Miro, can you just tell me what is actually wrong? We have tested the track many times, as well as 400 people on the plugin and I don't see any evidence of the physics being flawed. Thanks
Your physics has one ID for all surfaces! Each part of the track measuring 4x4 m (256x256 pix) can have different materials on this area. But another part of the track with other materials must already have a new ID, but it must always be a 4x4 m area (I mean mapping the texture to the track in 3ds max or Blender) See the original tracks and the physics layout on the texture map (TrackTexturePlateOpaque.dds) . The material editor window is actually the size of the track geometry 256x256 pix. You have 16x16 pix! What does it practically do while driving? The car does not have enough grip and the car does not "hold" in corners and has a long distance when braking.
That 400 people went through it and how many of them dropped out or received a penalty? Read the comments. The fact that the track is nice is great, but it's a pity that you invented physics incompatible with RBR physics.
Yes, we just use a different approach for the physics mapping compared to orig. & community tracks by using this 1 material divided into 16x16 slots. This makes the whole physics creation much faster because instead of painting the actual ground textures in Wallaby, we just create a 2nd UVMap in the ground mesh and map it to this single texture ("physics-map.dds"). There is no technical reason why this shouldn't work, we have done many tests to be sure and also discussed it with programmers who have in-depth knowledge about how RBR physics works - WorkerBee and Tom Smalley. RallyGuru uses this method for a long time already for his private tracks, so we even didn't invent anything new...
The mentioned relations between meters and pixels make no sense at all, RBR physics engine really doesn't care whether the texture is 16, 256px or 4K, nor on how large mesh the texture is mapped on. I suppose you took such values from that 15 years old tutorial, but these are just recommendations which you don't need to follow strictly.
If you don't believe, you can check out this physics-testing track which uses the same method https://1drv.ms/u/s!AqjAvAhywam69S2yR7S2LlIOONtE?e=BTBSJZ
I don't get your last paragraph - I read the comments and nobody got the penalty so far, as well as nobody commented the physics as being flawed, just slippery in some areas - but this was our intention.
Frankly I found the physics to be exactly what we wanted. The concrete on the airfield section slips more, because it's degraded, it grips in certain areas more, especially when outside the forest and near the "R4 into bump (tree outside)", the part where most of us retired - R3-L4 (with those little bushes on the outside of R3 in the forest) - realistically there is a dip and mud/dust would be collected there. And I'm the kind of person who complains about physics constantly...
WorkerBee does physics for cars according to my method from the Peklo track. (see mat file and physics application system) So don't tell me your physics is okay. The size of the texture has nothing to do with it. This is the area into which the physics of the material is applied in the material editor and it is 256x256 pixels in size, really on a 4x4 m geometry ! The size of the texture has nothing to do with it I don't use the method from 14 years ago, the creators of the game invented it! I have changed the system of creating physics and other changes in the creation of tracks so that the tracks are made quickly and with quality.
Ask Wally if your physics is compatible with RBR physics. If he says yes, then sorry!
Can you tell me where you got these values (256px, 4x4m) from ...? Have you tested the physics-track I shared with you?
But OK, let's say you are right and Biskupice physics is "not compatible with RBR". Then how would you explain the track has been tested by more than 600 people on plugin, many real rally drivers (like M. Bujáček or N. Gryazin - which btw said "these guys really know how the physics works"), the most experienced RBR trackbuilders (RallyGuru, Martinez), the RBR physics experts (WorkerBee, Tom Smalley), and many others... and nobody has experienced any single problem with it?
If you are the only person in the whole RBR community who finds the physics bad, then I think it would be fair to provide some clear evidence which will proof your criticism, but just saying "it can't work because" doesn't mean anything.
To be honest - from the very beginning it looks like you are just trying to throw some shit on our work because you didn't have such feedback on your tracks - otherwise you would try to be constructive from the very first comment, you would maybe rather contact me by email or just explain what is wrong here. "Bad physics" is not a feedback one would expect from an experienced trackbuilder. If this is the case, please don't stop that because it doesn't help our team ... otherwise I can start naming all the issues I find in your tracks, especially the latest ones. I hope we can avoid that...
What about joining "RBR Trackbuilding" Discord server instead of this nonsense and discuss everything constructively there? Almost all the RBR modders are already there. RBR modding is very complex and time-consuming and we / modders are just a few - if we really love RBR and want it to progress, we need to cooperate - by sharing our experiences, suggesting the improvements or fixes, everybody will benefit from that. No reason to fight against each other. FMOD project is the first result of such cooperation, another are coming (like Blender RBR editor).
I am done with this discussion here. Enjoy the weekend and good luck with Kameňák - looks very good on the screenshots.
Guys, I tested track and don't find any issue in my subjective opinion. I see, just both method works as well, so no reason fights with each other. Just use the method with what you are familiar and it's all.
Just testing Komárov Snow - the car is braking when driving in the middle of the road... so maybe better to fix your tracks first before you start blaming other's work.
Very good looking and top quality stage - bravo Jan and team. I hope this visual will come in RBR as Standart fro any new track
OdpovědětVymazatBad physics !
OdpovědětVymazatCan you be more specific?
VymazatRead the instructions - Surface materials
OdpovědětVymazathttp://rbr.onlineracing.cz/tracks/article.php?id=31
Miro, can you just tell me what is actually wrong? We have tested the track many times, as well as 400 people on the plugin and I don't see any evidence of the physics being flawed.
VymazatThanks
Your physics has one ID for all surfaces!
OdpovědětVymazatEach part of the track measuring 4x4 m (256x256 pix) can have different materials on this area. But another part of the track with other materials must already have a new ID, but it must always be a 4x4 m area (I mean mapping the texture to the track in 3ds max or Blender) See the original tracks and the physics layout on the texture map (TrackTexturePlateOpaque.dds) .
The material editor window is actually the size of the track geometry 256x256 pix. You have 16x16 pix! What does it practically do while driving? The car does not have enough grip and the car does not "hold" in corners and has a long distance when braking.
That 400 people went through it and how many of them dropped out or received a penalty? Read the comments. The fact that the track is nice is great, but it's a pity that you invented physics incompatible with RBR physics.
Yes, we just use a different approach for the physics mapping compared to orig. & community tracks by using this 1 material divided into 16x16 slots. This makes the whole physics creation much faster because instead of painting the actual ground textures in Wallaby, we just create a 2nd UVMap in the ground mesh and map it to this single texture ("physics-map.dds").
VymazatThere is no technical reason why this shouldn't work, we have done many tests to be sure and also discussed it with programmers who have in-depth knowledge about how RBR physics works - WorkerBee and Tom Smalley. RallyGuru uses this method for a long time already for his private tracks, so we even didn't invent anything new...
The mentioned relations between meters and pixels make no sense at all, RBR physics engine really doesn't care whether the texture is 16, 256px or 4K, nor on how large mesh the texture is mapped on. I suppose you took such values from that 15 years old tutorial, but these are just recommendations which you don't need to follow strictly.
If you don't believe, you can check out this physics-testing track which uses the same method
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AqjAvAhywam69S2yR7S2LlIOONtE?e=BTBSJZ
I don't get your last paragraph - I read the comments and nobody got the penalty so far, as well as nobody commented the physics as being flawed, just slippery in some areas - but this was our intention.
Frankly I found the physics to be exactly what we wanted. The concrete on the airfield section slips more, because it's degraded, it grips in certain areas more, especially when outside the forest and near the "R4 into bump (tree outside)", the part where most of us retired - R3-L4 (with those little bushes on the outside of R3 in the forest) - realistically there is a dip and mud/dust would be collected there. And I'm the kind of person who complains about physics constantly...
VymazatWorkerBee does physics for cars according to my method from the Peklo track.
OdpovědětVymazat(see mat file and physics application system)
So don't tell me your physics is okay.
The size of the texture has nothing to do with it.
This is the area into which the physics of the material is applied in the material editor and it is 256x256 pixels in size, really on a 4x4 m geometry !
The size of the texture has nothing to do with it
I don't use the method from 14 years ago, the creators of the game invented it!
I have changed the system of creating physics and other changes in the creation of tracks so that the tracks are made quickly and with quality.
Ask Wally if your physics is compatible with RBR physics. If he says yes, then sorry!
Can you tell me where you got these values (256px, 4x4m) from ...? Have you tested the physics-track I shared with you?
VymazatBut OK, let's say you are right and Biskupice physics is "not compatible with RBR". Then how would you explain the track has been tested by more than 600 people on plugin, many real rally drivers (like M. Bujáček or N. Gryazin - which btw said "these guys really know how the physics works"), the most experienced RBR trackbuilders (RallyGuru, Martinez), the RBR physics experts (WorkerBee, Tom Smalley), and many others... and nobody has experienced any single problem with it?
If you are the only person in the whole RBR community who finds the physics bad, then I think it would be fair to provide some clear evidence which will proof your criticism, but just saying "it can't work because" doesn't mean anything.
To be honest - from the very beginning it looks like you are just trying to throw some shit on our work because you didn't have such feedback on your tracks - otherwise you would try to be constructive from the very first comment, you would maybe rather contact me by email or just explain what is wrong here. "Bad physics" is not a feedback one would expect from an experienced trackbuilder.
If this is the case, please don't stop that because it doesn't help our team ... otherwise I can start naming all the issues I find in your tracks, especially the latest ones.
I hope we can avoid that...
What about joining "RBR Trackbuilding" Discord server instead of this nonsense and discuss everything constructively there? Almost all the RBR modders are already there.
RBR modding is very complex and time-consuming and we / modders are just a few - if we really love RBR and want it to progress, we need to cooperate - by sharing our experiences, suggesting the improvements or fixes, everybody will benefit from that. No reason to fight against each other.
FMOD project is the first result of such cooperation, another are coming (like Blender RBR editor).
I am done with this discussion here.
Enjoy the weekend and good luck with Kameňák - looks very good on the screenshots.
J.
Guys, I tested track and don't find any issue in my subjective opinion. I see, just both method works as well, so no reason fights with each other. Just use the method with what you are familiar and it's all.
OdpovědětVymazatPhysics is similar to that in the BTB...
OdpovědětVymazatWhile your physics are just perfect https://youtu.be/5MM5zvZJyiA
VymazatJust testing Komárov Snow - the car is braking when driving in the middle of the road... so maybe better to fix your tracks first before you start blaming other's work.
Vymazat