GP Bikes beta8

[PiBoSo]

He just said the opposite in the netcode debate thread.

[Vini]

The wobbles can be fixed temporarily with an "extreme" setup

Not really. But I am still waiting for Meyer's A1 Ring replays with low fuel to prove me wrong.

But I've never read anything about it by Piboso so maybe will be corrected in a few years.

Sadly, this was PiBoSo's only comment on that topic.


Edit:

He just said the opposite in the netcode debate thread.

As already explained before, GP Bikes is first of all a motorcycle simulator.
No one would be here supporting the project if it was just another bike game.
If you want to just race online, there's plenty of Milestone games.
So of course physics always took the top spot, because it's what makes GP Bikes unique.

Anyway, this is irrelevant now and requires no further discussion since there is already a dedicated thread for it.

[Blackheart]

The wobbles can be fixed temporarily with an "extreme" setup

Not really. But I am still waiting for Meyer's A1 Ring replays with low fuel to prove me wrong.

No what lol just put all the weight on the front wheel, no wobbles with varese and little with the motogp.

[Vini]

No what lol just put all the weight on the front wheel, no wobbles with varese and little with the motogp.

Doing exactly that.
Once again, feel free to send me those setups.

[Stout Johnson]

At the moment there are no plans to release a new build without improved multiplayer.

[Vini]

Really don't understand how you can be so happy about that but if this is really what PiBoSo will do, I guess we will see each other online again in beta10.

[HornetMaX]

At the moment there are no plans to release a new build without improved multiplayer.

Man, best news in GPB ever. Thank you.

I'm sure that if this is confirmed with facts, I'll shed a tear. Great news !

[Stout Johnson]

Really don't understand how you can be so happy about that but if this is really what PiBoSo will do, I guess we will see each other online again in beta10.

Not hard to understand... getting kicked off servers due to random core.exe errors is by far the single biggest fun-killer. I want to be able to constantly ride online without having to fear random kick-offs - which quite frankly often make me quit entirely for the evening. Also I wish to be able to ride in servers with dynamic track features... it is so much fun to see a groove develop. Or if I remember the nice events back in the days when PeterV tried to set up race weekends with dynamic weather and dynamic track conditions - for example wet conditions on friday, early saturday also wet and then slowly drying-up track for qualifying etc etc... that would just be awesome. Also for MXB, dynamic track features are almost a must-have.

Tbh, I do not understand your prioritization. Imho, wobbles or rider kick-offs in high leans are not very big issues for me. Maybe they are not perfect atm, but easily far less relevant compared to other things. My top prios atm are...
1) netcode
2) front/rear wheel alignment in sloped turns
3) tyre temps simulation

[Blackheart]

wobbles or rider kick-offs in high leans are not very big issues for me.

Sorry but.. WTF??? This is GP Bikes!

We want to be able to ride to the limit, with this problems is impossible, so it is not funny.

[Grooveski]

I had this problem i sorted it by making a new profile and deleting the old one.
I also deleted unnamed profile.
For some reason If I changed the profile and saved it, then played the game it would not save.
But when I changed the profile and saved it then left the game and restarted it, the profile worked fine.
Bug maybe.

That appears to be doing the job.  Still no control profile name but the calibration looks to be holding.  Cheers mate. 

Just about over the shock of the setups going along with the profile.   

[Vini]

Tbh, I do not understand your prioritization.

And I don't understand your's: How is a visual bug (point two on your list) more important than having a ridable bike?

Regarding your first point, we already have a thread for the netcode/physics priority discussion and to be honest I am not sure what is more important for me. At the moment it's the physics problems but then again I might think differently if I had core.exe crashes every 2 minutes.

But if there is a bug that can be easily fixed, why should you not do it???
From our analysis the rider-fall-off bug should be an easy fix but then again we have no idea as long as PiBoSo is not talking to us about it.

[Hawk]

As far as any serious unreal wobbles are concerned I'm convinced we will see big improvements in the bike-mods so long as the bike physics modder knows what they are doing.

I see no point in determining the real potential of GPB based on the default bikes which have been shown time and again in the beta releases to fall way short of what GPB is capable of to say the least. So have patience guys until the bike-mods are fully updated to beta 8 capabilities before making such statements based on poor examples of bike physics tuning.   

Hawk.

[Stout Johnson]

And I don't understand your's: How is a visual bug (point two on your list) more important than having a ridable bike?

It is not only a visual bug... Piboso made clear that what you see is the representation of the simulation. Piboso improved it for beta8, but somehow it is not being simulated perfectly yet (but I am positive, Piboso will solve this eventually). At the moment it is the reason for the bike understeering in sloped-down corners. So, if you think it is only a visual thing, you are wrong buddy.

Regarding your first point, we already have a thread for the netcode/physics priority discussion and to be honest I am not sure what is more important for me. At the moment it's the physics problems but then again I might think differently if I had core.exe crashes every 2 minutes.

Well then, feel free to have a different opinion on this matter. But based on the reactions to Piboso's announcement in this thread (hence my corresponding reaction in this thread instead netcode/physics priority discussion  ), I think it is safe to say that there are many others that would give the netcode issue the no.1 priority tag.

But if there is a bug that can be easily fixed, why should you not do it???

I didn't say that it should not be fixed.... if it is a bug, it will be fixed. But at some point Piboso has to start tackling the nagging core.exe issue first and with all his power (it has been delayed for years now) even if it means that other things that might be easier to fix but are much less important will have to wait.

[Vini]

At the moment it is the reason for the bike understeering in sloped-down corners.

Are you sure it is actually doing that, though? Have you calculated the maximum possible corner speed for a given corner and checked to see if GPB is simulating it correctly?
It still looks like the bike is understeering but if the corner speed (and lean angle) is correct, then it would be a visual bug and the physics would be correct.

I didn't say that it should not be fixed.... if it is a bug, it will be fixed. But at some point Piboso has to start tackling the nagging core.exe issue first and with all his power (it has been delayed for years now) even if it means that other things that might be easier to fix but are much less important will have to wait.

Is saying that it should be fixed after core.exe has been fixed really that much different from saying it should not be fixed?
Why should one improvement be delayed significantelly when the delay it would cause for other (harder) fixes is negligible?

[Blackheart]

@Stout Johnson It is a bug. In my previous vid u can clearly see I have not increased the bend during the corner (and the rider had space), but the rider fall off, for no a real reason but just for a little stupid bug.

https://www.youtube.com/v/ovJibTu-r3c