Racer v0.8.34 released

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ruud

RACER Developer
Racer v0.8.34 is out! Get it at http://www.racer.nl/download/racer0.8.34.7z (48Mb, note the 7z extension; you'll need 7-zip from http://www.7-zip.org ).

Enjoy!
Ruud

Changes:
- Bugfix: Director cam didn't work
- Bugfix: Rain didn't affect grip (snow did)
- ENet upgraded to v1.3.3 (small change to avoid unreliable packet regression, and disconnect fix)
- Added input limiters for Pacejka curves for slipangle/ratio/camber/load (see data/cars/default/car.ini)
(wheel<n>.pacejka.slipangle_min/max etc); see http://www.racer.nl/reference/pacejka.htm#inputsoutputs
- Bugfix: Replay was never painted; no camera was defined.
- Bugfix: particles in replays were not animated in reverse mode. Now they are (although not entirely correct)
- Turning AI on while offroad would cause a crash.
- Added ai.spring_factor in car.ini to add some magic forces to keep the car on track (use 'ai scale' for example
to add some speed to the AI line; check out 'ai save' and such).
- CurvEd import of ASCII txt and CSV added.
- CurvEd imports were buggy (zero) if more than 50 points were imported.
- Added textures.stub in racer.ini to optionally load a single texture for every loaded shader; useful
when testing mipmapping (if you're using mipmaps effectively, see http://www.racer.nl/tutorial/stub_textures.htm)
- Added data/images/texture_stub.dds as a default images for the feature above
- Added dev.fast_fade in racer.ini to allow quick fades while developing
- Added wheel roadnoise filtering to simulate rubber; see http://www.racer.nl/reference/wheels.htm
- Added ai.rc_factor in car.ini to be able to help AI if you give it a high grip_factor as well. See http://www.racer.nl/reference/carphys.htm#ai
- Added ai.cg_factor in car.ini to lower effective CG height to help AI drive faster through turns without flipping.
See also http://www.racer.nl/reference/carphys.htm#ai
- susp_implicit_integration now set to 0 for explicit physics. It seems stable for F1 cars with tire_damping,
and the implicit method creates buggy load values in the tires.
- Added ghost.update_if_loaded (defaults to true) to determine whether to update the ghost lap (if you're faster),
even if you've explicitly loaded one with ghost.load.
- Materials without names in DOF files used to get the exact texture name (ie 'body.tga'). The extension is now cut, so it'd become 'body').
 
Here's an xtree example, I've create the simplest collidable 3D closed geometry it requires for correct collisions (3 sided cylinder with no cap subdivs), 2 additional offset planes/quads, so normals are pointing to all directions, to get the most realistic result when shading & colliding.

If you know something better, let me know...:)

xtrees01.jpg
 
You need alpha to coverage to get transparrency working through multiple transparents, iirc

We really need a good tutorial/examples sheet on transparent items really. Ie, the shader fragment from the track.shd, NOT JUST the shaders to reference!


Welding verts? Dot pattern issue is the one evident on alpha to coverage items... it's like stippled alpha.


As for the tree, why make it like that? Just set it flag=0 for a tree that reaches to the floor (so you don't need a separate trunk textured item etc), then add a cylinder for the trunk that has an empty shader and flags for collide.


Dave
 
...why make it like that? Just set it flag=0 for a tree that reaches to the floor (so you don't need a separate trunk textured item etc), then add a cylinder for the trunk that has an empty shader and flags for collide.

Hm, at least we have different POVs, but I was looking more something that's packed & all included...The way I showed, after some testings, seems to be 1 solution to the xtree 1 direction pointing normals issue + the unrealistic collision event occurring on those open faces/quads, which I suppose you know. Create a building with 1 side reversed normals, then drive/collide it, you will be stuck into the box...:D

With my technique, you have correct xtree shading (it will look good at all time & from all perspective views), efficient collision events & all that, is mapped into 1 map/flag only.

Another reason is the constraints in BTB i.e., where you can't just position/distribute to the same exact location of other objects.
 
I'm not sure having the tree body (leafy bit) as a collide mesh is all that important, or efficient for the physics engine.

Best, imo, to split the tree into a visual and physics part. Visual is just 2 quads at 90deg using xtree shader with one texture of entire tree.
Then place a 3 sided tube where the trunk will be for the physics, using an empty shader.


My system uses 5 quads, 3 are not rendered. And that is if you really need to hit trees. Imo trees that you might get that close to so you can hit them could do with LOD'ing up to a 3D version as you get close...

Imo, you'd be best just using a big low-polygon screen to block out getting near the trees, and then make it un-renderable.

Dave
 
Problem with ai. Running hillman imp on some tracks, QCM's latest for example, has the car oscillating right to left and then spinning out.

Using the same ai.ini file with bugatti veyron works fine. This first appeared slightly with version 0.0831 and has gotten steadily worse.

Imp runs fine without ai. Anyone having similar problem?
 
Entered "graph 0.1 -2...2 steering.pos" in the console and found that there is a violent oscillation. Adjusted the ai settings in racer.ini and it was reduced abit.

Occurs on certain tracks, ok on others. Only car I have trouble with is my hillman imp but havn't tried all cars.

With two different tracks the frequency of oscillations was different. Higher on a big track vs. lower on a small track.

Could there be a problem with the newton graphcs, racer.ini ai settings or car.ini settings. I haven't found any problems with car.ini files????

Anyone else have the same or similar problem????
 
Anyone tried the panorama shaders recently?

Don't seem to work as intended from the example code Ruud gave back in the shaders thread about 8 months ago.

I just get either very light (fogged out to the sky background), through to very dark (unlit) panoramic cut-outs while adjusting the scale variable.

If I just place the panorama in scene at a large distance with a standard transparent then it looks much better and, well, correct... nice diffuse colouring coming through, nicely lit etc, just too much fog is applied.

Tempted to try make my own panorama shader based off the standard shader, and use scale to adjust the extinction factor in one of those.

It's all these little un-finished details that make content creation hard, with a lack of applied shader examples AND the track.shd associated code to make it work as expected (ie, depth tweaks, alpha funcs and all the other flags you need to use to make stuff work as expected)

Hmmm

Dave
 
I've been using around v0.8.3 again recently (don't ask), pre Newton too, so no collide mesh etc. The FPS are just crazy fast. If you turn off CSM and other features in the newer v0.8.34 the FPS just never get anywhere near the ones in the older versions.

You also see that FPS can alter a great deal if you reload a track that has lots of movables (reload track in console). Load it once, maybe 15fps, reload track, and suddenly you have maybe 100fps.
So something in loading isn't right. Take away the movables and things speed up lots. However, if there are bugs in one bit, it makes you wonder if they exist in some shape or form in other parts of the program.

The only thing I'm starting to think is that Newton is making things slow.

If it is GFX related, then something in the GFX is REALLY hogging resources.

Going again to v0.8.3 ish versions, turn HDR on and HDR envmap and so on, and you are very close to the current version visually, just no CSM shadows. Yet FPS are maybe twice as fast than currently even with CSM off!

So something is costing lots of FPS somewhere.


Is anyone else generally feeling that they get really poor FPS even on the most basic tracks? I'm struggling to see how a nice looking track will ever get over about 10fps on my system, but NFS Shift 2 runs at about 10x the speed!

I'm trying all the tricks in the book on even basic tracks but the FPS just drop so hard as soon as they get half interesting... hmmmm
 
I wonder what Ruud thinks...................................................................... ;)

Has anyone researched vertex lookups? I'm afraid that the new damage system might be a "canned" style that relies on pre-made
displacement maps to depict different levels of damage. :( That being said I do see some real nice applications for the vertex lookups.

Dave,
This is an example of what I'm getting with a 20k poly model on one of my rather dated 250GTS systems...

Oh wait, I forgot the image uploading is broken forever now due to an "upgrade" of the BBS software.

Anyway I get around 80-100 fps with a decently detailed track.

Alex Forbin
 
Just get the image's url and stick it between the tags, and yes, that does require the "lengthy" process of uploading it somewhere!! :tongue:[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the tip KS95 but I know the image url works, I was speaking about the uploading here.
I don't use the image url since the image uploading should work. A work-around is not the same as a fix and this one is way overdue.
It's like going to the tire store to have my wheels balanced and they say the balance is OK and that I should just drive
around at 20mph so the car won't shake.

Alex Forbin
 
Except it's not the tire store's fault :tongue: As far as I know it's a VB issue, but considering how much they charge, they really should have fixed it a while back...
 
Except it's not the tire store's fault :tongue: As far as I know it's a VB issue, but considering how much they charge, they really should have fixed it a while back...

No doubt, and I'm not griping to anyone but VB since as you say they are charging money for a product and it has a major bug that they don't want to fix. I just wish more of us would put pressure on them to deliver.

Alex Forbin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest News

Online or Offline racing?

  • 100% online racing

    Votes: 86 7.5%
  • 75% online 25% offline

    Votes: 122 10.6%
  • 50% online 50% offline

    Votes: 169 14.6%
  • 25% online 75% offline

    Votes: 321 27.8%
  • 100% offline racing

    Votes: 452 39.2%
  • Something else, explain in comment

    Votes: 4 0.3%
Back
Top