Constructive feedback about the game and its future direction

[yoshimura]

you are all geniuses apparently , form a team to get things done, have to win 10 years of development.

[HornetMaX]

Lol!! I definately fit in the ''most'' catagory haha 

Actually I have hope you can make it into the category "riders that can provide meaningful info" BOBR6 !

People have been working on and with satelite & space stuff/calculations/physics alot longer then PiBoSo or anyone else has been working on a bike simulator. Enough info & experience to be found there not?

Admittedly, the parallel is a bit far fetched, but to answer your question, then answer is "sometimes not". When you plan to send people to mars (for example), you don't have a lot of feedback from previous experience.

Anyway, the idea here is not that feedback is useless: it's that most of the feedback usually given here is useless. But there's no way of getting only the good part of it, so we have to run through all of it and extract the gold.

MaX.

[EdouardB]

Piboso,

I completely understand what you mean when you say that the physics model "underneath" the game is very very good as it is and doesn't need to be changed much at all. That is already an impressive first step.
The latest WSS600 mod is proof that if the right data sits in the bike mods, the game is very good as it is (I'm having a lot of fun in 6c with the 600, so for me 6c is a success).

However, like you said, even though the underlying physics are good, the stock bikes need work right now because their behavior is unrealistic (and very frustrating).
Also, the behavior of the stock bikes is not evolving significantly in the right direction and that leads me to believe that you either have issues with this or lack time to do the proper testing.
It also shows that the feedback we give to you and the work that you do on the stock bikes doesn't always move in the same direction.

So my question is, where do we go from here to improve the stock bikes and the virtual rider?

- Do you want to select a few players who could provide feedback after each small change before the new beta is released?
- Or do you plan on maybe letting a team of modders modify the stock bikes and compare what values they have compared to yours, that way you have more time to work on game stability (core.exe)?
- Or do you plan to maybe have some players (who are calm enough and who may or may not ride in real life) who could participate in discussions with you on Skype with close feedback, a "thinkgroup", like it is the case in some MMO games for example?

Basically, there are many options, but how do we move forward now with these stock bikes?

[Desteban]

Piboso,

I completely understand what you mean when you say that the physics model "underneath" the game is very very good as it is and doesn't need to be changed much at all. That is already an impressive first step.
The latest WSS600 mod is proof that if the right data sits in the bike mods, the game is very good as it is (I'm having a lot of fun in 6c with the 600, so for me 6c is a success).

However, like you said, even though the underlying physics are good, the stock bikes need work right now because their behavior is unrealistic (and very frustrating).
Also, the behavior of the stock bikes is not evolving significantly in the right direction and that leads me to believe that you either have issues with this or lack time to do the proper testing.
It also shows that the feedback we give to you and the work that you do on the stock bikes doesn't always move in the same direction.

So my question is, where do we go from here to improve the stock bikes and the virtual rider?

- Do you want to select a few players who could provide feedback after each small change before the new beta is released?
- Or do you plan on maybe letting a team of modders modify the stock bikes and compare what values they have compared to yours, that way you have more time to work on game stability (core.exe)?
- Or do you plan to maybe have some players (who are calm enough and who may or may not ride in real life) who could participate in discussions with you on Skype with close feedback, a "thinkgroup", like it is the case in some MMO games for example?

Basically, there are many options, but how do we move forward now with these stock bikes?

1+

[girlracerTracey]

The thought that keeps occurring to me if I am honest is this: How can anyone devise a motorcycle racing simulation in the absence of full & proper input, testing and ongoing consultation with individuals who race in real life or have done so in the past ?

Engineers do this all the time. Because physical models are physical models.
I've been working for years on satellite and spacecraft simulators and guess what, we had no feedback from satellite or spacecraft drivers

I don't think the space industry is a valid comparison in the context of this discussion if I am honest. For obvious reasons.  A more valid & pertinent comparison is the F1 car racing world and to be more precise the ancillary sphere of F1 simulator design. In the design & development of F1 simulators the engineers and software designers do actively consult and seek opinion & input from real life F1 racers. To not do so in the circumstances relating to the F1 industry would be tantamount to sheer madness. Why would any engineer in his right mind ignore a select, expert and knowledgeable small group of individuals with highly relevant on-track experience of what it feels like to race a modern F1 racing car round a race circuit? The expert resource being the pool of F1 drivers is there & available & arguably quite rightly is made full use of..

I fully agree that physical models are physical models and in fact remain nothing more than physical models..which is why the input of real life racing drivers / riders is arguably so crucial in ensuring an accurate degree of realism in the finished product. What if the physical model is flawed in some way? We are all after all only human. What happens then? And how would anyone know if it was flawed in the first place? The answer of course is that this is why you need real life racers to tell you whether the on-track behaviour & feel of the simulator on any given race track or any given racing motorcycle is realistic. I personally do not think there is any getting away from this if I am to be honest. Just my opinion but I have to say from the perspective of a rider/racer this all seems quite straight-forward & logical to me. You need to be able to properly test your "physical model". Left solely to the engineers it might not end up as being as perfect as otherwise it might be. 

At the end of the day just my opinion. Nothing more.

   

Also, on this whole forum, I've met no more than 2-3 people with riding experience that could provide useful feedback (beyond basic stuff I mean).
Most of the other riders (whichever riding skill they may have) have such a little understanding of physics that they are totally unable to translate what they feel into useful info.

Which is surely precisely why, ideally, you need an experienced real life motorcycle racer on board who is quite used to the concept of talking with engineers and who is able to enter into meaningful conversation with them.

On gp500, which admittedly was designed as a simulation game as opposed to a simulator, Melbourne House secured the services of Valentino Rossi, Kenny Roberts Jnr and Simon Crafer to help test and aid in the development the physics model in the game. Particular attention I understand was paid to the tyre wear & grip model as well as the other main aspects of the physics model. I think the strategy paid off. For the type of game it was designed to be and for the context of the era it came from it was a much respected and successful simulation game. I fully accept that gpbikes is a different kettle of fish entirely. The concept is that of a simulator rather than a game. Surely, however, bearing this in mind is there not arguably even more of a requirement, if not a pressing need, for the physics model(s) to be vetted and approved by an experienced real life racer(s) on an ongoing basis during its development?

Again I am just putting this out there as my own personal opinion. Nothing more. I fully accept the practicalities of getting the right sort of person on board to assist might not be a straightforward & easily met challenge. In all of my rambling above I do, I assure you, hold PiBoSo and his development team in extremely high regard. I am just making what is probably a painfully obvious point to your collective ears. I suspect my thinking might possibly be met with a more sympathetic ear from the real life racers amongst the forum members? Conversely maybe such individuals with real life racing experience may think that I'm talking out of my back-side    .

grT 

   

[HornetMaX]

I fully agree that physical models are physical models and in fact remain nothing more than physical models..which is why the input of real life racing drivers / riders is arguably so crucial in ensuring an accurate degree of realism in the finished product.

In GPB in the garage you have the setting of the swing arm pivot: I had to inform countless riders (some will recognize themselves here) that the effect of this setting is the square root of bugger all. AKA zero, nada, niente. Many were reporting the bike being more stable with the setting at 0, or sliding less with it at 2 or a better feeling () with it at 1. And you expect these to help Piboso to understand where the physical model is flawed ? If yes, be sure to insert some "placebo" case in your test plan and see the feedback you get on it. And good luck.

There's space for feedback, but most of the feedback will be diverging crap.

On gp500, which admittedly was designed as a simulation game as opposed to a simulator, Melbourne House secured the services of Valentino Rossi, Kenny Roberts Jnr and Simon Crafer to help test and aid in the development the physics model in the game.

I'm ready to bet that the only thing they secured was a photo session with the riders (posing as if they were) playing with the game and the right to let people know that these riders have participated in the development of the game.

MaX.

[girlracerTracey]

In GPB in the garage you have the setting of the swing arm pivot: I had to inform countless riders (some will recognize themselves here) that the effect of this setting is the square root of bugger all. AKA zero, nada, niente. Many were reporting the bike being more stable with the setting at 0, or sliding less with it at 2 or a better feeling () with it at 1. And you expect these to help Piboso to understand where the physical model is flawed ? If yes, be sure to insert some "placebo" case in your test plan and see the feedback you get on it. And good luck.

My "plan" as it were would be for an experienced real life racer to act as a consultant to the gpbikes project as I have outlined above.  Someone who is experienced in communicating with engineers and you never know even with software engineers if the person concerned has current/recent era racing experience. Such a concept, if it was possible to undertake, seems like plain common sense to me.

There's space for feedback, but most of the feedback will be diverging crap.

Perhaps not if you had someone from the real life sport of motorcycle racing involved who was experienced in the art of setting up a racing motorcycle for the race track &/or experienced in liaising with real life mechanics/engineers.

On gp500, which admittedly was designed as a simulation game as opposed to a simulator, Melbourne House secured the services of Valentino Rossi, Kenny Roberts Jnr and Simon Crafer to help test and aid in the development the physics model in the game.

I'm ready to bet that the only thing they secured was a photo session with the riders (posing as if they were) playing with the game and the right to let people know that these riders have participated in the development of the game.

I believe that your assumption is incorrect Max. My understanding is that the physics engine in gp500 simulation game was developed over a period of time with guidance & input  received from the grand prix riders concerned. I think the truth is that back in 1998/9 it was a different age and Melbourne House were able to devote more time & effort to the project in hand. I think the phenomenon of photo-shoots & "blind" endorsement of racing games by professional racers belongs more to the present day and modern world of video game development. 


I am a little surprised by your stance over this if I am honest Max. You seem to suffer from a slight aversion in trusting to the experience and wisdom of real life motorcycle racers. In real life racing just as in the development of F1 simulators the opinion of professional racers is taken into account and is respected. My point is under ideal circumstances why should the gpbikes project be any different? 

grT 


     

[WALKEN]

"I am a little surprised by your stance over this if I am honest Max. You seem to suffer from a slight aversion in trusting to the experience and wisdom of real life motorcycle racers. In real life racing just as in the development of F1 simulators the opinion of professional racers is taken into account and is respected. My point is under ideal circumstances why should the gpbikes project be any different? "


There is a huge missing link. The controller! In a F1 simulator you have entire cockpits with all the controls in short of reality its all there.  Handing Rossi a silly little game pad and asking him for feedback is silly as its apples to oranges. Writing physics code and the translation of proper physics is lost in between the code and the controls, unless the controls are proper which in this case they are not.

Sadly this is what will hinder GPBikes to bring it to a proper simulation.

Feedback for KRP can be more beneficial from a real shifter kart pro as the controls are there.  Feedback from anyone playing GPBikes with a gamepad etc is all opinions of what translates smoothly for that person regardless.       

[HornetMaX]

I am a little surprised by your stance over this if I am honest Max. You seem to suffer from a slight aversion in trusting to the experience and wisdom of real life motorcycle racers.

The slight aversion comes from years of observation of feedback given here by many experienced riders.
As I said, there are a few on this forum I would personally trust. But not the vast majority, no matter how fast they are in real life.

And +1 to Walken: most of the people here don't even know what the steering input in GPB does ...

MaX.

[girlracerTracey]

In that I completely agree with you WALK3N.

In many ways  this is the "missing link", as it were, in the whole gpbikes project.

What exactly to do about this is not a straightforward thing to solve by any stretch of the imagination.

If someone, DoubleDragon perhaps  ,  could perfect an advanced controller for gpbikes I for one would struggle to pay for it. But I think I would have to have one nonetheless.

If you handed something like that to a real life professional m/c racer and offered to buy him kebabs for the rest of his life perhaps you could be in business for some advanced testing of PiBoSo's simulator?

grT 

[WALKEN]

Again sadly we are years away from a "real" controller. 

The only instant remedy/solution is to write the code for a RC controller  http://www.futaba-rc.com/systems/futk9200-10j/index.html   This might be the in between solution at best?

[Ian]

  Handing Rossi a silly little game pad and asking him for feedback is silly as its apples to orange

Its not that silly Kenny Roberts Jr., Carlos Checa, Gary McCoy, Alex Barros, Nobuatsu Aoki, Simon Crafar, Sete Gibernau, Valentino Rossi were all involved in GP500

[Hawk]

Again sadly we are years away from a "real" controller. 

The only instant remedy/solution is to write the code for a RC controller  http://www.futaba-rc.com/systems/futk9200-10j/index.html   This might be the in between solution at best?

Would that really be any better than a good gamepad? Can't see it myself.

Hawk.

[WALKEN]

Probably not    Hence the point at hand.

Any real riders involvement concerning a game would be IMO for marketing purposes and a tip here and there, not where PIboso is going. Besides GP500 is only as realistic as it can be with a game pad.

Then to consider feedback from us (virtual riders) who do you trust? Fastest means nothing as you can manipulate setting in a strange way to achieve faster laps, I have done this for years.

The mention of RC controls is only to bridge the gap. Meaning even with a PS3 pad GPBikes can be coded to act as a RC simulation which in turn would be more realistic as you are granted the tools, until a proper controller is compiled.   

[girlracerTracey]

  Handing Rossi a silly little game pad and asking him for feedback is silly as its apples to orange

Its not that silly Kenny Roberts Jr., Carlos Checa, Gary McCoy, Alex Barros, Nobuatsu Aoki, Simon Crafar, Sete Gibernau, Valentino Rossi were all involved in GP500

Yes I heard the same thing. Even senior Dunlop factory tyre technicians were involved from what I understand which I think may account for the very advanced tyre grip/wear model (for its time) seen in the game. Nothing else in the m/c racing game spectrum has matched the tyre model since. Simon Crafer enjoyed the game so much he played it for fun after its release according to what I am led to believe..

To be realistic though the gpbikes physics model is much more advanced than gp500. Some would say infinitely more advanced!  As great as gp500 undoubtedly was for its day. I suppose the question is whether someone like Rossi could provide an opinion & feedback on gpbikes if he was to use say an xbox 360 controller..? I think personally that he could, at a basic level, although undoubtedly the full subtleties of the simulation would be lost to him if he did this. But yes I think a professional m/c racer could at least provide some basic feedback. But I guess PiBoSo & co. are after something somewhat more advanced than this in terms of the depth of critique they would wish to receive.

grT