GP Bikes beta7b

[Boerenlater]

Staring at the connected screen for more than 10 minutes, yes my ports are opened.

[HornetMaX]

Staring at the connected screen for more than 10 minutes, yes my ports are opened.

Not a solution but ... when I connect to an online server I keep on moving the mouse  pointer: usually, after a few seconds the mouse pointer freezes (as is the PC was doing some CPU intensive tasks), the it stays frozen for a few seconds and a few seconds after I'm in. If I don't see it freezing I just abort and reconnect, because most of the time it just stays on the connect page. No freeze no party

[Hawk]

Staring at the connected screen for more than 10 minutes, yes my ports are opened.

Not a solution but ... when I connect to an online server I keep on moving the mouse  pointer: usually, after a few seconds the mouse pointer freezes (as is the PC was doing some CPU intensive tasks), the it stays frozen for a few seconds and a few seconds after I'm in. If I don't see it freezing I just abort and reconnect, because most of the time it just stays on the connect page. No freeze no party

My mouse also freezes during connection(30 secs to 3mins+ depending on the server and circuit being connected), but then is free again for about 30-60 secs while it brings up the track screen.

Hawk.

[HornetMaX]

My mouse also freezes during connection(30 secs to 3mins+ depending on the server and circuit being connected), but then is free again for about 30-60 secs while it brings up the track screen.

Right. My point is that if you don't get the initial freeze, you can abort: it's never gonna connect.

[BOBR6 84]

Dink dink dink dink dink................................................Dink... We're in! 

[davidboda46]

So, after playing B7B for a while now, and also testing on tracks other than Victoria, I have to say that the front end problem is still present, although to a lesser extent than in the B6-betas. The front end tuck now mostly occur in uphill turns, and the problem is worsened even more if the turn is banked. It is also more frequent when applying throttle, lessening the load on the front. It seems to me that the virtual rider is not having enough control (pressure) over the handlebar, when the front goes lighter the wheel and forks start acting like they don't have weight and just starts to swing back and forth. The problem also seem to occur when you have some lean angle and apply the throttle. Then it feels like the front cant decide if it should point into the corner or straight forward, resulting in a handlebar shake.

Having said all this, I still think the main development focus should be on the Core.exe problem. Modders (btw, you guys are doing an awesome job) can make bikes that are more rideable in the meantime, until the core.exe i solved. I love GP-bikes, but it feels like all I've been doing is hot-laps for the last couple of years. For me, racing with (against) others is the nr 1 priority, after so many betas. And as for sales, I would say that a more easy to ride bike (similar to the GP125 ITA) is a good way to get people hooked on the game, and to get them to buy it. Once they have done that, they will probably raise the bar and start "riding for real" on more difficult bikes. Maybe the beta should have 125/moto3 "newbie", like a novice practice bike, and it could also be included in licensed game for offline riding, but not allowed online? Just my 2 cents...

Cheers,       

/David "Gonzo" Boda #46

[C21]

It is also more frequent when applying throttle, lessening the load on the front. It seems to me that the virtual rider is not having enough control (pressure) over the handlebar

+1
That´s what i have seen in many replays also. If the load on the front is released leaning back to the upright immediatly the front is lost (e.g. i can replicate that everytime on the downhill section right hander on Victoria).

[Stout Johnson]

It is also more frequent when applying throttle, lessening the load on the front. It seems to me that the virtual rider is not having enough control (pressure) over the handlebar

+1
That´s what i have seen in many replays also. If the load on the front is released leaning back to the upright immediatly the front is lost (e.g. i can replicate that everytime on the downhill section right hander on Victoria).

+1 here too. Seems like the counter-steer in order to get from the lean in the upward direction seems to cause it. But for me it has improved vastly in b7, it is till there but very much improved from beta6. It is a good thing to discuss though. We should keep this as one of the topics after core.exe error is eliminated.

[Napalm Nick]

Removed this out of the Owners Club area to here. Brands Hatch really shows the uphill/downhill/lean physics anomaly. Trying to decide if it should really happen the other way round. I mean going up a hill on a tight left will lessen the angle from track to bike but the bike lean angle wont change. Here the bike lean is increasing until the inevitable crash. Opposite for downhill

"Throwing this info into my theory now - running at max lean (but slowly) around the first corner at Brands you can physically see the amount of lean is reducing linearly with the increase in angle causing the turning arc to widen. On the uphill bends the lean angle increases as the track angle increases causing the 'tightening' of the line - often resulting in such a turn as to lose the rear.

Thinking about myself riding steep angles on a curve - shouldn't that phenomenon be the other way round??

Note there is no real banking in this example either"

https://www.youtube.com/v/nEBnJC8_2B4

All thoughts appreciated. Hope it helps explain what appears to be happening physics wise at least.

[Hawk]

I know the virtual rider won't let you lean further than grip allows, so it looks to me like the grip on the front end is diminishing as you go through the downhill bend and the V/rider is lifting the bike to compensate...... Don't ask me what the V/Rider is doing on the uphill bend.... Seems almost like he's leaning and leaning until he loses it. Something isn't right. 

Just my thoughts.

Hawk.

[Vini]

same for cadwell park

[HornetMaX]

+1 here too. Seems like the counter-steer in order to get from the lean in the upward direction seems to cause it.

This has always been the impression, even in past betas, even if it's hard to tell if one loses the front because of the countersteer or if it countersteers because it's losing the front.
Never managed to convince myself of one or the other.

But for me it has improved vastly in b7, it is till there but very much improved from beta6.

Yep, vastly improved for me too. Proof: Ledenon track is almost rideable with beta7.

Removed this out of the Owners Club area to here. Brands Hatch really shows the uphill/downhill/lean physics anomaly. Trying to decide if it should really happen the other way round. I mean going up a hill on a tight left will lessen the angle from track to bike but the bike lean angle wont change. Here the bike lean is increasing until the inevitable crash. Opposite for downhill

As said in the past (far past, many were not here at the time) to me it's as simple as that: the virtual rider does not seem to take into account the local camber of the track(*) so you have to manually compensate for that. When it leans too  much, you can compensate by leaning less (avoiding the crash). When it leans too little, there's nothing you can do other than run wide (or not as tight as you'd expect).

(*) By "local camber of the track" I mean not only the basic camber, like in a banked straight, but also the camber induced by the turn being on a slope (case @ brands).

To visualize this: imagine a flat straight section, then take the right border of the section and raise it till reaching a bank angle of 30deg.

• If you run in the middle of the track section in the same direction as the track (i.e. parallel to it) the "local" camber you see is 30deg , with no slope (0 deg).
• But if you run in a direction that is not parallel to the track (e.g. you're climbing, going to the right of the section) then you see less camber and some slope.
• At the extreme, if you're running perpendicular to the track, you see zero camber and a 30deg slope.

If the virtual rider doesn't take this into account (and Nick's video is the best proof of that), then it will misjudge the max lean angle and either lean not enough (and run wide, open the trajectory) or lean too much (and crash).

BTW, nice U turn Nick

[Napalm Nick]

Thanks for the comments guys helps me get a better understanding.

Brands really shows it well everywhere because most of the corners have steep elevation changes and either no or some banking (wrt sea level  )

Its like an extreme visualization of Victoria's turn after Lukey.

I mean even the 125ITA is tough to get round here! try it!

Wouldn't it be nice if we could turn off the Riders 'lean compensation characteristic' just to see what happens...

[HornetMaX]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could turn off the Riders 'lean compensation characteristic' just to see what happens...

Uh ? That piece of code is in charge of translating your (bike) lean input into a steering torque.
Only way to turn it off is to use DST/DSA.

[Napalm Nick]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. I can't do it, I can't I can't....  ...<blubbering mess>
Come back Klax all is forgiven.