WIP Rallycross Track

Layout is based on oncoming real OuluZone rallyross track. Altitude changes and terrain/object placement are my own, as the track doesn't exist yet. Lenght about 1.2 kilometers and 3 laps.

rallicross1.jpg


Extract to your Richard Burns Rally\RX_CONTENT\Tracks folder

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=A285RLVF

Reversed Beta version http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZU2BKXB0

Tarmac Beta

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=73GYH5IO
 
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
 
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:
 
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!
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.:)
 
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.
 
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
 

Latest News

Online or Offline racing?

  • 100% online racing

    Votes: 102 7.9%
  • 75% online 25% offline

    Votes: 134 10.4%
  • 50% online 50% offline

    Votes: 184 14.3%
  • 25% online 75% offline

    Votes: 361 28.0%
  • 100% offline racing

    Votes: 503 39.0%
  • Something else, explain in comment

    Votes: 5 0.4%
Back
Top