WIP Rallycross Track

gegewrc

75RPM
Mar 19, 2009
97
1
Nice project Itavilli!!:good: That's new for all RBR gamers to play on a track and not on a stage! That's very pleasant to drive and that changes from all what we know! Download time is almost "nothing" and textures and details are nice!
The only strange thing is, at the beginning of the stage, the trees behind the start position.

I download the file in .7z for all people using RSRBR interface.
http://www.filefront.com/14729161/Rallicross Itavilli.7z
 

iltavilli

50RPM
Mar 22, 2009
63
1
Yes, that tree wall was just a quick solution so I could release the beta. Gonna make it right someday :) Thanks for the feedback.
 

gegewrc

75RPM
Mar 19, 2009
97
1
I couldn't drive on Tervianemi because of the FPS level...I was desperate because it looks like a great great stage but only available for big big computers... I'm glad to see that your new project will be drivable for all gamers! :good:
 

gegewrc

75RPM
Mar 19, 2009
97
1
Thanks Itavilli, that's also very funny in reverse! :good:
I was wondering why is there such big difference in download time? tracks beta 2 and reverse look pretty the same but the download time is twice more important on my computer...
Oulu beta 1 : 4sec
Oulu beta 2 : 13sec
oulu reverse : 26sec :confused2:

PS: do you eventually plan to release a full tarmac version?? It can be also very funny to drive in full tarmac specification and setup!
 

iltavilli

50RPM
Mar 22, 2009
63
1
There's significant amount more polygons in the guardrails. Now they are actually 3D, look a bit better, but also take more time to load and are also more cpu intensive. It's easy to go back to simple guardrails if needed. Is there a framerate hit also?

Full tarmac version is easy to do, might do that also.
 

gegewrc

75RPM
Mar 19, 2009
97
1
There's significant amount more polygons in the guardrails. Now they are actually 3D, look a bit better, but also take more time to load and are also more cpu intensive. It's easy to go back to simple guardrails if needed. Is there a framerate hit also?

Full tarmac version is easy to do, might do that also.
Hi Itavilli.Thanks for your answer. For me, the guardrail can stay as a wall and without 3D because your guardrail texture is very nice and seems to have a 3D effect. The impact on the download time is very big for almost no difference.
I noticed :
- on both version (beta 2 and reverse), 3D trees and start line object along the track have no collision.
- on the reverse version, there is problem between the trees walls (see on printscreen).



Thanks for your work! I think a full tarmac version can be also very funny! If it's not too big job, I sign for it! :woot2:

For info on my pc:
beta 1 : 160 FPS
beta 2 : 130 FPS
reverse : 135 FPS
 

iltavilli

50RPM
Mar 22, 2009
63
1
I haven't added collision on trees for purpose as the collision boxes decrease the framerate and you are supposed to stay on the track ;) Have to test what happens when adding collision to the trees and objects. Gonna fix that treewall also. Tarmac version will come ;)

Looks like that there's no fps hit with the 3D fences, just the increased loading time.

Thanks for the feedback, it's really useful.
 

Kytt

100RPM
Mar 16, 2009
212
10
You could do collision column model as object in xpack with transparent texture and place around the tree trunk. Eno72s idea. :) Also try put really low LOD to it like 1m or something, then RBR will render it just before you going to hit a tree. This way you probably save FPS. Never tried myself yet though
 

iltavilli

50RPM
Mar 22, 2009
63
1
Yepp, that's a good idea. I already did that with the tirewalls, as there was significant difference if the tirewall collision was on. Also tirewalls started to disappear when collision enabled. So i just made a wall with transparent texture in the middle of the wall.
 

eno72

100RPM
Mar 16, 2009
121
10
You could do collision column model as object in xpack with transparent texture and place around the tree trunk. Eno72s idea. :) Also try put really low LOD to it like 1m or something, then RBR will render it just before you going to hit a tree. This way you probably save FPS. Never tried myself yet though
this actually is a workaround. I use this for three reasons:
1 - the btb collision column does not seem to work: collision with whole tree whatever the dimension of the collision column in xpacker (?)
2 - on a series of identical objects, if you set only some of them collideable, in RBR there is a big chance they won't be rendered
3 - it's a nice way to simulate "soft" collisions: for instance I used this for the tyres on the ground, making a flat and smooth invisible mesh, and putting it inside the tyre. The result is a small bump of the car and not a complete wrecking.

to make it work best, edit the xml files of the xpack so that the collision is already "TRUE". Otherwise, when adding them in btb on top of other objects you will have to select them to set them collideable, but it won't be easy. Also set already in xpack a very low LOD.
The reason for using a transparent texture (even 2x2 pixels is ok) is that these "collision meshes" must be actually rendered, otherwise you won't collide with them.

Hopefully the collision column will be fixed in btb, in the meantime I believe these can be good tips.:)
 

jay_p_666

100RPM
Mar 21, 2009
200
2
wery Nice track Iltavilli!! :good: really fun to drive:)
:plus1:

Yep, very good job on that racetrack Iltavilli. The jump on the corner is very satisfying, it makes me want looking for more coming from you! If only we could drive this track on 600hp+ cars...
 

iltavilli

50RPM
Mar 22, 2009
63
1
I thought that RSRBR had some powerful rallycross cars, although they have bit of a head gasket problem. Rarely lasts 3laps :). Haven't tried though as I don't have RSRBR installed at the moment.
 

Osku33

1RPM
Aug 17, 2009
3
0
I have tried this track in RSRBR with the rallycross cars and I didn't have any problems with head gasket. The track is awesome to drive with the rallycross cars :D