Racer v0.8.28 released!

[Ruud]

Since X-mas is still so far off. ;-)

Get it at http://www.racer.nl/download/racer0.8.28.zip (83Mb)

This one does seem close to v0.9, except perhaps for some replay enhancements.

Changes (some already posted in the v0.8.27 thread):
- Minimap was painted even if no splines were present
- SMD chase cam shadow focus is now on the car, not near the camera itself
- 3rd shadow split distance reduced to 500m for detail. Last split is now faded out.
- Large car CG offset could get some 3D objects culled incorrectly.
- 'Select car' screen gave car.ini errors which were incorrect (due to fast loading of only the first part of car.ini)
- Force feedback was passed to steering wheel even if steering was not done through that wheel
- resolution.render_aspect didn't work; fixed
- Shadowmapping tweaked again for even less Z correction
- Pacejka Player tweaking lambda values wasn't correct for MF5.2 curves
- Backfire 'likeliness' removed until we get better turbo behavior (>v0.9)
- 'grip 0.5' appeared to also reduce engine torque. Fixed (doubly stored data in the code, as if grip=1).
- Only the first 2 splits are blurred
- Autoclutch RPM now slams the clutch harder around the optimal RPM. Works to get at the optimal torque rpm
when driving off, although it is a bit harsh. Seems ok when I look at g-force graphs though.

 

[FiftyOrange]

Ruud , I've got this error in 0.8.29b

Tue Dec 28 18:27:14 (WARN): [racer/4276] Car 'Mitsubishi Eclipse GT' is incompatible with this Racer version (car=0815, need 090)

Set in the car.ini file, right near the top.

car
{
name=Lamborghini Gallardo
year=2004
id=gallardov1
credits=T-Shine, import: TtR, dials: Blo0m, driver: stecki
comments=ini: MrWhippy/TtR, sounds: MrWhippy/ForrestGump
version=050f
wheels=4

Set the version to =090


*

This is so that the new Final version sets a new standard in content, so that anything that will work in the Final will have to be updated for the Final. It drops support for content created for older versions, unless they've been updated.

 

[Mr Whippy]

Ruud , I've got this error in 0.8.29b

Tue Dec 28 18:27:14 (WARN): [racer/4276] Car 'Mitsubishi Eclipse GT' is incompatible with this Racer version (car=0815, need 090)

You need to update the car.ini entry for the version it is designed for.

car
{
name=Mitsubishi Eclipse GT
etc etc
version=090
}

By changing the version to 090 you have (hopefully) also made appropriate changes to make it fully compatible with 090 features, such as the new launch control/autoclutch settings and so on

Also renaming car.shd to car_nocg.shd, and then adding a new car.shd for CG shaders is ideal, then the car is current and also backwards compatible for those with much slower systems (GFX mainly)!

Obviously that may not be the case, but it at least helps people know that it was designed/re-worked relatively recently

Dave

 

[Raphael Buthmann]

Ruud , the AI cars are completely crazy Oo

 

[Mr Whippy]

Ruud, I still believe the two different shadow profiles, somehow, are running different fades or something.

I've removed smCor issue by zeroing them in constants.cg, and you can clearly see that profile0 and profile1 have different fade-outs of the shadows. Even running the same split distances in racer.ini, the shadows appear differently.

It's like the fade is being applied differently depending on the profile used!?


Thanks

Dave

 

[camsinny]

This might be 0.9+ but if engine RPM exceeds max_rpm (as defined in the car.ini) can we have the car instantly stall? Either that or restrict downchanges if the resulting RPM is going to exceed max_rpm?

Also - launch control seems to be enabled in 1st gear at any RPM below the launch RPM...can we have this so that it's only enabled below say 1km/h? Or a step better - a new button for it? Which once pressed allow the car to lunch and then returns the autoclutch to normal operation?
Also2 - can we set the launch RPM ourselves? launch_rpm=xxx for example?

 

[Mr Whippy]

Launch control shouldn't be confused with a real cars 'launch control'

Launch control here is doing exactly what it's named, controlling a launch to help users with a mouse or keyboard for example, or no clutch pedal, to launch their car either smoothly, or quickly, without issue.

I kinda agree that as speed builds up in 1st gear, that the need to slip the clutch if you floor it subsides... perhaps once the clutch is full disengaged in that gear, then it stays disengaged until it begins to re-engage, which kinda resets it for a second launch?



A button for it would mean it was an actual "launch control" feature, which is something that would be nice, but in application they are all so very very different.
The M3 CSL for instance, pulses the clutch open and closed quickly to keep the wheels spinning at the optimum speed, so as not to reduce engine power or brake wheels and thus cost power.
Other cars use different strategies.

I'd prefer to use this launch control for the intended purpose which it's actually really good at, and get a proper launch control for 'LC'ing' later


However, like you say, having it turn off after you've actually launched would be cool. I think that is best done as said, but turning it off once the clutch is closed, and then only re-allow it in 1st again if it starts top open again!?

I also think the current system would now work really nicely if when launch control is 1, that autoclutch_rpm can be used to set the rpm to which it runs to in 1st gear instead of the max_torque rpm...

Dave

 

[EngineOfDarkness]

This might be 0.9+ but if engine RPM exceeds max_rpm (as defined in the car.ini) can we have the car instantly stall? Either that or restrict downchanges if the resulting RPM is going to exceed max_rpm?

Both, sorry, stupid additions. I can easily rev my real life car (Revlimit @ about 6700RPM) far above 7000 when Downshifting without the engine stalling. Also there are no weird interferences of some sort preventing me to Shift down into second coming from the fourth gear @ 6000 RPM (though some parts of the engine would try to rocket themselves into stable orbit around earth if I did that).

That is, unless we get something like "rpm_limit" (where limiter kicks in) and "max_rpm" (which is equal to the value where the engine would blow due to the fact that the used materials and their stability is overstressed by the forces) or something similar to separate both the limiter from an "anti"-downshift/engine stall above limiter rpm- feature.


I wouldn't mind if there was an engine- subsimulation in Racer, where oil/water and their properties play a larger role in the well being of an engine based on how the engine is actually build (carburator, (direct) injection; air cooled, water cooled; ... blablabla etc).

 

[camsinny]

This is for automatic gearboxes - therefore not stupid.
There's also a difference between the max rpm and the rev limiter.

Also there are no weird interferences of some sort preventing me to Shift down into second coming from the fourth gear @ 6000 RPM (though some parts of the engine would try to rocket themselves into stable orbit around earth if I did that).

This is what I'm trying to suggest. Do it in your real car and see what happens. I dare you.

 

[Mr Whippy]

Most road car engines can probably over-rev on a down-shift, to the point they destroy themselves. A friend at school allowed his passenger to do his 3rd to 4th shift, which from the passenger seat and a bit of a pull, was top of 3rd to 2nd, which resulted in driveshafts popping out
Either way, it didn't stall. It broke something else

Stalling the engine seems to be adding an effect that just does something else to punish you, which "bad shift" already does (iirc)...?! Or that is where this kind of thing should be added, to punish a bad action with a reasonable effect. Stalling the engine seems a really odd thing to do if you over-rev it

There is nothing worse than losing flexibility with the existing systems and features because we hard-code in a new feature to do something it's not meant to do.


Down-change restrictions on computerised shifts does make sense, but again, I'd prefer this to be applied properly at the proper place, in the proper ways, than applied as an after thought and have it messing with the manual gearbox and it's ability to have a user do a bad shift. I want to be able to over-rev my Z4 on a down-shift, and have the engine braking force lock the rear wheels mid-bend, but then not spin out and have to start the car again (because that isn't what happens in real life, ergo it shouldn't do that )


What we really need is gearbox types.

Automatics, with torque converters, manuals (obvious, and kinda what we have now), and then dsg/smg types, with logics and things for up/downshift... automatic but with driver override etc.

Right now we are kinda using the automatic features designed for making the manual gearbox useable for a user with just buttons and no clutch pedal... ie, the launch control is for those people, as is the automatic=1 option... they are ultimately there for that purpose. We can fool them into working more like how we want them to for smg/dsg etc, but to try make these features more for things they are not designed to do, is not ideal


Afaik, Ruud is doing physics stuff post v0.9, so these are perhaps things we can look forward to!?

Having proper gearboxes would be really nice, and solve half of these problems right away

I'd prefer to wait for a proper fix/feature, and carry on kinda tinkering with what we have to fake stuff for now, than have rushed features added that hurt potential functionality for ALL, just so we can fake more things badly.


Just tired of having to work around bugs, or work with features that have been half-added.

Lets do this right when we do do it, do it for the right reasons, and do it so it's easy to check it's right, and then tick it off and move on

Dave

 

[Stereo]

What we really need is gearbox types.

Automatics, with torque converters, manuals (obvious, and kinda what we have now), and then dsg/smg types, with logics and things for up/downshift... automatic but with driver override etc.

Right now we are kinda using the automatic features designed for making the manual gearbox useable for a user with just buttons and no clutch pedal... ie, the launch control is for those people, as is the automatic=1 option... they are ultimately there for that purpose. We can fool them into working more like how we want them to for smg/dsg etc, but to try make these features more for things they are not designed to do, is not ideal


Afaik, Ruud is doing physics stuff post v0.9, so these are perhaps things we can look forward to!?

Having proper gearboxes would be really nice, and solve half of these problems right away

I'd prefer to wait for a proper fix/feature, and carry on kinda tinkering with what we have to fake stuff for now, than have rushed features added that hurt potential functionality for ALL, just so we can fake more things badly.

Yeah, a whole modular drivetrain system would be ideal (engine -> torque converter or clutch -> gearbox -> differentials -> wheels) with each taking inputs/outputs and feeding back to each other as expected. Rather than just expecting the code to handle all the possibilities. Then once that's set up, specifics (dsg, types of differentials, 2wd/4wd) could just be slotted in once they work, or by chaining extra differentials in as appropriate.

 

[boomer541]

My shadow settings, get acne if mapsize 1024, none with mapsize 2048!

FPS go UP about 10 with blur=1, so use it.

Damn new method of attachments is confusing!

View attachment splits.txt View attachment constants.7z

 

[boomer541]

Ruud,
The ai is all fouled up using 0.0829b, car won't stay on the road and follow the bestline!!!

Mr. Whippy,
How the H*** do you use ai without splines?????

Perhaps the ai could use the coordinates of the bestline as the ai line to follow and then we wouldn't need splines! Pehaps just use the car center as the coordinate.

We do need to have ai working!!!!!! Some of us like to drive around other than on the track only!!!

 

[Mr Whippy]

You don't use AI without splines

That is the problem.

I don't want to drive on splines, but I do want ALL the other benefits they bring


This isn't a big problem really, it's probably just an accidental bug Ruud has got in there

Dave

 

[Mr Whippy]

My shadow settings, get acne if mapsize 1024, none with mapsize 2048!

FPS go UP about 10 with blur=1, so use it.

Damn new method of attachments is confusing!

View attachment 33412 View attachment 33411

68fps out of the box settings (still getting acne)
96fps without blur (how I run it, I can hardly tell ANY difference) (still getting acne)

74fps with 2048 maps and blurring (still getting acne)
96fps with 2048 maps and no blurring (still getting acne)


It is interesting why the FPS is higher with a bigger map... BUT, Ruud has been busy hardcoding away with the 1024 value and 4 splits constant in lots of shaders, so it could be that something isn't working right elsewhere. Hmmmm...

Generally, I can't see any difference here really though. At 1920x1200 resolution, the nearest split easily has enough quality to show 1 to 1 pixel shadow map to pixel on screen for 'behind' car views, and also on the interior I think... and from there on out the shadow map size, in theory, doesn't lag that far behind the pixel size on screen for the shadow map. Ie, it's pretty coherent, much less and you'd spot more blocks, much more and you just start to double up info within a pixel on screen.

The only advantage I'd give for 2048 maps is if you double the ranges too, so as not to waste map density... then you have a real advantage! I'd do this for my own personal settings if the cost wasn't so high on FPS!

BUT, I'm struggling right now to justify it. ALL our tracks are rather pants right now. Swiss Stroll and Speedest 3 were the last half decent ones we ever had. Lets wait and see how much GPU power we have spare when we have 6 cars tearing round a quality circuit.

David I's Mugello (although in need of huge optimisation), only runs at about 30fps on my machine with Cam's WIP F458... 25fps with 2048 maps and blurring. That just isn't really nice at all, and to be totally honest it looks a bit weak. WE, the content creators, have a LOT of work to do. I believe Ruud has got us far enough now and it's up to us to do some work now

Lets not get carried away with cranking settings up just yet, using old car content on big empty tracks, as a guide to how much GPU power we have left


I'm planning on using a big chunk up with my tracks, as efficiently as possible of course. Shadows can easily be scaled out as GPU's get faster, BUT, game content can't so easily be scaled up later with loads of extra content...


Hmmm, tis a tough decision I will grant you... personally I'm happy now, knowing that the shadow distance can easily be cranked up later... it's plenty for us to be working with for v0.9 though (and you can always tweak it yourself if you really want more)

You only need to see GT5 to realise they never got to a happy place with shadows hehe

Dave

 

[Mr Whippy]

Ruud, another query/bug perhaps?

Back to audio pitch_scale and pitch_offset

They only seem to work outside of the sample definition.

Ie:

pitch_scale=0
pitch_offset=50
smp0
{
sample=wind1.wav
min=25
max=26
attack=33
decay=33
natural=80
volume=0.5
}

That works.

smp0
{
sample=wind1.wav
min=25
max=26
attack=33
decay=33
natural=80
volume=0.5

pitch_scale=0
pitch_offset=50
}


That doesn't...


If you want an engine noise that just plays constantly, or builds much more slowly with engine rpm, such as a turbo or supercharger or something, you can't achieve the effect of having it's speed build slower than that of the engine.

You can only seem to influence an entire sample set with these variables, which seems less flexible than is ideal.
Again, it's not a show stopper, but it's this kind of lack of flexibility that prevents users from being creative with the tools they have and doing something interesting

I'd always assumed this was for any sample or sample set, I've been struggling for about 6 years trying to get a turbo that just built up about 50% pitch over the entire engine rpm, rather than going from a dull whistle to a full-on screech
Now it's clear why it doesn't work hehe.

I know now isn't the ideal time for audio fixes, but considering the audio has probably been the most static thing since 050 audio beta, it'd make sense to at least offer authors a bit more flexibility with it.

Maybe also finish the throttle_on throttle_off sample definitions too?! They are in there, they just use default values... seems a waste to not get them in v0.9 final?!

Dave

 

[Alex Forbin]

As for those videos, they really tend to look more real life than the actual replay probably. They look good in any case. Racer's replay movie function does work, except for sound it seems, but gives quite a bit of preprocessing to do.

Are you talking about the tires squealing every time you let off of the throttle? Don't forget about the engine only playing one sample. It really would be nice to get the replay fixed, it's kind of embarrassing when I try to show off Racer. Especially now that the graphics look so good.

Alex Forbin

P.S. Could we get the cars to sit on the floor of the garage? Or stick a lift under it? Actually it kind of needs a dark area under it as well to tie it down visually.

 

[EngineOfDarkness]

This is for automatic gearboxes - therefore not stupid.
There's also a difference between the max rpm and the rev limiter.

This is what I'm trying to suggest. Do it in your real car and see what happens. I dare you.

You should have said it's for automatic gearboxes in the first place.

Already happened by accident when I switched from 3rd to 2 (3rd gear was at the rev limit). Noticed soon enough, engine was above 7500 Revs before I pressed the clutch again. Didn't stall and still lives on (15.000+ km later, no abnormal oil loss or noises present).

However Mr. Whippys post would be the best solution.

 

[camsinny]

There's something super-dodgy going on with FMOD.

It's like when there's a certain number of sounds played it just decides to forget other samples.
Ruud-take the 458 around the loop the loop (just over 200km/h should do it) on the physics test track and you'll see what I mean.

EDIT##
7 458's on carlswood seems to do it too.

 

[Alex Forbin]

Does anyone know how to access the gauge(view.elt) shader? I don't know what the generic needle object is called so I can't assign a car.shd shader to it.
By the way why don't we call the car.shd "shaders" something else for the sake of clarity?

Alex Forbin

 

[camsinny]

You don't need to define the elt shaders in the car.shd - they're assigned to the quads generated by your views.ini automagically.