Constructive feedback about the game and its future direction

[PiBoSo]

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

The physics simulation is now the state of the art. So from now on you should not expect big changes, but a lot of parameters tuning. To do that, of course feedback is not only welcome, as always, but needed.

[yoshimura]

 

[Abigor]

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

The physics simulation is now the state of the art. So from now on you should not expect big changes, but a lot of parameters tuning. To do that, of course feedback is not only welcome, as always, but needed.

Hahahah so my front wheal JUMPS like CREAZY in slow corners and this is state of the art physics ?......Waaaaw

[yoshimura]

seriously the simulation is not finished !!!! there are still problem.

[PeterV]

The physics simulation is now the state of the art. So from now on you should not expect big changes, but a lot of parameters tuning. To do that, of course feedback is not only welcome, as always, but needed.

Well sad to hear this really, i personally think its gone backwards, the physics might be state of the art (to the beholder) but the total package is not even near to being finished.
Like many others already have mentioned its getting worse, the handling of the bikes. The violent wobbles and weaves are still there even worse then beta5b. Front still not stable enough to take a corner with confidence, (i always pray if i will make it). I guess we will have to make due like we always do.

[PiBoSo]

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

The physics simulation is now the state of the art. So from now on you should not expect big changes, but a lot of parameters tuning. To do that, of course feedback is not only welcome, as always, but needed.

Hahahah so my front wheal JUMPS like CREAZY in slow corners and this is state of the art physics ?......Waaaaw

Please note that physics algorithms are just one part of a simulator.
The others are:
1) input -> you have all the possible settings to tune them to your controller(s), but you HAVE TO learn and use them!!!
2) bike and rider parameters -> they need work
3) tracks -> if a turn is unrealistically bumpy, there is no hope for the simulator

[JJS209]

3) tracks -> if a turn is unrealistically bumpy, there is no hope for the simulator

Road-Racing.

[yan24]

PIBOSO excuse me but I want to know if you've already driven a motorcycle on the track

[Abigor]

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

The physics simulation is now the state of the art. So from now on you should not expect big changes, but a lot of parameters tuning. To do that, of course feedback is not only welcome, as always, but needed.

Hahahah so my front wheal JUMPS like CREAZY in slow corners and this is state of the art physics ?......Waaaaw

Please note that physics algorithms are just one part of a simulator.
The others are:
1) input -> you have all the possible settings to tune them to your controller(s), but you HAVE TO learn and use them!!!
2) bike and rider parameters -> they need work
3) tracks -> if a turn is unrealistically bumpy, there is no hope for the simulator

All i ask of you is will you please give the front wheel another go.....beta 5 and beta 6 has the samme problem witch front wheal in slow corners ....it's very unstable........i'm not trying to criticize you and this game....i love this game and im a big fan of you man

[PiBoSo]

PIBOSO excuse me but I want to know if you've already driven a motorcycle on the track

What has this to do with making a simulator?
It's like asking Dall'Igna if he ever rode a MotoGP...

[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.

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.

It gets complicate as in real life, so it's good to have (and it's not too hard to implement).
The nice thing is that this change would be pretty localized (low interaction with the rest of the physics), so normally it shouldn't require a lot of re-tuning and modders spending nights and nights in adapting to it. But granted, having the 3 default bikes actually usable is far more important than brake temperature simulation.

On the whole discussion of beta6, I'm ready to trust Piboso once more (as I do think, as already said for beta5, that tuning of virtual rider and other parameters is really really needed).
But if before we had one outstanding item to tackle (game crashes), now we have two (bikes tuning and game crashes): even more than before, it's essential to have thse tackled BEFORE any other (less important) stuff.

More and more riders are moving away from GPB. Not good.

PIBOSO excuse me but I want to know if you've already driven a motorcycle on the track

What has this to do with making a simulator?
It's like asking Dall'Igna if he ever rode a MotoGP...

+1000, needless to say.

MaX.

[Mac]

seriously the simulation is not finished !!!! there are still problem.

Maybe that's why GpBikes is in a beta stage.. 

[janaucarre]

This thread countains a little of respectless posts. Keep in your mind that's forum and not a place to complain. All arguments have been done in other threads and i think piboso has read it.
Please, if you want to write something, do it for the best and not for the worst.
Thank you.

[Stout Johnson]

Hahahah so my front wheal JUMPS like CREAZY in slow corners and this is state of the art physics ?......Waaaaw

This whole discussion is pointless because most people don't seem to understand the following statement from Piboso....

The physics simulation is now the state of the art. So from now on you should not expect big changes, but a lot of parameters tuning. To do that, of course feedback is not only welcome, as always, but needed.

To all who have never programmed/modelled (big majority imo) the above statement from Piboso might come across like he assumes beta6 might be "state of the art" in terms of physics simulation. That is not what Piboso said, but it would only be understood correctly by people who know how a simulation model works.

So to make it more clear I try to explain it in a simplified way: Piboso has now pretty much found a satisfactory model for every part of simulating a motorcycle physics. But only the model, the theoretical formula if you will. The way the user of GPB actually feels it might be still very much work in progress because many parameters need to be tweaked. And Piboso admitted that and communicated it, which is a very good thing.

To understand this let's say you would want to model buying behaviour of a motorcycle sim:
Sales = A*Youtube_reviews + B*Steam_Access + C*Friends_Recommendations
--> The accuracy of such a model would pretty much depend on the parameters A, B, C. Realistically tuned values for A, B, C might give a realistic approximate to sales, while bad parameter values would return bad sales predictions. Simple as that. So, all Piboso is saying is that is formula is very much correct, the parameters need to be adjusted. So if Piboso says that the simulation model is state of the art, you should believe him. I hope he will find a way to realistically tune the parameters. 

Imo, the biggest obstacle atm seems to be the simulation of the virtual rider. In many cases of the sudden front loss, the behaviour of the virtual rider looks very suspect to me.

On another note: some time ago, we asked Piboso to not always wait for beta releases until there are very major improvements... We asked him to release even small step improvements. In terms of modelling the bike physics Piboso has probably managed to make a huge step forward by introducing chassis flex, which really is a MUST in a motorcycle sim. So good step there. Unfortunately it doesn't feel much better in terms of rideability, as the chassis flex and rider sim improvements didn't change the bad front wheel behaviour. But still, I prefer Piboso releasing small step imrovement betas and us giving him valuable feedback (which he knows is important as he stated).

[PiBoSo]

Imo, the biggest obstacle atm seems to be the simulation of the virtual rider. In many cases of the sudden front loss, the behaviour of the virtual rider looks very suspect to me.

Agreed.