track surface builds.
Having said that, their is obviously still a major problem with bikes carrying on down the track without a rider after a crash at times; seems to me that the gyroscopic effect is probably too much and needs to be dumbed down(if no rider on bike) so that the bike loses stability and falls over, but this is just a thought off the top of my head.
Anyway. Just some thoughts of mine..... :P :)
Hawk.
I honestly say with 90% certainty that all the wobbles and bikes front end folder is the virtual rider. From the tests I've done for each build that comes out. With Virtual Rider On, Manual Rider, and Manual Rider DST. With each thing the effect goes away, with DST it's virtually gone. Just DST is hard as hell to use. But is the most stable with the bike. :/
With the "Ghost" bike, I came to the conclusion what is happening the other day. In another thread I posted about the rider being a visualization for what the invisible weight sphere is doing as it is moving around the bike. Where the rider model itself is just showing us where the weight is being moved, and it doesn't have any type of interaction with the world. So when the rider falls off, GP Bikes put the weight back to neutral as if there is no input, as if the rider is just sitting. Since the rider model is of off then GP Bike cuts the inputs to the weight controls. So the bike rides on as if the rider was sitting normally.
The bike needs to idle less when riderless, and if there is no rider for over X amount of seconds we should be able to his reset.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on January 14, 2015, 09:52:35 AM
Having said that, their is obviously still a major problem with bikes carrying on down the track without a rider after a crash at times; seems to me that the gyroscopic effect is probably too much and needs to be dumbed down(if no rider on bike) so that the bike loses stability and falls over, but this is just a thought off the top of my head.
I don't think it's due to gyroscopic effect (and that's not something you can dumb down anyway, unless for example you make lighter rims/wheels).
When the bike is riderless and is a leaning a bit on one side, it straightens up by itself. This can happen in reality, but in GPB the effect is way too strong.
It looks like an RC bike (hey Warlock !), in which the cart-wheel geometry makes the bike (almost) self-stabilizing, due to the negative forward offset.
For an rc bike, when the bike is leaning and you open the throttle, the bike straightens itself. But real bikes do not have this kind of geometry.
Another possibility could be something wrong in the tyre self aligning moment calculation. No idea how to check this, only doable thing would be to play with the model and change the magnitude of the moment and see if that makes things any better.
In practice, it would be very nice to have a button to "kill" the bike and avoid it goes on forever by itself.
But it would be even nicer to find why this is happening and get rid of the root cause, making the "kill" button no longer necessary: a real bike hitting a wall do not bounce back and keep on running (even ignoring the missing damage model).
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on January 14, 2015, 11:30:53 AM
Quote from: Hawk_UK on January 14, 2015, 09:52:35 AM
Having said that, their is obviously still a major problem with bikes carrying on down the track without a rider after a crash at times; seems to me that the gyroscopic effect is probably too much and needs to be dumbed down(if no rider on bike) so that the bike loses stability and falls over, but this is just a thought off the top of my head.
I don't think it's due to gyroscopic effect (and that's not something you can dumb down anyway, unless for example you make lighter rims/wheels).
When the bike is riderless and is a leaning a bit on one side, it straightens up by itself. This can happen in reality, but in GPB the effect is way too strong.
It looks like an RC bike (hey Warlock !), in which the cart-wheel geometry makes the bike (almost) self-stabilizing, due to the negative forward offset.
For an rc bike, when the bike is leaning and you open the throttle, the bike straightens itself. But real bikes do not have this kind of geometry.
Another possibility could be something wrong in the tyre self aligning moment calculation. No idea how to check this, only doable thing would be to play with the model and change the magnitude of the moment and see if that makes things any better.
In practice, it would be very nice to have a button to "kill" the bike and avoid it goes on forever by itself.
But it would be even nicer to find why this is happening and get rid of the root cause, making the "kill" button no longer necessary: a real bike hitting a wall do not bounce back and keep on running (even ignoring the missing damage model).
MaX.
A "Kill" button would be ideal for a short term solution at least, like you say, until the root cause of the problem could be found and solved. ;)
Is the "tyre self aligning moment" something that can be altered in the bike physics files, or is that something in the core programme physics modules that would have to be altered? It would indeed be good to just have a test for this like you said.
What about the tyre model being used, Max...... Do you think that is okay for a high performance race bike simulation, or do you think a more detailed tyre model would give more feel, feedback, and different grip/feel characteristics to the rider than is present? Maybe it would also help with more controllable rear wheel steering if a more detailed tyre model was implemented? What are your thoughts on that?
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on January 14, 2015, 12:18:11 PM
Is the "tyre self aligning moment" something that can be altered in the bike physics files, or is that something in the core programme physics modules that would have to be altered? It would indeed be good to just have a test for this like you said.
It can be altered in the .tyre files. You'd need to know a bit about the "Magic Formula" model and use my MaxTyre tool.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on January 14, 2015, 12:18:11 PM
What about the tyre model being used, Max...... Do you think that is okay for a high performance race bike simulation, or do you think a more detailed tyre model would give more feel, feedback, and different grip/feel characteristics to the rider than is present? Maybe it would also help with more controllable rear wheel steering if a more detailed tyre model was implemented? What are your thoughts on that?
The model itself is likely to be more than what we need. Of course, bugs can always hide here or there.
I've just bumped that (not sure it's a major issue, but who knows ...): http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=1922.msg25792#msg25792 (http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=1922.msg25792#msg25792)
MaX.
I think that the way Hawk said that the track surface is effecting the handling and therefore tracks should be made smoother to work in GPB is so wrong, no offence to you on that Hawk, what I mean is it is wrong to change a track from its real life state from a car sim so that it works in GPB because the GPB physics are wrong!!!!! If the bikes can NOT handle the track surface like in real life then the physics are wrong!!!! You dont change a track surface in real life just because bikes are racing on it!!!!!!!!!!!!
With all the talk about the handling being so real, has anyone stepped back and really looked at it? It get better in some respects but in more it gets worse, thats not how it usually is, you dont rebuild something and make it worse???????????
I might get shot for it but I am sorry, from the simple fact of setting a bike up, getting on it and riding and having fun the Alpha7 had more going for it in the stability issue. Why was the physics on that model made worse and not better? It could handle the cambers better, but if pushed it crashed, but it was stable.
All I am saying is you cant fix the bikes handling by flatening the track!!!!!!! Its wrong.
DD
Quote from: doubledragoncc on January 14, 2015, 01:54:43 PM
I think that the way Hawk said that the track surface is effecting the handling and therefore tracks should be made smoother to work in GPB is so wrong, no offence to you on that Hawk, what I mean is it is wrong to change a track from its real life state from a car sim so that it works in GPB because the GPB physics are wrong!!!!! If the bikes can NOT handle the track surface like in real life then the physics are wrong!!!! You dont change a track surface in real life just because bikes are racing on it!!!!!!!!!!!!
With all the talk about the handling being so real, has anyone stepped back and really looked at it? It get better in some respects but in more it gets worse, thats not how it usually is, you dont rebuild something and make it worse???????????
I might get shot for it but I am sorry, from the simple fact of setting a bike up, getting on it and riding and having fun the Alpha7 had more going for it in the stability issue. Why was the physics on that model made worse and not better? It could handle the cambers better, but if pushed it crashed, but it was stable.
All I am saying is you cant fix the bikes handling by flatening the track!!!!!!! Its wrong.
DD
Hi DD.
Lol..... Who said anything about flattening track surfaces? And also who said that the tracks made for cars are same as real life?
It goes without saying that a car can handle any poorly created track surfaces much better than a motorcycle ever could simply because a car by it's very nature is inherently a lot more stable on four wheels than a bike with two wheels relying on a small patch of rubber to keep it upright.
But no. I absolutely agree with you that track surfaces
should be made as close as possible, with the tools/data available, to the real-life track surface(bumps/undulations/cambers and all). :)
When I rebuild track surfaces I am not smoothing anything out at all. I know it may seem that way because they ride so much better than before, but no, I don't believe in smoothing track surfaces.
Hawk.
PS: No worries about getting shot by me. I welcome straight talking. ;)
Edit: I think I can see why you thought I was advocating smoothing track surfaces after reading through my post again just now.
Basically when I talked about GPB being sensitive to changes in track surface bumps heights and cambers, what I was trying to point out was the poorly modelled tracks that have those things in the track surface. If you apply a bump or undulation into a track surface then it needs to have a denser poly mesh at that point otherwise the collision model will treat that bump as though you were riding over a sharp ridge in the road and will more than likely kick you off the bike(ring any bells on some tracks we use??) or the very least bump your tyres off the road surface(even if only by very little amount) while cornering and you'll get one of those WTF moments. These are the sort of track surface issues that I try to solve when rebuilding track surfaces. I keep the bumps, but make the bumps into genuine road surface bumps, not models that represent a bump as a sharp ridge in the road that acts more like a speed-bump than a genuine road surface bump.
With a car sim it doesn't really affect it so much, but for a bike sim it will kick you down the road just as it would in real-life(if the bumps were as acute as I have seen modelled.) Lol.
Basically, what I'm saying is that you don't get bumps in real-life such as are modelled in a lot of these tracks that have been converted from obviously some of these car racing sim track surfaces(bumps that are 4 inches in height peaking at a shear knife edge point for example). :)
If there is one thing I hate about GP Bikes, it's the damn self-riding bike.
Quote from: vin97 on January 14, 2015, 03:22:12 PM
If there is one thing I hate about GP Bikes, it's the damn self-riding bike.
Very true!
Sorry for going off topic above, but comments do have a habit of branching out.
Hawk.
me too, sorry guys
damn you Hawk its all your fault bro lol
DD
Quote from: doubledragoncc on January 14, 2015, 05:35:17 PM
me too, sorry guys
damn you Hawk its all your fault bro lol
DD
LOL . ;D
Hawk.
Oh I got a good video for this thread just gotta get it here brb
DD
Okay no explain the physics in GPB that allow this please. And no I have not been training my bike to do tricks lol. Best in 1080
p btw
https://www.youtube.com/v/bbnL8GXPQes
So am I to understand that its the track surface doing that???????????
I think it has a wee bit to do with physics
DD
I had a riderless bike today in the STK1000 champs... It must have cost me a good 45 seconds before I could finally get back on it. >:(
Hawk.
Thats a bummer dude sorry to hear it
It needs to be sorted quickly it ruins the whole thing.
DD
Quote from: doubledragoncc on January 14, 2015, 09:49:11 PM
Thats a bummer dude sorry to hear it
It needs to be sorted quickly it ruins the whole thing.
DD
Thanks DD. Yeah.... I think after this and the core.exe I had tonight during the race I think the word I was looking for is
"Soul Destroying" after putting in so much practice beforehand, you know.
Anyway, in the end it didn't make much difference as we are experiencing a windy storm right now and my window blew open during the race and I had to get up and shut it to save the blinds being sucked out of the window and wrecked...... That cost me 45 seconds or so. So by the time I re-entered the race I was a lap behind the leaders and well out of my groove..... What a night I've had! Lol
I think someone up there doesn't like me tonight. Hehe.
Hawk.
Yeah I saw the results on FB by the Italians. If you saw my video I know what you mean, bike goes down and me with it, then the bastard stands up and carries on WTF??? lol. Had to show it.
DD
In the dll plugin template is;
int m_iCrashed; /* 1 = rider is detached from bike */
So if the game knows the rider is off the bike as per the field description then surely an option can be added for racing to place a limit of perhaps 10 seconds as the maximum time before the bike resets to the edge of the track, or 5 seconds before it falls over from free wheeling.
Thats what we would like H
DD
I think this option would need to be added to the main core by Piboso, i'm not sure if it could be forced using the input plugins - HornetMax might know as he has already done some input type plugin work. Possibly you could force the steering over or even tip the bike axis - do not really know ??? , but it would seem to be a straight forward addition to request as the rider off detection appears to be already present.
The regular racers could probably suggest the most suitable action for the sim to take once rider and bike are seperated during online competitive racing.
Quote from: h106frp on January 14, 2015, 10:56:53 PM
I think this option would need to be added to the main core by Piboso, i'm not sure if it could be forced using the input plugins - HornetMax might know as he has already done some input type plugin work. Possibly you could force the steering over or even tip the bike axis - do not really know ??? , but it would seem to be a straight forward addition to request as the rider off detection appears to be already present.
No, there's nothing one can do plugin-side, as once the rider is off you have no control on the bike at all.
It's just an extremely annoying thing that could have been sorted out (with a workaround, like allow pressing a button to reset after x seconds of riderless ride) a long time ago.
It's not realistic but, waiting for the proper fix on physics side, it would be much appreciated. Should we start a petiton ? :)
MaX.
I think as it effects racing for the rider and others it should be dealt with asap. It is unreal and a big problem. if you saw my video it shows the bike can pick itself up and still be a problem for riders coming up from behind. I couldnt believe it when I watched the reply.
Hope Piboso does something soon. Just an auto reset to side of track after so many seconds would be better.
DD