The physics are way off on this game. It feels like I'm riding a street bike. Any plans on improving that? It's really hard to have fun when it doesn't act like a dirt bike at all.
Quote from: mxman on February 21, 2015, 05:00:22 AM
The physics are way off on this game. It feels like I'm riding a street bike. Any plans on improving that? It's really hard to have fun when it doesn't act like a dirt bike at all.
the physics are constantly being worked on. Take a stroll through this thread and you can read up on what's all being done.
Quote from: mxman on February 21, 2015, 05:00:22 AM
The physics are way off on this game. It feels like I'm riding a street bike. Any plans on improving that? It's really hard to have fun when it doesn't act like a dirt bike at all.
Could you please be more specific?
What area exactly needs to be improved?
I have a feeling that "It feels like I'm riding a street bike" will stick to this project as a label, even if it's not true. :(
Quote from: PiBoSo on February 21, 2015, 10:42:20 AM
Quote from: mxman on February 21, 2015, 05:00:22 AM
The physics are way off on this game. It feels like I'm riding a street bike. Any plans on improving that? It's really hard to have fun when it doesn't act like a dirt bike at all.
Could you please be more specific?
What area exactly needs to be improved?
I have a feeling that "It feels like I'm riding a street bike" will stick to this project as a label, even if it's not true. :(
I agree piboso, its been used several times which is unfortunate however, I personally think by street bike feel they mean the back end specifically. As mentioned before I feel the rear end tracks the front too much, almost like you cannot slide independently on the rear tire like you can in any other motocross game. MXgp is good example of this I think. It seems the whole bike just leans as one, instead of turning round corners if you know what I mean. I know what this street bike feel is when I've played other MX games and come back to this one. This isn't a personal attack at your work by any means Pib, Im simply trying to offer constructive advice and opinions to help shape this game into the motocross benchmark game.
Quote from: gdubmx on February 21, 2015, 11:01:01 AM
Quote from: PiBoSo on February 21, 2015, 10:42:20 AM
Quote from: mxman on February 21, 2015, 05:00:22 AM
The physics are way off on this game. It feels like I'm riding a street bike. Any plans on improving that? It's really hard to have fun when it doesn't act like a dirt bike at all.
Could you please be more specific?
What area exactly needs to be improved?
I have a feeling that "It feels like I'm riding a street bike" will stick to this project as a label, even if it's not true. :(
I agree piboso, its been used several times which is unfortunate however, I personally think by street bike feel they mean the back end specifically. As mentioned before I feel the rear end tracks the front too much, almost like you cannot slide independently on the rear tire like you can in any other motocross game. MXgp is good example of this I think. It seems the whole bike just leans as one, instead of turning round corners if you know what I mean. I know what this street bike feel is when I've played other MX games and come back to this one. This isn't a personal attack at your work by any means Pib, Im simply trying to offer constructive advice and opinions to help shape this game into the motocross benchmark game. Your work is great piboso and we applaud you for your hard work. :)
As Gdubmx said Piboso, I also think the "street bike" comments are base in the inability to get the back end out in a managed/consistent way.
As guys like teeds have shown if you put in the time you can do amazing things with these bikes, but for a first timer, or someone
NOT willing to put those hours in, the first impression of the bikes here is that they cannot be thrown around as some people would
expect to throw around a MX bike.
For example at times I can come into a corner and mash the back brake, then the back end will slide around and it feels great, just like id expect it to,
but then its just absolute luck if i can hold it past that point, 99/100 times ill be on my arse shortly after lol :)
As others have hinted at, I alos believe that MXgp did this well, even though it was pretty arcadey, they had some things working very well.
Those of us who come here often and play most days know how much work you put in to this and it blows my mind tbh, AND we have
all seen the improvements you make from build to build that radically improve this sim.
I know this sim will get to a point one day where it pleases all but the most dedicated and closed minded supporters of other products
so im not overly worried tbh.
I mean all this as constructive critisism :)
I can't disagree with the rear wheel behaviour described, but as I thought we'd already covered this was going to wait and see how B3 is before bringing it up again if needed.
Quote from: teeds on February 21, 2015, 02:30:00 PM
I can't disagree with the rear wheel behaviour described, but as I thought we'd already covered this was going to wait and see how B3 is before bringing it up again if needed.
Your right, I probably should have just waited :)
Quote from: gdubmx on February 21, 2015, 11:01:01 AM
Quote from: PiBoSo on February 21, 2015, 10:42:20 AM
Quote from: mxman on February 21, 2015, 05:00:22 AM
The physics are way off on this game. It feels like I'm riding a street bike. Any plans on improving that? It's really hard to have fun when it doesn't act like a dirt bike at all.
Could you please be more specific?
What area exactly needs to be improved?
I have a feeling that "It feels like I'm riding a street bike" will stick to this project as a label, even if it's not true. :(
I agree piboso, its been used several times which is unfortunate however, I personally think by street bike feel they mean the back end specifically. As mentioned before I feel the rear end tracks the front too much, almost like you cannot slide independently on the rear tire like you can in any other motocross game. MXgp is good example of this I think. It seems the whole bike just leans as one, instead of turning round corners if you know what I mean. I know what this street bike feel is when I've played other MX games and come back to this one. This isn't a personal attack at your work by any means Pib, Im simply trying to offer constructive advice and opinions to help shape this game into the motocross benchmark game.
imo street bike feeling it's because an mx bike can handle more rough terrain, in actual mxb physics the tracks have to be very clean/without bumps to be ride able. Other thing is the rebound from front wheel is acting a bit strange when the front fork is a bit sideways... i need to drop all the values to minimum in suspension settings to decrease this issue... even so needs to be addressed in the future. (hope beta 3 have more bike playability for more people enjoy the game and get addicted to it)... even so i prefer mx bikes 100 times more than mx sim! :)
This game is great, The only thing that id hope to see in Beta 3 that hasn't already been addressed would be further In air Physics tweaking. I completely understand its just been added in and needs to be fine tuned. I just wish to help inform what needs to be tuned. Mostly for me the way the rider leans compared to the bike movement is very awkward. It almost feels like the rider jerks the bike too fast. Although i wonder how this new Part Weight Addition affects that? ??? Other than that the only other thing i can ask is that the head follows the Movement Direction rather than the front wheel in air. Other than that Its Pretty great :)
Also another little Thing thats a tad bit odd is how light weight the front wheel is at a complete stop. The rider can turn it back and forth like he can in the air. The Bike is a few hundred pounds digging into the dirt and you cannot turn the front wheel that freely because of resistance and the treads of the tire digging into the dirt. By changing this i feel this would put a huge Advancement to the low speed stability problem because you would be able to keep the wheel straight once beginning to throttle rather that it doing that little back and forth jerk before you get your speed up Due to Gyroscopic Forces not Yet becoming a stabilizing factor. This would improve starts, and just overall low speed stability in general.
Great Game just some Constructive Criticism. Keep up the great work
The main feeling i felt when using the demo was that the front and rear wheels seem aligned almost like they are on a rail, so they don't ever seem independent of each other,
it gives a feeling of a street bike like design, just my opinion.
Quote from: 22Ryann on February 22, 2015, 09:14:59 AM
The main feeling i felt when using the demo was that the front and rear wheels seem aligned almost like they are on a rail, so they don't ever seem independent of each other,
it gives a feeling of a street bike like design, just my opinion.
Yeah I know what you mean, in real life you see a berm, and once you've slowed to corner entry speed, whack the throttle open so the rear wheel slides right into the berm while sitting nice and forward to keep the front planted. I'm yet to find a game that recreates that feeling. Must be hard as hell to program though. Just trying to consider the resolution of forces and turning moments on the rear wheel is enough for me!!
Quote from: motopsycho87 on February 22, 2015, 10:42:15 AM
I'm yet to find a game that recreates that feeling. Must be hard as hell to program though. Just trying to consider the resolution of forces and turning moments on the rear wheel is enough for me!!
That is right indeed. I'd say that the hard part is not "to consider the resolution of forces and turning moments on the rear wheel" (in a multi-body approach, this is taken care almost automagically) but more the fact that in a sim it's very hard to get the physical feeling of what's happening, you can't feel the rear starting to slide.
I still have in the back of my mind a tiny suspect about the tire model (speaking more for GPB than for MXB here): at large slip and camber angles, it may not be accurate.
MaX.
So Piboso what are you thoughts and plans of action on the recent criticisms/opinions on the supposed "street bike" handling and rear wheel/back end adjustments. I assume you are familiar with MXgp rear end handling that was previously mentioned? What are your thoughts on the implementation of that type of movement in mx bikes? Thank you Piboso. Sorry for the 21 questions :)
Quote from: gdubmx on February 23, 2015, 08:11:30 PM
So Piboso what are you thoughts and plans of action on the recent criticisms/opinions on the supposed "street bike" handling and rear wheel/back end adjustments. I assume you are familiar with MXgp rear end handling that was previously mentioned? What are your thoughts on the implementation of that type of movement in mx bikes? Thank you Piboso. Sorry for the 21 questions, its just nice to hear our developer actually have an input with the community unlike that biased bunch of deaf gimps on the MVA forum. :)
Familiar with MXGP? ???
The rear tyre sliding is one of the two main problems of MX Bikes ( the other being the steer ).
To fix it, the plan is to tune the tyre parameters.
Quote from: PiBoSo on February 23, 2015, 09:07:04 PM
Familiar with MXGP? ???
The rear tyre sliding is one of the two main problems of MX Bikes ( the other being the steer ).
To fix it, the plan is to tune the tyre parameters.
MXGP video game, I think the biggest problem here is the sliding in games like MXGP is fun but it's done with fake forces. It's like comparing the drifting in Need For Speed with drifting in a sim with real world mechanics that's not specifically made for drifting (I only go as far as Forza 4 so don't rip on me for not playing a proper car sim!)
Good luck with that PiBoSo, is it planned to be included in Beta 3?
Quote from: PiBoSo on February 23, 2015, 09:07:04 PM
Quote from: gdubmx on February 23, 2015, 08:11:30 PM
So Piboso what are you thoughts and plans of action on the recent criticisms/opinions on the supposed "street bike" handling and rear wheel/back end adjustments. I assume you are familiar with MXgp rear end handling that was previously mentioned? What are your thoughts on the implementation of that type of movement in mx bikes? Thank you Piboso. Sorry for the 21 questions, its just nice to hear our developer actually have an input with the community unlike that biased bunch of deaf gimps on the MVA forum. :)
Familiar with MXGP? ???
The rear tyre sliding is one of the two main problems of MX Bikes ( the other being the steer ).
To fix it, the plan is to tune the tyre parameters.
yeah sorry I should of elaborated further. Forgive me for using that awful comparison but it replicates the movement pretty well, I chose that specifically as it was exaggerated more thus making it easier to recognize.
+1 to fat's question regarding beta 3 containing these changes. Thanks again piboso
at the moment when the bike leans over and the rear wheel starts loosing traction under wheel spin, the rear wheel should slide out. this isn't happening. its like the force angle doesn't change as the bike leans over. its as if the downwards force (gravity) is still acting from directly above.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbbGMGU8f3w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbbGMGU8f3w)
Quote from: gdubmx on February 23, 2015, 09:31:14 PM
Quote from: PiBoSo on February 23, 2015, 09:07:04 PM
Quote from: gdubmx on February 23, 2015, 08:11:30 PM
So Piboso what are you thoughts and plans of action on the recent criticisms/opinions on the supposed "street bike" handling and rear wheel/back end adjustments. I assume you are familiar with MXgp rear end handling that was previously mentioned? What are your thoughts on the implementation of that type of movement in mx bikes? Thank you Piboso. Sorry for the 21 questions, its just nice to hear our developer actually have an input with the community unlike that biased bunch of deaf gimps on the MVA forum. :)
Familiar with MXGP? ???
The rear tyre sliding is one of the two main problems of MX Bikes ( the other being the steer ).
To fix it, the plan is to tune the tyre parameters.
yeah sorry I should of elaborated further. Forgive me for using that awful comparison but it replicates the movement pretty well, I chose that specifically as it was exaggerated more thus making it easier to recognize.
+1 to fat's question regarding beta 3 containing these changes. Thanks again piboso
I don't think he knows that you are talking about the mxgp video game, nor has he played MXS if I recall correctly. If not, its a bit concerning just for having a dialogue and frame of reference about how other mx games behave and what good or bad behaviors those games have. If this game can figure out how to allow the bike to wheel spin/ slide the back wheel for corners and berms in a stabile manner like mxgp game and mxs to some extent, it would be a huge benefit.
If you take mxgp as reference for anything (except maybe graphics), you're likely on the wrong forum / game.
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on February 26, 2015, 09:22:29 PM
If you take mxgp as reference for anything (except maybe graphics), you're likely on the wrong forum / game.
MaX.
haha was waiting for someone to take it out of context, read the other posts Max. it was an exaggerated example which made the point we were trying to make. >:(
Quote from: gdubmx on February 26, 2015, 10:06:29 PM
Quote from: HornetMaX on February 26, 2015, 09:22:29 PM
If you take mxgp as reference for anything (except maybe graphics), you're likely on the wrong forum / game.
haha was waiting for someone to take it out of context, read the other posts Max. it was an exaggerated example which made the point we were trying to make. >:(
I did read the other posts (before posting mine):
Quote from: JohnnyMac on February 26, 2015, 06:30:18 PM
If this game can figure out how to allow the bike to wheel spin/ slide the back wheel for corners and berms in a stabile manner like mxgp game and mxs to some extent, it would be a huge benefit.
So comment stays (not necessarily aimed at you): if one takes mxgp as reference for anything (except maybe graphics), he's likely on the wrong forum / game.
MaX.
I think MXGP was actually a good example, not of the underlying physics, obviously that's not what we want, but of the general way the back end of a bike can be completely independent of the front.
It was making a point that you can get the back end out irl (like in MXGP) that you simply cannot even come close to doing in MXB yet.
At no point did I, or probably anyone else thing anyone here wanted MXGP riding in MXB lol. Otherwise like you said Max, we wouldn't even be here.
Quote from: arnzzz on February 27, 2015, 12:01:23 AM
I think MXGP was actually a good example, not of the underlying physics, obviously that's not what we want, but of the general way the back end of a bike can be completely independent of the front.
But how can you separate the "general way the back end of a bike can be completely independent of the front" from the underlying physics ? The two are more than tied. Well, they should be at least.
That's the very key difference between what Piboso does and what 99.99% of the other games do.
Piboso tries to model the physics as accurately as possible. Everything you see in-game comes from that. He cannot add "more gyro effect" or "more sliding out". These are "side effects" of the physics. Only way you act on them is by tweaking parameters (within the boundaries of what is realistic: if to get the "right" amount of gyro effect you have to put in a silly inertia on the wheels, then there's a problem somewhere).
Other games do things like this: when the speed is more than 20Kmh and the lean angle is more than 30 degrees and the throttle is wide open, then start a canned animation of the rear spinning out. It may look nice, it may look good and it may even be somehow rewarding to play, but that's not simulating the thing.
The whole "not enough sliding" debate has been already done on GPB forum. My personal opinion is that simulating sliding properly is extremely hard: for technical reasons (that I'll skip) and because you're trying to control a bike with a joypad, with limited control and very little feedback (compared to reality). Tweaking the tyre params (as said by Piboso, and me) is probably the best shot. Something in the virtual rider too may be worth a look too IMHO (there was a long discussion on this on GPB forum a while ago).
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on February 27, 2015, 02:11:35 PM
Quote from: arnzzz on February 27, 2015, 12:01:23 AM
I think MXGP was actually a good example, not of the underlying physics, obviously that's not what we want, but of the general way the back end of a bike can be completely independent of the front.
But how can you separate the "general way the back end of a bike can be completely independent of the front" from the underlying physics ? The two are more than tied. Well, they should be at least.
That's the very key difference between what Piboso does and what 99.99% of the other games do.
Piboso tries to model the physics as accurately as possible. Everything you see in-game comes from that. He cannot add "more gyro effect" or "more sliding out". These are "side effects" of the physics. Only way you act on them is by tweaking parameters (within the boundaries of what is realistic: if to get the "right" amount of gyro effect you have to put in a silly inertia on the wheels, then there's a problem somewhere).
Other games do things like this: when the speed is more than 20Kmh and the lean angle is more than 30 degrees and the throttle is wide open, then start a canned animation of the rear spinning out. It may look nice, it may look good and it may even be somehow rewarding to play, but that's not simulating the thing.
The whole "not enough sliding" debate has been already done on GPB forum. My personal opinion is that simulating sliding properly is extremely hard: for technical reasons (that I'll skip) and because you're trying to control a bike with a joypad, with limited control and very little feedback (compared to reality). Tweaking the tyre params (as said by Piboso, and me) is probably the best shot. Something in the virtual rider too may be worth a look too IMHO (there was a long discussion on this on GPB forum a while ago).
MaX.
that would be the best case scenario plus throw in terrain deformation which should absolutely play a part in the physics also. All my point was making is for me personally and the people which this game HAS driven away is that it needs more rear end independence.
Quote from: gdubmx on February 27, 2015, 03:29:51 PM
All my point was making is for me personally and the people which this game HAS driven away is that it needs more rear end independence.
This is agreed I think, Piboso himself replied to that. But from that to taking MXGP as a good reference, well ...
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on February 27, 2015, 04:02:15 PM
Quote from: gdubmx on February 27, 2015, 03:29:51 PM
All my point was making is for me personally and the people which this game HAS driven away is that it needs more rear end independence.
This is agreed I think, Piboso himself replied to that. But from that to taking MXGP as a good reference, well ...
MaX.
Ok Max.
Not sure how a sim'd MX tyre can behave like a real MX tyre on anything but hard pack dirt without fully simulating the dirt TBH. Until the deformable terrain is in place I consider us to be riding only on a hard packed surface, which will make slides of any sort harder to control as the tyres won't dig in or make a channel for itself just like the real deal on the same.
If I tried this on hard pack dirt I'd be on my arse moments later, kind of like MXB right now ;)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2435k01.jpg)
And yes the camera man did curse at me after taking this footage 8) I roosted him good and proper lol
Is that a kdx or klx? Old school! :)
KDX 200 1989, so is indeed old school ;)
(http://i57.tinypic.com/33o09op.jpg)
Nice my uncle had a mint kdx 200 which I used to ride back in the day lol. He couldn't keep up with me on my pos cagiva 125 tho haha.it looked a bit like this(http://cybermotorcycle.com/gallery/cagiva/images/Cagiva_WMX250_Pekka_Vehkonen.jpg)Nice bike mate. (Sorry to go off topic)
Max, I love you and can see you're a smart guy, but....
Sitting here screaming at the top of your lungs that MX/GP Bikes is the only true motorcycle simulator out there makes me laugh.
Quote from: Snappe on February 27, 2015, 07:14:54 PM
Speaking of terrain deformation, we've been working on inclement conditions recently...
Video, or it didn't happen :)
Quote from: Phathry25 on February 27, 2015, 07:27:46 PM
Max, I love you and can see you're a smart guy, but....
Sitting here screaming at the top of your lungs that MX/GP Bikes is the only true motorcycle simulator out there makes me laugh.
I can easily put MXS too in the category "motorcycle simulators", from what I've read mostly, I never really tried it past 15min.
I don't know if MXB/GPB is the only true one, probably not (even if MXS aside, I know no other contender) ... but MXGP (and MotoGP14 or the incoming RIDE) ... a 15 sec video and you immediately know they don't fit in the category. They can still be funny to play, though.
And of course, I love you too :)
MaX.
Max, im not saying I want MXGP physics. and obviously EVERYTHING a bike does IS physics based.
I play MXB every day, i think i know what would feel right. Just like in real life the ability to get the back out would be realistic. Im not advocating arcade canned animations
in the place of true physically based movement. Im here for simulation, im willing to play for 2 hours a night for over 5months just to get to a point where im putting in reasonable times (not great times). I think you completely misunderstood me lol.
IF arcade was what I wanted why would i be here paying 3 times the price for this sim than i can buy an arcade game for?
And i think i remember the discussion already taking place here that MXB isnt GPB. What works there may not work here. Maybe what will fix this is "just" tweaking some parameters on the tyre, i hope thats all it takes.
But i have my reservations.
Quote from: teeds on February 27, 2015, 05:12:19 PM
Not sure how a sim'd MX tyre can behave like a real MX tyre on anything but hard pack dirt without fully simulating the dirt TBH. Until the deformable terrain is in place I consider us to be riding only on a hard packed surface, which will make slides of any sort harder to control as the tyres won't dig in or make a channel for itself just like the real deal on the same.
If I tried this on hard pack dirt I'd be on my arse moments later, kind of like MXB right now ;)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2435k01.jpg)
And yes the camera man did curse at me after taking this footage 8) I roosted him good and proper lol
I disagree, sliding on hardpack is actually easy to do and control, just gotta keep the bike more upright when sliding but it still slides and controls easy. sounds like you havnt had much experience on hardpack tracks.
Quote from: HornetMaX on February 27, 2015, 07:37:25 PM
I can easily put MXS too in the category "motorcycle simulators", from what I've read mostly, I never really tried it past 15min.
MaX.
Max for someone so into bike sims. im surprised you haven't given MXS more of a fair go..
MXS has a long painful ten hour learning curve.
Its needed to "train your brain" so you subconsciously balance the bike. I know this is the mxb forums and talking about other games probably isn't tastfull, but knowing how the other mx sims tick is great knowledge. Just remember mxs servers are always busy even several years after its release. Do you really need to ask why this is?
I Personally don't care which game is better or worse, I just want an amazing mx game that is complete. hence my feedback here and at mxs forums.
For MXB, I believe you just can't automate the steering for an mx simulator. the sooner piboso realises this, and works on the hardcore mode/ full steering control, the game will then please the mxers and flourish.
its weird to explain, but you honestly DO need full control of that steering in an mx game.
don't get me wrong piboso or Max. Mx bikes is progressing at an amazing rate, so just positive feedback here.
and MAx do you believe piboso"s calculations on the phisics are "right" in regards to the sliding?, to me something is just way wrong at the moment,
Piboso, when the bike leans over does the downwards force of the bike and rider mass change the force angle acting on the tire? ( Ie the forces from tilted masses should always point to the tire instead of directly downwards)
with my testing this is what I believe is wrong.
just remember im just tring to help fix this.
still lots of love :) :)
Al
Quote from: al167 on February 28, 2015, 09:32:56 AM
Max for someone so into bike sims. im surprised you haven't given MXS more of a fair go..
I'm not a big MX fan and I was put off by a few things in MXS: graphics, price (I really don't have an issue shedding 5x that much, but I find the price a bit steep, especially wityh such a limited demo).
But the most important one by far is: I think Piboso's approach to the control method (real physics + virtual rider + very very limited set of tuning options) is better than the one of MXS (real physics + a gazillion settings of physics stuff, more or less realistic).
I speak out of memory, I don't even know if things have changed since for MXS (I may want to have another look, as soon as I'm back home), but I doubt the whole approach has changed.
That said, I do admire the work done on MXS.
Quote from: al167 on February 28, 2015, 09:32:56 AM
I Personally don't care which game is better or worse
Same here. If anybody has read some of my posts on GPB forum, they know I'm not exactly tender when it comes down to discuss issues.
Quote from: al167 on February 28, 2015, 09:32:56 AM
For MXB, I believe you just can't automate the steering for an mx simulator. the sooner piboso realises this, and works on the hardcore mode/ full steering control, the game will then please the mxers and flourish.
That's a fair point. I wouldn't say it exactly as you said it, but I think there may be something to work on in terms of what the virtual rider does.
On the other hand, the hardcore mode (direct steer) is fully done in GPB/MXB: it gives you full control of the handlebar (setting the angle or setting the torque). What else would you want ?
Quote from: al167 on February 28, 2015, 09:32:56 AM
and MAx do you believe piboso"s calculations on the phisics are "right" in regards to the sliding?, to me something is just way wrong at the moment,
I see what he means and I have no reason to doubt. Again, I think tweaking the tire params may help a bit, but up to a point (which probably won't be satisfy most here, same thing happening for GPB). Maybe there's something to do on the virtual rider too, but to me the "not enough sliding" is mostly caused by the lack of proper feedback we have playing on a chair with a pad instead of having our ass on the bike.
BTW, can somebody show some videos of "sliding under throttle" or "rear independent from the front" in MXS ? Anything that shows how MXb should behave in terms of sliding the rear. (genuine question, I'm not trying to be sarcastic).
Quote from: al167 on February 28, 2015, 09:32:56 AM
Piboso, when the bike leans over does the downwards force of the bike and rider mass change the force angle acting on the tire? ( Ie the forces from tilted masses should always point to the tire instead of directly downwards)
with my testing this is what I believe is wrong.
Which forces ? Because the weight forces will always point downward, even if you're leaning ...
Anyway, as Piboso is using a multi-body approach, all this is mostly taken care automatically, so I really really doubt the problem is there.
MaX.
Quote from: al167 on February 28, 2015, 09:08:46 AM
I disagree, sliding on hardpack is actually easy to do and control, just gotta keep the bike more upright when sliding but it still slides and controls easy. sounds like you havnt had much experience on hardpack tracks.
I didn't say you couldn't slide, in fact my point is it's way easier to slide on hard pack, just that you can't do what's going on in the pic, i.e. speed, lean angle and throttle combination.
Maybe we wait until the cakes finished baking before we find out if we like the taste of it.
Quote from: HornetMaX on February 28, 2015, 11:12:08 AM
Quote from: al167 on February 28, 2015, 09:32:56 AM
For MXB, I believe you just can't automate the steering for an mx simulator. the sooner piboso realises this, and works on the hardcore mode/ full steering control, the game will then please the mxers and flourish.
On the other hand, the hardcore mode (direct steer) is fully done in GPB/MXB: it gives you full control of the handlebar (setting the angle or setting the torque). What else would you want ?
Exactly, there already is a 'hardcore mode'. It requires a FF wheel and is really quite challenging.
Quote from: Snappe on February 28, 2015, 03:20:09 PM
Quote from: HornetMaX on February 28, 2015, 11:12:08 AM
Quote from: al167 on February 28, 2015, 09:32:56 AM
For MXB, I believe you just can't automate the steering for an mx simulator. the sooner piboso realises this, and works on the hardcore mode/ full steering control, the game will then please the mxers and flourish.
On the other hand, the hardcore mode (direct steer) is fully done in GPB/MXB: it gives you full control of the handlebar (setting the angle or setting the torque). What else would you want ?
Exactly, there already is a 'hardcore mode'. It requires a FF wheel and is really quite challenging.
reasons for full steering control:having full control of the bars is just purely necessary to do all the silly things us mxers fanaticise about. Scrubing, turndown whips, classic whips, counter steering whilst wheeling.... the list goes on and on. all these things are what people love about racing mx bikes and is why we watch mx and supercross racing!. Just watch any youtube video for reflex or mxs and see how many are emphasized just on "scrubbing". Having control of steering gives you that individual style on the bike too and when mastered can make you go faster too.
hardcore modeI don't know of anyone that uses a wheel for mxs and its got full steering control!!. its very hard and frustrating at first, but after a few hrs it becomes very natural and easy.
We just need some more settings so a controller is more usable. :) :), at the moment its just nearly impossible at low speeds with hardcore on, hopefully the leg push solves this a bit!!, but with some more settings this game should and will dominate mxs!!
heres some sugestions for more settings for hardcore mode: adjustable steering force, steering damping, reduced lock at higher speeds(except in the air :D). and possably a separate reduced "neutral stick" force (so bike can "naturally steer itself" as it leans over).
heres my Hardcore mode settings for xbox360 controller. (reversed steering)
[hardcore]
directsteer=2
directsteer_maxangle=-32
hope this helps out a little. hanging for the next beta too!
Cheers Al
Quote from: HornetMaX on February 28, 2015, 11:12:08 AM
BTW, can somebody show some videos of "sliding under throttle" or "rear independent from the front" in MXS ? Anything that shows how MXb should behave in terms of sliding the rear. (genuine question, I'm not trying to be sarcastic).
MaX.
Max, heres a quck vid of me riding in mxs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isd7NWEr2Bc&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isd7NWEr2Bc&feature=youtu.be)
cheers al
Quote from: al167 on March 02, 2015, 07:36:36 PM
Max, heres a quck vid of me riding in mxs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isd7NWEr2Bc&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isd7NWEr2Bc&feature=youtu.be)
cheers al
you ride good but omg, i hate mxs now hahahaha, rider looks super stiff, controls are twitchy and it feels weird, long time without playing it.
Piboso, is there any chance to have ragdoll crashes?
that would be so awesome!
Quote from: al167 on March 02, 2015, 07:36:36 PM
Max, heres a quck vid of me riding in mxs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isd7NWEr2Bc&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isd7NWEr2Bc&feature=youtu.be)
Well, thanks for the video, but this definitely doesn't push me towards mxs.
Judging from what I see (again, this means I can be very wrong), this is much less a simulator than MXB. In random order:
- Terrain seems to be mostly flat, or at least the ruts seem to be cosmetic only: the bike goes across them totally unaffected.
- No bike shadow ?! That's visually very very bad, the bike seems to be floating. Is this an option you turned off or they are really absent ?
- There seems to be something off in terms of bike+rider weight or engine torque and traction: you can have the bike essentially stopped on a steep slope and you get it flying 10m high with a twist of the throttle. Could be just a problem of that specific bike/mod though, don't know.
- I don't see a lot of rear sliding: when it is there, it looks a bit automagical (like at 1:20, where it saved that huge one).
- Behavior on bumps is a bit weird, it looks super-permissive.
- Some very weird landings: 2:03-2:07 and the incredible one at 2:25-2:31 ?!?! Really ?
On the good side, I do see that the control you have mid-air seems very good.
What were your controls while playing (i.e. how was yuor joypad set up) ?
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 02, 2015, 09:44:31 PM
- Terrain seems to be mostly flat, or at least the ruts seem to be cosmetic only: the bike goes across them totally unaffected.
- No bike shadow ?! That's visually very very bad, the bike seems to be floating. Is this an option you turned off or they are really absent ?
- There seems to be something off in terms of bike+rider weight or engine torque and traction: you can have the bike essentially stopped on a steep slope and you get it flying 10m high with a twist of the throttle. Could be just a problem of that specific bike/mod though, don't know.
- I don't see a lot of rear sliding: when it is there, it looks a bit automagical (like at 1:20, where it saved that huge one).
- Behavior on bumps is a bit weird, it looks super-permissive.
- Some very weird landings: 2:03-2:07 and the incredible one at 2:25-2:31 ?!?! Really ?
I don't think there's much difference between the terrain in MXS to MXB in relation to the way the bike behaves, referring to your first point. Heightmap is a heightmap and the ruts are cosmetic in both currently (until we get deformation) but I agree the bike in MSX doesn't seem nearly as 'tuned in' to the terrain.
As to the last point, I've had some equally strangely survived landings in MXB! Few and far between though.
I think although we don't have a lot in the way of comparison, MXS and MXB can't really be compared the way you guys are doing. Both sims are different in the way they do things, not saying either is the right way but of course I'm swayed toward MXB. But because the sims are different mechanically you can't just say 'MXS does this why doesn't MXB'.
Since a simulation is designed with real world parameters / physics models / data for both the way the bike and rider work but also the engine and world - whatever you want to reference, then surely the only comparison could be another MX simulator using the same data, so the only difference you could get between the two is the interface and any helper type systems? That makes me think that these are teething problems which only time will fix.
Could be wrong, just my view. My hope is that MXB will never slide like MXS, MXGP, Reflex etc.. More that it will ride and slide like MXB and will be realistically unique :D
Quote from: TheFatController on March 02, 2015, 10:18:01 PM
I don't think there's much difference between the terrain in MXS to MXB in relation to the way the bike behaves, referring to your first point. Heightmap is a heightmap and the ruts are cosmetic in both currently (until we get deformation) but I agree the bike in MSX doesn't seem nearly as 'tuned in' to the terrain.
Really ? I can't double check right now, but from what I recall of MXB beta 1-2 there were defintely some ruts even on the default track.
And they do made a difference when riding in/out them.
They were "fixed", not evolving with time (i.e. bikes passing on them), as this is what deformation will bring. But still, they were there and had an effect, IIRC.
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 02, 2015, 10:32:35 PM
Really ? I can't double check right now, but from what I recall of MXB beta 1-2 there were defintely some ruts even on the default track.
And they do made a difference when riding in/out them.
They were "fixed", not evolving with time (i.e. bikes passing on them), as this is what deformation will bring. But still, they were there and had an effect, IIRC.
MaX.
Max, mxsim handled ruts way better than mxb, i can guarantee that.
Mx sim has terrain deformation, altrought the erosion it produces it´s round, like a soft brush and it´s very weird and unpolished.
There´s no dynamic shadows on mxsim, altrought for the track you could bake shadows (objects and terrain, not rider of course.), i´m kind of missing that, i´m still getting used to track building process on mxb.
It seems like people need to spend more time in MXS first-person before they make comparisons. I know some are devoted to this sim, but need more perspective. I get any sim that is fun. This is one of them. I'm excited for what is to come.
I can't play mxs in 3rd person, only in 1st person and need to play it in 1st to get my tires in the ruts. Third person in MXS to me is very hard as a sim and I slide out a lot, but in first person, because camera is rigged to the bike itself, I know exactly how the rear wheel is sliding out from the handlebars. Being in a rut helps, even if you don't see it in these 3rd person vids, because the depth and shading isn't obvious.
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 02, 2015, 09:44:31 PM
Quote from: al167 on March 02, 2015, 07:36:36 PM
Max, heres a quck vid of me riding in mxs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isd7NWEr2Bc&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isd7NWEr2Bc&feature=youtu.be)
Well, thanks for the video, but this definitely doesn't push me towards mxs.
Judging from what I see (again, this means I can be very wrong), this is much less a simulator than MXB. In random order:
- Terrain seems to be mostly flat, or at least the ruts seem to be cosmetic only: the bike goes across them totally unaffected.
- No bike shadow ?! That's visually very very bad, the bike seems to be floating. Is this an option you turned off or they are really absent ?
- There seems to be something off in terms of bike+rider weight or engine torque and traction: you can have the bike essentially stopped on a steep slope and you get it flying 10m high with a twist of the throttle. Could be just a problem of that specific bike/mod though, don't know.
- I don't see a lot of rear sliding: when it is there, it looks a bit automagical (like at 1:20, where it saved that huge one).
- Behavior on bumps is a bit weird, it looks super-permissive.
- Some very weird landings: 2:03-2:07 and the incredible one at 2:25-2:31 ?!?! Really ?
On the good side, I do see that the control you have mid-air seems very good.
What were your controls while playing (i.e. how was yuor joypad set up) ?
MaX.
Max.... I started reading your post I stopped after this...
Nice video, that doesn't look like a simulation to me. Here's why. 1. Graphics 2. Graphics.
That's all the further I made it. When you're ready to start judging the physics of a game based on its physics let me know and I'll reason with you.
:)
Quote from: Mace-x on March 02, 2015, 11:11:29 PMMax, mxsim handled ruts way better than mxb, i can guarantee that.
Mx sim has terrain deformation, altrought the erosion it produces it´s round, like a soft brush and it´s very weird and unpolished.
There´s no dynamic shadows on mxsim, altrought for the track you could bake shadows (objects and terrain, not rider of course.), i´m kind of missing that, i´m still getting used to track building process on mxb.
Mace. I think it's changed since you played. Much more tuneable now. You can have a real good time running in a track on your own. Still far from perfect though.
Hi phathry!
Nah, i´ve played it a couple weeks ago and it was similar, what i never really understood is why jlv didnt implemented left and right leaning, the feeling is so weird with the rider sticked at the middle.
Regarding max point with graphics, i know a sim is not about graphics, but for fucks sake, add a shadow to the bike, that always bugged me of mxsim, it could even be a png with transparency below the damn bike, is not too hard to do.
for me, mx sim is dead, we have been fighting for more than 5 years for proper collisions, no those damn spheres, rider leaning, rider crashing and tons of improvements that would have made the game so much better, finally gave up waiting on jlv, that game is what it is because of the fan made content, go and play a 3 years old release, is not far from what we have now.
Quote from: Mace-x on March 02, 2015, 11:11:29 PM
Max, mxsim handled ruts way better than mxb, i can guarantee that.
Could be, it was maybe just not visible in the video posted above.
Quote from: Phathry25 on March 02, 2015, 11:16:21 PM
Max.... I started reading your post I stopped after this...
Nice video, that doesn't look like a simulation to me. Here's why. 1. Graphics 2. Graphics.
That's all the further I made it. When you're ready to start judging the physics of a game based on its physics let me know and I'll reason with you.
Well, you may want to re-read my post then.
Point 1 was definitely not about graphics (albeit point 2 was).
I said "in random order", implying point x was not to be considered more important than point x+n (with n positive).
And finally (and most important), all the points past point 2 (and including point 1) were about physics.
So, when you're ready to discuss a post after having read all of it, let me know :)
MaX.
Just to be sure: I'm in no way fighting "for MXB against MXS".
To me comparing the two is inevitable, as they are the only 2 MX sims around. No love/hate, just comparing some aspects and approaches.
Even without seriously trying MXS, I can clearly see it has some very good merit: it was there way before MXB, it has a strong community, it is being played a lot online even right now (which does not always mean a lot, but for sure does not happen by chance). At least in some (important) areas it is certainly ahead of MXB.
MaX.
mxs isn't perfect, and it has many things that are not good.
I agree totally with you mace-x. mxs needs a lot of work and is progressing way too slow. shadows, beter menus, and mesh collisions for objects are so needed!! its also very demanding on the cpu and gpu, for lower end pcs.
hornetmax,
for your info,
graphics are actually technically on par with mxb (except for the dynamic shadows and dynamic weather). mxs has spec and norm maps for terrain and objects just like mxb, and material options like "mirror" and "emit" and specular light for objects. it also has an image overlay decal system for the terrain that improves on track terrain visuals over mxb in my opinion. but I do like the auto 3d grass in mxb!!
Its mainly the fact that mxs has very basic crappy looking stock tracks and relies on users to make nice tracks/bikes. not many users know how to use all these features.
but not to get into a mxs vs mxb debate either :D :D,
Mace-x, phat, and hornet, mxb looks mighty promising, and that's why im here like you.
MXB already ticks all those boxes mace -x want!!!! and piboso and snappe are working forward at an amazing rate.
just the facts are that mxb is unrideable and not fun at the moment for beta 2.
Remember, all this is great feed back for mxb team.
just need mxb to be able to ride around a supercross track like in my vid!
cheers Allan
sup al167 :)
actually mxb is as fun as mx sim in my opinion, before some practice you get the hang of it and start being able to ride in a more consistent way (except when slow on hills, that freaking sucks!)
still needs a lot of work but i like the progress rate, developers feedback and features being implemented.
mx simulator´s decal system was amazing, i loved it, it was easy and looked great, also i loved the ingame track editor, was quite handy to get a base to work in photoshop.
Quote from: al167 on March 03, 2015, 09:31:55 AM
just the facts are that mxb is unrideable and not fun at the moment for beta 2.
facts indeed eh :o
Quote from: teeds on March 03, 2015, 09:43:48 AM
Quote from: al167 on March 03, 2015, 09:31:55 AM
just the facts are that mxb is unrideable and not fun at the moment for beta 2.
facts indeed eh :o
some people like mx vs atv sx too..... :o
No I agree with teeds, not sure what you mean by facts, MXB is very ride-able and a lot of fun when you start to master it.
Out of curiosity, would it be possible to take one MXB track (the default one would be OK) and port it to MXS ?
I know there may be differences about how the terrain behaves, but at least the identical track layout and heightmap.
It would be a hell of an experiment IMO.
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 03, 2015, 01:08:35 PM
Out of curiosity, would it be possible to take one MXB track (the default one would be OK) and port it to MXS ?
I know there may be differences about how the terrain behaves, but at least the identical track layout and heightmap.
It would be a hell of an experiment IMO.
MaX.
That's something Rafagas (known track creator from Mx Simulator) did before the game was released. He ported the example track.
The jumps in this game are smaller, it feels like everything floats in Mx Simulator, there's almost no weight to the bikes. I'm not sure if I still have the track, but if I have I might be able to make a quick helmet cam video for you.
Did anyone of you see my post about physics? It was in another topic, and I didn't get a single reply to it.
Quote from: Sandbiter on February 06, 2015, 03:32:50 PM
I'm not sure where to post this... I don't think these are bugs, but yet I feel like they need to be fixed.
I'm also aware that you guys have done a lot for beta 3 so far, and that some of these things might be fixed.
I know the game is still in beta, but I haven't seen any posts about this yet, so I'll do it.
I don't want to sound like a douche, I just want to help you guys out improving this game.
The steering is WAY too twitchy in the air and when riding slow (the dab thingy will defenitly help, but the steering is just too twitchy). When you go over rollers, whoops or whatever, you should be able to go full throttle through them while sitting back on the bike. In this game the only thing you get is a twitchy steer when you try to go any fast. Also we should be able to steer a bit in whoops and rollers. At the moment we need to get straight in front of it and we may be able to pin it through, but you can forget that when we touch the steer a slight bit.
When your front wheel is just a little bit in the air you won't be able to steer with your body or get the bike straight again. I'll keep leaned over and you most likely crash if you're not fast enough.
rider movement is VERY sensetive, this is especially noticable when coming up a jump or in the air.
If you get a little sideways on a ramp/jump before you're in the air you're dead. We should be able to go a little sideways on a jump and not do 10 360s and then crash after that.
When you land with your weight a little bit to the left or to the right you slide out instantly on impact.
It's impossible to have a rough track in this game at this moment. There's no way to ride clean through deep ruts and bumps (actually the same issue from before, a twitchy steer).
Here is a video where you can see most of my problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebWYMcR5bqs&feature=youtu.be
0:07. Trying to whip, just a little bit of rider movement and I'm doing 10 360s.
0:25. See how my steering get twitchy once I hit the face of the jump? this 10cm twitching from side to side causes to bike to do a masive whip without even touching the rider movement. I was trying to jump straight.
0:50. Why did I crash here so easy?
1:10. Wheel got in the air a little bit. I couldn't get my bike straight and I crashed.
1:25. Just a little bit of steering at the end of the ramp, right before I'm in the air. Why would it make me do 10 360s again?
So to sum it all up. I think this game will be lots better if the steering wasn't so twitchy. We should be able to ride through deep ruts, bumps, whoops, rollers and be able to steer in these situations.
Yes I suck at this game, but I still think most of this shouldn't happen that easily.
Quote from: Sandbiter on March 03, 2015, 02:34:51 PM
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 03, 2015, 01:08:35 PM
Out of curiosity, would it be possible to take one MXB track (the default one would be OK) and port it to MXS ?
That's something Rafagas (known track creator from Mx Simulator) did before the game was released. He ported the example track.
The jumps in this game are smaller, it feels like everything floats in Mx Simulator, there's almost no weight to the bikes. I'm not sure if I still have the track, but if I have I might be able to make a quick helmet cam video for you.
That's my impression too: as I said commenting the video posted by al167, a bit of gas in MXS seems to send the bike 10m high.
But I'm more interested in seeing how the two handle tracks that are a bit bumpy.
Quote from: Sandbiter on March 03, 2015, 02:34:51 PM
Did anyone of you see my post about physics? It was in another topic, and I didn't get a single reply to it.
To me, most of what you reported is tied to what MXB does whenever at least one wheel is not in contact with the ground.
In GPB there's a similar issue: control while wheeling (even slightly) is definitely needed and not particularly good right now even if I think something improved a bit in the last GPB beta (6).
To me MXB (and GPB, to a lesser extent) should have, roughly speaking, 2 or 3 different virtual riders: one is the usual one, to be used when both wheels are on the ground, one to be used when wheeling and one when mid-air. A target lean angle may still be meaningful when wheeling but when mid-air ...
In general, this kind of switching from one control method to another (triggered by the fact the underlying physical model under control changes) is fairly hard to implement properly and probably even harder in our case, as we want the same stick input to be used in the different situations (likely).
From what I've seen between MXB beta1 and 2, I'd say that Piboso/Snappe are heading in the right direction.
Steer twitchiness is also something we notice in GPB: many think this should be solved by more steering damping. I think that maybe the virtual rider stabilizing PID control needs some attention, especially it's D term: no real rider can intentionally shake the bars that quickly.
The max torque the virtual rider can generate on the bars is limited (as it should be), but it seems as if there was no limit on the derivative of that (i.e. on how quickly you can go from lock to lock). What could generate that ? Can't say for sure: D gain too high, or maybe D term implementation with no roll-off ... or maybe something as simple as considering that on top of the inertia of the steering head, you also have the inertia of the rider's arms.
MaX.
I'd be interested in seeing a video if you fancy making one. I don't agree with all of your points (note the 'all' please!) - Think I was going to reply but thought I'd wait to see what PiBoSo / others said.
Sometimes I feel like one of the only ones who doesn't suffer all the problems people constantly bring up. I think firstly a lot of issues people have are repeated and already mentioned, and also think that seeing as PiBoSo is aware of not only all genuine problems but also what the community think then you guys should wait and see what happens in beta 3 - As MaX said above, the difference between b1 and b2 is huge and heading in the right direction nicely (remember GP bikes is in beta 6c - That's a fair amount)
Personally I'm starting to think that something is wrong with the weight of things. Note here that PiBoSo has already made posts regarding this and although we don't know if it's fixed or not, it's being looked at which is good enough for me. Sometimes it feels like the bike is too front heavy - Nosedives still happen in unexplained situations although not nearly as often as beta 1, and it could also be a factor in the front wash out and rear slide. Try getting the bike a bit sideways going up a hill and it behaves far more like you'd expect.
I have to agree Fat's. Al also made some very interesting points about steering which I didn't actually notice until he mentioned it. Personally I'm buzzing about seeing this forum pick up again and feel there is a general buzz about the forthcoming b3. Piboso has been quiet lately so hopefully he decides to drop beta 3 so we can all get stuck in to the next stage of development. There really is some great discussion here and most of the time is out of my realm lol, not the sharpest knife in the draw! Its good tho because I learn so much from these types of threads. :) btw I think we need to sort a race out for all forum members this weekend,would be cool having a 15 man moto on Paleta raceway! Anyone fancy it?
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 03, 2015, 12:04:06 AM
Well, you may want to re-read my post then.
Point 1 was definitely not about graphics (albeit point 2 was).
I said "in random order", implying point x was not to be considered more important than point x+n (with n positive).
And finally (and most important), all the points past point 2 (and including point 1) were about physics.
So, when you're ready to discuss a post after having read all of it, let me know :)
MaX.
I read the whole thing. I was proving a point. Your judging a game off of one short video. It's laughable.
You're critical of an "automagic" save in the video but yet are singing the praises of a game that uses an automagic rider to control the steering. How can MX Bikes be considered a simulator using the lean angle control scheme? That's like controlling turning radius and letting an automatic driver decide what to do with the wheel in a car simulator. Sounds like an arcade game to me.
IMO More time needs to be spent developing the "hardcore steering" mode. Gyroscopic stabilizer, or just more control options like al167 mentioned. Until then it's all a guessing game at what the virtual rider is doing, questioning the simulation is silly when you have no control over the handlebars anyways.
In one point you stated you said the track was too flat. Later on you said the bike was too permissive over bumps. Which is it? Either way the tracks aren't flat, and it's a motocross bike, it's going to be super permissive over bumps. They are designed that way.
Yes the gyroscopic stabilizer is pretty automagic when it goes to saving big slides, it's a little too effective IMO, but it is what it is. You can't be critical of the simulation merits of that and act like virtual rider and automagic leg push is any better.
Well, im sorry man but at least this auto rider works way better than mx simulator's brick rider, that rider doesnt react to anything, it's a dead boey except for leaning front and back, tell me how that can be called simulation pffft.
I understand, both games has flaws, each one has different strong points but your critics are biased towards mx sim, i respect if you like it more but looking it from outside mx sim is not far from mxb, and it had waay more development time.
Quote from: gdubmx on March 03, 2015, 07:20:32 PM
:) btw I think we need to sort a race out for all forum members this weekend,would be cool having a 15 man moto on Paleta raceway! Anyone fancy it?
I'm up for that, on any track! ;D
Lets keep this thread OT tho - Start a topic in the races forum.
Quote from: Phathry25 on March 03, 2015, 07:28:09 PM
Yes the gyroscopic stabilizer is pretty automagic when it goes to saving big slides, it's a little too effective IMO, but it is what it is. You can't be critical of the simulation merits of that and act like virtual rider and automagic leg push is any better.
Please note that it will be possible to disable automatic dabbing.
Also, with hardcore steer mode the virtual rider is completely off.
Quote from: Phathry25 on March 03, 2015, 07:28:09 PM
I read the whole thing. I was proving a point. Your judging a game off of one short video. It's laughable.
Oh come on man, I said *very explicitly* that I was judging from that one video (and the little I recall of when I tried MXS), so my "judgement" (better, impressions) was to be taken with care. Please.
Notice however that plenty of things can be deduced from a video. Not everything of course, but still plenty.
Quote from: Phathry25 on March 03, 2015, 07:28:09 PM
You're critical of an "automagic" save in the video but yet are singing the praises of a game that uses an automagic rider to control the steering. How can MX Bikes be considered a simulator using the lean angle control scheme? That's like controlling turning radius and letting an automatic driver decide what to do with the wheel in a car simulator. Sounds like an arcade game to me.
That's a fair point, but there's an explanation for it.
You drive a car with 2/3 pedals and a wheel (with FFB), and you can have all this on a PC. For a car sim, you have a near perfect situation in terms of input device.
For a bike, it's a totally different story. As you're limited in terms of input device, you've to come up with something smart, within the boundaries of what you have. I think for Piboso (or MXS) it would be fairly simple to give you control on steering torque, full body weight shifting and plenty of things, but then what ? One would never be able to use it.
Quote from: Phathry25 on March 03, 2015, 07:28:09 PM
IMO More time needs to be spent developing the "hardcore steering" mode. Gyroscopic stabilizer, or just more control options like al167 mentioned. Until then it's all a guessing game at what the virtual rider is doing, questioning the simulation is silly when you have no control over the handlebars anyways.
But the hardcore steering mode is already complete. As soon as you add a "gyroscopic stabilizer" (whatever you mean by that), it's no longer hardcore. So non-hardcore for non-hardcore, I think (and that's just a personal opinion) that Piboso's virtual rider is a better control approach compared to MXS bunch of parameters.
The reasons for that are a bit technical and come from years of experience in designing control systems. In a nutshell: I think all the params exposed by MXS in its adavanced stability menu should
not be exposed to the player. To the modders eventually (and GPB does that too, in a different manner), but not to the players. It makes no sense to expose them to the players. It's like having an oven that instead of having a tempreature set-point (which anybody can understand), gives you a temperature set-point, the parameters of the regulator in charge of achieving the desired temperature, a knob to set the sampling frequence of the control system and who know what else. It makes no sense. Again, that's just my opinion, anybody can disagree.
Quote from: Phathry25 on March 03, 2015, 07:28:09 PM
In one point you stated you said the track was too flat. Later on you said the bike was too permissive over bumps. Which is it? Either way the tracks aren't flat, and it's a motocross bike, it's going to be super permissive over bumps. They are designed that way.
I should have been more specific, sorry: flat "laterally", across a track section (from left to right) and in terms of small bumps (e.g. 10-15cm high).
The MXS tracks I've seen do have big bumps and big slopes/jumps, but overall the track seems very smooth, not rough enough. Maybe it's just any impression, maybe it's the 3rd person view that somehow "hides" that, don't know ...
Watching the slo-mo on MXB web-site you can easily see how the rear responds to this kind of rough track, and it looks pretty real. I haven't yet seen that in MXS (but again, maybe it's my fault).
Quote from: Phathry25 on March 03, 2015, 07:28:09 PM
Yes the gyroscopic stabilizer is pretty automagic when it goes to saving big slides, it's a little too effective IMO, but it is what it is. You can't be critical of the simulation merits of that and act like virtual rider and automagic leg push is any better.
I haven't yet tried the leg-push (not out yet), so I cannot have commented on it. It is my understanding that it will be optional (i.e. auto or manual), so I don't see any problem with it up to now.
Anyway, if it makes you feel any better, I can equally list what I think is off in MXB at the moment: it would be kind of redundant however, as it has already been reported by many others.
MaX.
I've heard people talking about "hardcore steering mode". What is this?
Is it actually an option called "hardcore steering mode"? or is it just a combination of settings that you guys are referring to AS "hardcore steering mode"?
Like 100% direct lean. Is that "hardcore steering mode"
I'm genuinely curious :)
Quote from: arnzzz on March 03, 2015, 09:08:17 PM
I've heard people talking about "hardcore steering mode". What is this?
Is it actually an option called "hardcore steering mode"? or is it just a combination of settings that you guys are referring to AS "hardcore steering mode"?
If it works like GPB, then you can read about it here (just the 1st and 2nd post): http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=28.0 (http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=28.0)
I don't know why it's not presented in MXB documentation session, I can only guess there's a good reason for that.
But as Snappe confirmed direct steer is there in MXB too, then ...
MaX.
Quote from: Mace-x on March 03, 2015, 08:20:45 PMI understand, both games has flaws, each one has different strong points but your critics are biased towards mx sim, i respect if you like it more but looking it from outside mx sim is not far from mxb, and it had waay more development time.
That's not true in the slightest bit. Get ready to learn.
I purchased GP Bikes in 2008. Same year I got MX Sim. Don't even try to pretend MX Bikes is wildly different from GP Bikes either. Terrain code and tire "digging" simulation that is identical to MXS's as far as I can tell from looking at the tire files, are the major differences. I'm sure there's more to it in the behind the scenes magic, but don't try and convince me they wrote the code for MX Bikes from scratch in the past year. As far as current development rate, I've learned over the years it's fueled by sales. They must have been good right away so now they're pouring time into this. If Beta 3 doesn't drive sales higher they'll focus more on another title. Likely KRP. It will continue no doubt, but don't expect daily updates to last.
If I were to look at the development of GP Bikes and MX Sim across that same time period MX Sim wins hands down. Granted MXS started off way more featureless, but it has come a lot further in the same time period.
Cue PiBoSo to tell me I am wrong... LOL
I should add I know I am coming off way harsher sounding than I intend to. I own and play all PiBoSo's games, it's not like I hate the guy like some of you want to believe. I actually really enjoy his attitude and openness.
However it is my opinion that there needs to be more of a bridge between leaning the bike and steering the bike. Leaning feels very unnatural, steering is over difficult with common control systems. Controllers. Steering damping, speed sensitivity and some things I don't know about should be looked at in order to get most users playing via steering and not leaning. IMO of course.
Quote from: Phathry25 on March 03, 2015, 10:56:49 PM
If I were to look at the development of GP Bikes and MX Sim across that same time period MX Sim wins hands down. Granted MXS started off way more featureless, but it has come a lot further in the same time period.
Not that I'm happy with GPB development speed (even if mostly I don't complain about the speed but about prioritization of what gets developed in GPB), but you may want to keep in mind that Piboso works on GPB (some), WRS (a little), KRP (a lot) and MXB (a lot) at the same time. Since the beginning of MXB, MXB has been the one with most dev time (makes sense), but even prior to MXB, KRP was getting more dev time than GPB by a fair margin.
The argument "MXB shares code with GPB" is valid up to a point: part of the code is totally reusable, part is totally not. And even if a majority was reusable, managing two projects in parallel is always bound to be less efficient than focusing on only one, especially for small dev teams.
As far as I know, KRP is the cash cow, followed by MXB. GPB is essentially eating up money with no return, WRS is free (well, you pay for GPB and you get WRS too). The crazy thing is that there would be plenty of GPB players ready to economically support GPB more (crowfunding, yearly fee/donation, whatever), but the idea is not welcome.
Anyway, to me the statement "MXS had way more development time than MXB" may well be true. Probably, even GPB 9or the sum of GPB and MXB) has had less development time than MXS.
Not that that makes a big difference anyway, as all we (should) care about is the final product we have at hand.
@Phatry25: I'm interested in your comments about the remarks I made about the physics in MXS, 3rd and 6th point (mass/traction and landings) in particular. Honestly, I am.
MaX.
MX Simulator is a spare time project for its developer as well. It's hard to quantify time spent coding for either project. The time I referenced was the 2008-2015 measure that we can guarantee. As far as I am concerned that other stuff doesn't really matter.
Max. I haven't watched the video, can't comment on its happenings. Almost always post from my phone. If I do hop on my PC I always try to work on a project instead of browse forums and waste time. I have a bad habit of hopping from one forum to the next for hours on end. So I don't.
I've never thought the bikes were too light in MX Simulator. I'm sure the exact figures could be obtained by searching the forum there though. I know it's been discussed. As far as physics environment it's all ODE so I'm sure gravity is accurate.
Traction is up to the track creator. Once again not sure of the quality of the track but you could be seeing a side effect of extreme traction values. You more than likely are.
Landings are hard to judge. There is a problem that needs to be corrected with the bikes collision shape, it's a little large as of now. Not sure if that's what you were seeing or not. Probably not since he didn't crash from the sounds of it.
On PC. Watched video. That view does make it look very floaty. It was surreal watching it because the sounds sounded normal, but the bike looked to be in slow motion.
The landings you referenced were fine. These are modern motocross bikes with 12" of travel and lots of bottoming resistance. The 2nd one was close to being a crash, but he just caught the bottom of the landing with the rear wheel and made it work.