Messages

If you really believe that without any injuries, unlimited bikes, these guys would go much faster than I think you don't grasp how skilled these guys are. They are always ON the limit, if they go over it, they feel it/ catch the bike most of the times. Its not because the bike is sliding that you crash. If there was no risk in what they were doing I doubt they would even be going 0.2 faster than with risks.

I don't think they would be going much faster in one lap over the course of many laps. You are right, I would say they'd be only marginally faster for their best lap time if the number of laps is large enough. What I meant was, irl you have a tendency to approach the limit 'from the bottom', by getting progressively faster. Each lap you push a bit more, because falling has consequences. In GPB people have a tendency to approach the limit 'from above', by going all out from the get-go, crashing a lot. Until they manage to get away with everything and finish a lap. And that sort of conditions the average GPB rider to ride recklessly, with a tendency to push over the limit. I think that is one reason why people crash so often in races.

The only thing stopping these guys to go faster is the amount of grip there is, not the amount of risk they are willing to take.

I don't want to argue over this, because it is not that relevant for the inital topic. But in a race you cannot go at 100% risk, otherwise you won't finish. Humans are not robots, we all have a margin of error. And if you aim at going 100%, you might be able to do that for 5 laps, but you are going to hit 100.1% sooner or later and you are out of the race.  If you aim at 100% of your limit each lap, you might finish a race with 1% chance. If you aim at 99% of your limit each lap, you might finish a race with 50% chance. If you aim at at 98% of your limit each lap, you might finish a race with 80% chance etc. etc. If you aim at at 90% of your limit each lap, you might finish a race with 99% chance. And those percentages differ for each rider, based on their talent. It is always a risk-reward ratio. Nobody can consistently go at the limit and expect to finish a race. Great riders are fast AND have a smaller margin of error, so they can go fast more consistently.

I remember a Ayrton Senna quote. I cannot find it by googling, but from the top of my head it was to the effect that one can approach 100% risk during Qualifying and during some laps in a race. But over a whole race distance one has to resort to 95% of one's own maximum, otherwise one will crash out. A friend of mine had that quote printed on his wall and I thought that makes a lot sense.

Btw, why do you think Rossi has a tendency to have far better race results than qualifying? My take is that Rossi has a tendency to take 1% less risk in qualifying because he knows it is not worth it. Taking that 1% more could cost him the season (and he has only 2-3 seasons left) while all he can gain is 3-5 spots in the starting grid. And in the race he has the ability to race very consistent at a high level out-performing riders that are not faster than him, but were willing to take higher risks in qualifying. According to your logic (every rider always is at 100%), there would be no difference in race and qualifying pace between riders...

[simulation]

[...] to include real MotoGP riders' faces in game

[...] make the game experience as immersive as ever, such as new cutscenes, the spectator mode

I like their priority setting. They know what is most important. 

[...] to offer a more enjoyable simulation at every level

They should be smacked, tarred and feathered for using this word in connection with their game. We live in a time where words are used totally out of context. 

[@Wimp]

Oops my post became very long. My main point is: I would like to see more real-life-like track behaviour. I think we need more real-life-like consequences for that. I see Wimp's point that racing should not feel like a crash avoiding walk on egg-shells. But if we have consistent physics, real life like races are definitely possible in GPB. We already have that with experienced riders. And one has to practice and practice and practice. I had the best races with fellow GPB-veterans in onboard-view-only races. Close racing, few to none crashes, consistent paces and gentlemen-like fair behaviour. That's how it should be imo.

Imho a better risk-reward ratio would generally help to establish consistent race approach. Ride consistently without crashing will make one fast automatically sooner or later (each has his own plateau of course, not everyone has the same talent). At the moment we generally have a all-out fastest-lap-time-is-all-that-counts-even-if-I-crash-9-out-of10-laps-approach. And that makes for bad racing. My proposal would be to make a adjustable g-force related 'damage-system' which might result in a DNF. 

@Wimp: If you are too worried about every crash causing DNF's, then you should be able to adjust the g-force to a high enough value so that only high-impact (=high level of recklessness/risky behaviour) crashes result in a DNF.

I would even welcome options á la SBK X and SBK 2011 as having calculated repair times for the bike, possible injuries to the rider calculated which might prevent finishing the race event, having to drive into pits all the time instead of just clicking 'go to pits' etc.  that would totally add to the sim experience and to the level of immersion.

Take damage away from any of the top level car racing games abd they could decend into a demolition derby if allowed to by its community.

Good point. Totally agree.

@Wimp:
First of all, I can follow you arguments. They seem logic and than in itself is something that should be applauded. But I have a different view on some of your remarks.

If we would implement a damage system it could cause that pace to drop even more to a point where people are riding just in fear of crashing and not flowing on the track.

I have done many races where I did not crash and I had a pace that was in a realistic relation to my qualifying times. It is doable in GPB as it doable irl. It would be even easier to do with some physics flaws out of the way (which we all agree on should be the prerequisite). But I agree with you, that irl you have much more feedback from the bike. So to be able to do it in GPB, you need much more practice in GPB than irl. All has to be automatic. The braking points, the downshifts, the amount of leaning. All has to be automatic. And I disagree that real life riders don't have a fear for crashing.

In real life you don't "fear" crashing when you are racing especially not when you feel comfortable.

Not sure whether "fear" is the right word. But a risk-reward-relation is always part of racing. You can clearly see that real life riders often could be faster, but they don't try to push it in order to be able to finish the race. Just look at Dovizioso last year. He was a master at this. He could hold off for the 3/4 of a race, not doing more than he needed to do. Then he would do a push within the last laps to seperate himself from the pack. Real life racing is always not only about all out racing but also about risk management. And those guys we see on TV are the absolute best of the best. Many of those you see in a GPB server are just casuals at best.

Making a damage system will make people much slower than they are right now. Which would actually get us further from the realistic pace simulation...

That would only be true if you did not have to care about crashes in qualifying and would not have to care about crashing in racing. Irl, riders very rarely go at 100% risk, even in practices or qualifyings. Because you always have to take into consideration, that you would totally demolish your bike, you would lose ~15mins to go back to the pits to be able to go out again (if you have a second bike), you might injure yourself which hurts, you might injure yourself long-term which might cost your championship aspirations, you might ruin the engine if it runs in the sand pit etc. etc. There's a thousand reasons to take into consideration. And those apply for all riders.

That is why the lap times irl would also be much faster if players could never be injured, had unlimited amount of bikes available if they crash. They would risk so much more. So your argument concerning the difference between realistic gap between Q and Race times does not apply. We would have the exact same as irl, if we could not go all out at all times in GPB.

So your argument is to not have realistic damage because the difference between Q and Race times would be too big? If we had simulation of rider injuries and limited bikes to crash we would have the same difference. I think in the SBK X title there were realism settings which allowed for player injuries and also took bike repair times into consideration. That was pretty awesome. I don't necessarily say we need that (although I would love to have that). But you have to see why your argumentation is not based on the correct assumptions.

The whole point is to make people drive less reckless, a penalty system should be designed, not a damage system.

So I should be penalized if I lowside on my own without anyone else involved? I guess you don't mean that. You probably mean only for crashes between riders? But how do you implement that? This is hard/impossible to code in order not to penalize the rider that was the victim. It would need real players to act as race stewards. That would be possible. But probably not too many volunteers to do that.

But it would still not take away the unfair and unrealistic advantage that players that crash often should have much less chances to win. Being slower without crashing should always be promoted. It is realistic. And if we had a general approach to avoid crashing first, I think we might see much more realistic races. From my observation the way it is at the moment, people always try to go all out, try to hammer a time and go up there on the time sheet. They crash 20times until they finally manage to get 1 complete lap and then applaud themselves for their time. They condition themselves to drive recklessly. Then those people struggle in the race because after 2-3 laps max they crash, then get nervous, crash even more and finally are frustrated with the result because they feel they under-achieved ("well I had 3rd fastest time in Q, but I only finished 9th ... I deserve to be 3rd in the race."). Or they rage-quit in the race.

I really really do not understand that kind of thinking:
"I will steal the game because it sucks". Someone spent one year or more in his work, giving up family life to have money for living and someone without respect steals the game because it sucks.

I can second that. It is totally anti-social behaviour. I reckon the anonymity of the stealing and also of the one's that did the hard work contributes to that. But still it is stealing. It clearly shows lack of empathy or intellect (or both).

This world will never be right when people think that way.

Well, sorry to break it to you. There will always be stupid people wandering this beautiful planet.    One just has to accept it: As long as humans are on this planet there will be wonderful people, but also always be stupid people. It has always been like that. There's a wide spectrum. Don't let your time on earth be any less enjoyable because of that.

The "people" take the game free for try it, ok 2 hours with steam? no thx.

That's bullshit and only an excuse for yourself to justify. I have always been able to tell within 30 mins whether a game is worth it or not. The only game genre where I could understand that 2 hours might not sufficient are adventure or other games which have a story behind them. The reason you think 2 hours are not sufficient is because you probably like the game, but you do not like it 100%. But that does not entitle you to steal it. You have to decide for yourself whether this mediocre game which probably offers 10hrs of entertainment for you until you are fed up with it (then you probably randomly play it twice a year) is worth the amount they want you to pay for it. If not don't buy it. Or you can also always wait until it gets cheaper and might better fit what it is worth to you. But stealing is just weak.

If I want a coffee and I see that the coffee-to-go is priced at 2,50 Euro I have to decide for myself whether that is worth it for me. Steam is generous, they even offer you to take a sip from the coffee before you decide whether to buy or not. But you just can't steal the coffee if you are a grown-up man. Take responsibility. Simple as that.

No offense Uber, but you are incredibly slow. 

Here we go  here is the speed discussion. This is not the point. The point is, this is a sim and people should not be taking all kinds of risks, crash multiple times and still win. In real life the art is to be fast without crashing. Almost anybody can go fast for one lap. But doing it consistently over a race distance or even over a season, cannot be done by everybody. Look at Iannone, he can be fast. But he does it by taking more risk than others. That's why he crashed so often, never would be in the championship picture and that's why he got dumped by Ducati.

I could probably crash once a lap and still beat you.

This actually shows the dilemma.

Is there anything less simulation than an arbitrary "if you crash at greater than a certain amount of speed you are out" feature? You either code a damage model or you do nothing.   

Well not sure where you get the link to speed from. My proposal was to link the DNF's to the amount of g-force which occured during crash. And that is not contra-simulation. What do you think a damage model is? It is basically an estimation on which parts brake/get damaged at which g-forces during a crash. And which parts prevent the bike from continuing to race. So using a link between g-forces and DNF's is the easiest way of getting a non-visual damage model  (we won't get a visual damage model from Piboso).

@Palmy Palmy Nick Nick

Sorry, I did not see your reference was only 'better buy than steal'. I agree with that ofc. Stealing should not be an option. 

However, I'm still mentally wrestling your point. Will no sales make them think 'damn we need to add physics cos nobody is buying it' or will they think 'it was a crazy idea there is no market, let's make a car game'.

Well ofc some will go and make a different kind of game. Those are out of the picture anyhow. But those which decide to make sth in the motorcycle genre, will be more likely to go into the sim direction. That's the whole point... And un-debatable  *wink* *wink*

Having arcade games like that TT game for me is like having no new game at all. For me it just is not on the radar. For me it is as enticing to buy it as it is to buy a bag of hair curlers...

I really hope 'motorcycle enthusiasts' are buying the game to support the genre. No money means no development and more abandoned projects.

I see your point, but in a free market sales are the collective customers demand. So according to your rationale the sales/demand would be biased and companies creating new software in that genre would be even more under the impression that customers want zero physics and only care about visuals. Well in fact many do    but it would be better if the ratio of sales arcade to sim would be 3:1 instead of 10:1.

It is definitely possible to race long races without crashing. But it is also true, like Wimp says, that we have less feedback in GPB than irl.

So I think, although I would absolutely love the idea to have realistic crash/DNF-rates (~80%...? I would estimate out of 10 crashes only about 2times one can continue racing), it might need some relaxation in GPB. My idea would be to have a sort of g-force related crash-and-you-are-out relation. If the g-forces of the crash exceed a certain pre-defined limit, the crash would result in a DNF. If it is below the threshold, the rider should be able to walk to the bike and continue racing.

And it should be a server side option to be able to set the threshold value of g-force of an impact, which makes continuation of the race impossible (--> DNF). So if one wishes to allow only high-speed crashes to result in a DNF, then the threshold should be high, if one wishes to have even slow-speed crashes result in DNF, then the threshold should be very low.

I read the complain by Olaf Lehmann about the "arcade" feeling of online racing. It's something I noticed, too, watching some streams.
A lot of reckless riding often followed by crashes, helped by the possibility to quickly reset the bike back into action.

For the future the plan is to add a "full crash" option, that forces the rider to go back and pick up the bike.
However, at the moment a quick reset is really needed because of a couple problems with the physics.

Very glad to read this. It has been proposed by many experienced riders before. Glad you care about that issue finally. But as you acklowledged yourself, the physics need to be 100% reliable for that. If physics are suitable, then I would consider having that said "full crash" behaviour not as an option, but as standard. At least for online servers. That way people would all become better riders, they would tend to avoid risky behaviour, because crashing would have more real-life consequences. It would suit the sim approach very well. 

Really that's a shame it looks like it has all the makings of a very good sim, not much point of me spending 27 euro on it if there's only a handful of people on it.

Hey Oops, nice to see some guys interested in a real sim.    There are several guys that play WRS, but it is a bit inconsistent. Limiting factors are also that there is still a lack of content (almost no mods recently), there are still some glitches with the tyres simulation and there used to be issues with online stability (which seem to be much better recently, but no one really knows because we never had a full server lately).

My 2 cents: If you really like the sim, then buy it. You will support an indie developer and you can enjoy a real sim. Then just leave a message ahead of time here (http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=857.60) and there is a chance that a session can be arranged on. I would also be interested. Then there is dibu, Ricco, Steven, Obelix, Bobr6, JMTRacing and some more that do play this sim. We just need to grow as a community  . And if we do, chances are that WRS will only get better faster.

Another thing: WRS is a sim platform for almost anything on 4 wheels. What are you most interested in? I personally like the Rally, and RX part of the sim. Unfortunately, especially the rally part is not very good represented (almost no stages for this sim), but has loads of potential. So that is also a reason why the WRS guys don't meet regularly online. We are very diverse and there is not much content. Some are into RX, some into track racing, some into Dirt oval.

Regards, Stout

RX skill Challenge on Top Gear Track

https://www.youtube.com/v/1bUA4IKX4oE

What do you need help with?  What kind of tutorials and documentation do you need?  I can help.

Thank you for your kind offer. I will come back to it 


Everything else said above concerning the tools and (lack of) documentation still remains valid.

well, i do like wrs and i would rather buy wrs than gpb, seems to have more pontential, but to be honest, and being super sincere here.

While you sims allow modding and are good sims, the modding is a pain in the ass and a super tedious task, compiling  track can take a huge amount of time, there´s nothing straightforward, no much documantation, no error logs to see what´s wrong and overall a lack of how to and proper tools.

Take for example MxSim, it has an integrated track editor, a basic one but even a chump can make a track in a couple minutes, bikes are a bit harder but is quite straightforward and documented, and there´s a ton of mods in there to prove it.

Assetto Corsa has a shitload of mods aswell, and is quite accessible and fast to mod a car.
http://assettocorsamods.net/threads/your-first-car-in-assetto-corsa-basic-guide.1019/

i think that your games need, in this order:
1-proper netcode (top of the list, we want to play online, everyone does!)
2-proper editing documentation and better/faster mod tools. (maybe release the stock models so people can base their mods on those models, mxsim does it that way and it works quite good)

+1
Everything you said is quite on point sir!

Hello,
I have added 543 tyres stack to a track and in game it show me only about 30, is there a problem or is there a limit?

I am having the same problem. I tried to create an RX layout on a track by placing ing tyre walls and cones in tracked. Unfortunately the objects do not appear in-game. At least visually. They seem to be there, since I seem to hit them. But they are not visible. Is there a way to fix this please?



Edit: I can confirm, only the first objects are displayed. But all objects are present and collidable.


So it probably is a restriction in your code. Is there a way to enable more .lyt objects to be displayed? It would help very much in making RX layouts on existing tracks.