Where are you going my beautiful bike ...

[Blackheart]

Come back 

http://www.youtube.com/v/5tOaDSXRe4Q%26



P.S. I love u Piboso

[doubledragoncc]

LOL glad someone posted at last. The bike can get carried away with itself and not want to stop in some places.

DD

[Eagle]

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

[Blackheart]

  It's very funny, but if it happens in the race , it is a bigggg problem

[HornetMaX]

It's very funny, but if it happens in the race , it is a bigggg problem

Been there, done that

MaX.

[doubledragoncc]

Yeah but do you have the T-shirt Max lmao

DD

[BOBR6 84]

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..

[doubledragoncc]

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

[BOBR6 84]

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

[doubledragoncc]

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

[BOBR6 84]

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!!! 

[Hawk]

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!!! 

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..... 

Hawk.

[Klax75]

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!!! 

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..... 

Hawk.

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!!! 

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..... 

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.

[HornetMaX]

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.

[Hawk]

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.