Constructive feedback about the game and its future direction

[HornetMaX]

brakes need some more work to simulate temperature, wear and weight.

It would be nice but without the feeling or a real lever "fading" with high temp it should be very hard.

I don't think it will be a problem: on hot brakes, the same stick movement will just brake less. Feeling is different (because we're using stick movement instead of applied force), but it's there.

Bottom line: GP Bikes physics improved greatly since Beta4. It is now, at last, a full fledged simulator. Only brakes need some more work to simulate temperature, wear and weight.
Problem is, physics parameters of the "stock" bikes have not be properly updated to match the changes.

It is true that it improved in terms of what is actually simulated, but unless we have a bike (and better if it is one of the default ones) that really shows what GPB is capable of, the progress is only on the paper. What I've seen up to now of the default bikes (didn't try the varese that much) really does not show that much of an improvement, sadly. Nice to know anyway that there may be reasons explaining what we see right now.

Another missing bit could be the simulation of the tire profile (not sure the net effect will be huge tough, as the virtual rider is in the middle).

What's currently wrong with the brakes weight simulation ?

MaX.

[Hawk]

Bottom line: GP Bikes physics improved greatly since Beta4. It is now, at last, a full fledged simulator. Only brakes need some more work to simulate temperature, wear and weight.
Problem is, physics parameters of the "stock" bikes have not be properly updated to match the changes. Virtual rider and dampers are the first coming to mind. However, some data has already been changed to be more realistic: springs, steer lock, aerodynamic.

Thank you for the insight. This explains a lot about the instability problems showing up in the Stock Bikes.

I personally think the core physics in GPBikes is better and a good step forward... You only have to feel how the YZF R6 handles to see that. But your insight has explained why the stock bikes are not performing as people had hoped. Problem is that most people judge your work by using the stock bikes, at least initially until the MOD bikes have been updated, so with the current stock bike performance you're bound to get some critics talking about instabilities in handling, and if most MOD bikes are using stock bike physics files then a lot of the MOD bikes are not going to perform any better.
I can only hope that you will update the stock bike physics to perform as intended and release it as a hot fix in the near future? 

Hawk.

[Mac]

on hot brakes, the same stick movement will just brake less.

That's true, what I'm trying to say is that these little improvements are almost neutralized by the "interface" from sim to user.
Try to think at the "spongy" feeling of the lever when brakes are hot.
With a XBOX controller you have to think "Brakes are hot, I need to pull the stick more" without any tactile feedback.

Of course Piboso can't do anythink about this "problem" (unless they want to launch a kickstarter project of a real bike controller with force feedback etc  ).

I only think that these refinements should go in the bottom of the To-Do list, with major issues to get fixed first.

[HornetMaX]

on hot brakes, the same stick movement will just brake less.

That's true, what I'm trying to say is that these little improvements are almost neutralized by the "interface" from sim to user.
Try to think at the "spongy" feeling of the lever when brakes are hot.
With a XBOX controller you have to think "Brakes are hot, I need to pull the stick more" without any tactile feedback.

You can still feel brakes fading on a pad, it's only the way you feel it that is different.
Following your reasoning we wouldn't have GPB at all, as you can't have the feeling of real handlebars on a joypad. But today, when your tires are worn out in GPB, you do feel it ...

I only think that these refinements should go in the bottom of the To-Do list, with major issues to get fixed first.

I can agree on that. Same for the new rider, the (nice) improvements of Victoria track and other stuff ... physics (including adapting the default bikes) and game stability should be priority number one and ... one.

MaX.

[yoshimura]

the brakes do not participate in the general instability,they are the effect of a cause.

[EdouardB]

About the brakes fading with high temp: it is a big problem and very noticeable on regular brakes at the racetrack (sometimes the front braking power almost disappears) but once you upgrade to steel-braided brake lines it doesn't fade nearly as much.
Personnally on a race bike with steel braided lines I don't feel the brakes fading much at all unless it's really a long session or if your braking fluid is old.
And all race bikes have these braking lines. This would be the last of my concerns in GP Bikes!

[HornetMaX]

In fact to me the most important aspect of the brake thermal sim would be the fact that you need to bring the brakes up to their operating temp to get the full braking power.
So out of the pits, brakes (cold) could be weak. Also, keeping carbon discs in the right temp range in cold weather could be tricky: for rainy races you'd be better of with steel brakes (like in reality).

MaX.

[EdouardB]

Also I think the main problems with any motorcycle video game are:

- The feedback will never be as good as in real life so even if you made "perfect" physics identical to reality, you would crash easily and feel less things.

- The input of the rider will never be as rich as in real life. What I mean by that is that in real life you are doing things with your feet, your knees, your legs, your torso, your arms, your hands. Nothing is unused except your penis (but the balls are used) and to some extent your head.
If you were to build a gamepad with enough buttons for the kind of input riders use in real life you would need 50 buttons and a LOT of finger dexterity. Or you would need very precise kinect-like controls.

So what I mean by that is that at some point there needs to be a compromise to compensate the lack of feedback and input. In a word, maybe make the physics themselves more forgiving, or the input more forgiving.

I find it stupid that on the tracks I know in real life, if I try to do 50 laps without crashing on GP bikes, I cannot do it, even if I ride at the same pace than real life. In real life I've done over 200 laps at Dijon Prenois in the 1'30/1'35 (so 10/15 seconds away from the track record, not really fast) area and I've never crashed there. I bet only the best players of GP Bikes would be able to (maybe, barely) do that, whereas I'm certainly NOT a great rider in real life. Not crashing in real life is much easier than not crashing on GP Bikes. That's my main concern about this game.

[ghostchild]

Bottom line: GP Bikes physics improved greatly since Beta4. It is now, at last, a full fledged simulator. Only brakes need some more work to simulate temperature, wear and weight.
Problem is, physics parameters of the "stock" bikes have not be properly updated to match the changes. Virtual rider and dampers are the first coming to mind. However, some data has already been changed to be more realistic: springs, steer lock, aerodynamic.

Piboso I really appreciate the physics improvements, ok, but me and other guys have many core crashes offline with this beta6 (never had with beta 4 and 5), so playing is becoming very difficult and frustrating: what about that?
http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=1645.0

ps I also sent an email to support@gp-bikes.com

[WALKEN]

Also I think the main problems with any motorcycle video game are:

- The feedback will never be as good as in real life so even if you made "perfect" physics identical to reality, you would crash easily and feel less things.

- The input of the rider will never be as rich as in real life. What I mean by that is that in real life you are doing things with your feet, your knees, your legs, your torso, your arms, your hands. Nothing is unused except your penis (but the balls are used) and to some extent your head.
If you were to build a gamepad with enough buttons for the kind of input riders use in real life you would need 50 buttons and a LOT of finger dexterity. Or you would need very precise kinect-like controls.

So what I mean by that is that at some point there needs to be a compromise to compensate the lack of feedback and input. In a word, maybe make the physics themselves more forgiving, or the input more forgiving.

I find it stupid that on the tracks I know in real life, if I try to do 50 laps without crashing on GP bikes, I cannot do it, even if I ride at the same pace than real life. In real life I've done over 200 laps at Dijon Prenois in the 1'30/1'35 (so 10/15 seconds away from the track record, not really fast) area and I've never crashed there. I bet only the best players of GP Bikes would be able to (maybe, barely) do that, whereas I'm certainly NOT a great rider in real life. Not crashing in real life is much easier than not crashing on GP Bikes. That's my main concern about this game.

Very true!

As I've said many times before, the controller is the missing link. Using a game pad  and running 3rd person is RC racing.  Designing a simulator based on RC controls would warrant a more realistic feel to the player.  The physics of a RC bike vs a real bike would be relative to size weight etc...

[davidboda46]

Bottom line: GP Bikes physics improved greatly since Beta4. It is now, at last, a full fledged simulator. Only brakes need some more work to simulate temperature, wear and weight.
Problem is, physics parameters of the "stock" bikes have not be properly updated to match the changes. Virtual rider and dampers are the first coming to mind. However, some data has already been changed to be more realistic: springs, steer lock, aerodynamic.

I have a hard time understanding this. The physics should be based on the stock bikes, as that is the core (no pun intended) of GP-bikes. When I try new versions, I always use the stock bikes because I have no idea what settings/tweaks the mod-bikes have. So if I can't trust that the games underlying physics comes through on the stock bikes, how the hell should I form an opinion and report feedback on the updated psysics?

Cheers,

David "Gonzo" Boda #46

[JamoZ]

Bottom line: It is now, at last, a full fledged simulator.

That doesn`t mean anything if it`s not playable. Like i was discussing with someone yesterday, remember that 99% of us are using normal gamepads, and that simulating motorcycle physics 100% accurate will never make the transition on to our screens without proper input devices which will never be made for use consumers.

It has to be playable to a certain level, so compromises have to be made along the way somewhere. For car simulations we at least have controllers that come close to the real stuff, but controlling ultra complex 2 wheel physics & bodyweight shifting with a device with some buttons and 2 small joysticks is just not going to work.

However, some data has already been changed to be more realistic: springs, steer lock, aerodynamic.

Whatever you did, it resulted in a unstable, unpredicatable, and seriously not fun to ride bike.
I thought that the main focus of this beta was to improve the physics so that beta 7 would have the focus on the network part? As far as i can see, beta 7 is going to need alot of physics work to make me (and others) wanting to play this "sim" again.

[Yohji]

my opinion,

maybe GP bikes only realistic motorcycle simulator even now.

I think its have some strange... lost front tyre grip too easy(but varase500 is good), strange motion at up hill (become oversteer) and down hill (become under steer), and too unstable on the washboard type Kerbs.

if it is solve these problem, I feel good to playing ride.

it is true motorcycle control use every part of your body. not only some part like  car (car control use hand and foot,)  but we control Bike only two hand finger(pad controller) its hard. It is necessary to enable it to operate it simply possibly. Or it may be filtering some.
it need or unneed, if need, how many it, that an opinion divides.

we discuss, and feedback to piboso, and submit if we have some good data.
I think it make more good GPBikes

[JJS209]

Bottom line: GP Bikes physics improved greatly since Beta4. It is now, at last, a full fledged simulator. Only brakes need some more work to simulate temperature, wear and weight.
Problem is, physics parameters of the "stock" bikes have not be properly updated to match the changes. Virtual rider and dampers are the first coming to mind. However, some data has already been changed to be more realistic: springs, steer lock, aerodynamic.

I have a hard time understanding this. The physics should be based on the stock bikes, as that is the core (no pun intended) of GP-bikes. When I try new versions, I always use the stock bikes because I have no idea what settings/tweaks the mod-bikes have. So if I can't trust that the games underlying physics comes through on the stock bikes, how the hell should I form an opinion and report feedback on the updated psysics?

Cheers,

David "Gonzo" Boda #46

true words.

[EdouardB]

In fact to me the most important aspect of the brake thermal sim would be the fact that you need to bring the brakes up to their operating temp to get the full braking power.
So out of the pits, brakes (cold) could be weak. Also, keeping carbon discs in the right temp range in cold weather could be tricky: for rainy races you'd be better of with steel brakes (like in reality).

MaX.

If you start playing with those things it gets even more complicated pretty quickly: every time a rider grabs the brake with carbon disks (even when hot), they have less power at the beginning of the braking and more power after. A lot of riders like that because it allows for smoother suspension compression when grabbing the brake.