Tracks Thomson Road Grand Prix - Singapore

[andrea zorzetto]

here the differencies with wagnum...it's a lot...maybe for me the

Yeah it would be a bit of a cheating. I think lamp posts are nice touch and immersive, it adds a lot of immersion. People after few crashes will eventually get used to them. IMO it is well made should be used online as all good mod tracks are seen online from time to time.



This is not stock track, this is Ahvenisto mod track. And is that Monza with late autumn trees ?

yeah i mixed them for comparison, btw i re-textured ahvenisto a lot, fixed texture flickering and tune it..... asked maker permission to share but never aswered...

 

[andrea zorzetto]

here the differencies with @WagnumPI (btw great work mate)...
his

mine

look at the sand and contrast for example

 

[LilSki]

Can we please not turn this into another PP filter thread? This thread is about Thomson.

 

[WagnumPI]

Can we please not turn this into another PP filter thread? This thread is about Thomson.

Yep, definitely went a bit off topic there...

 

[MeMyselfAndI]

Looks so lush and beautiful, most anticipated track in long time for me.

 

[andrea zorzetto]

yep with modder like u @Fat-Alfie this game will live forever...u take AC track modding to another level, when i see the wagnum images i hardly believe that is AC, can we also have some info about road phisical mesh? how do you work on that? it's a very important matter in a simulation game like AC. ask @LilSki some help maybe he's a master on this aspect...u 2 together will sure produce a unbelievable track level quality...

 

[Fat-Alfie]

Thank you for the kind words

The physics mesh is made in a very similar way to my Bilster Berg and Deutschlandring track - a simple process of subdivide, random noise and optimisation (I'm sure this is how all track modders make their non-laserscanned physical mesh)

I take my original low-poly mesh (which I would have kept as an editable spline up to this point, to be able to make small changes @mantasisg ). This will have fewer than 60k tris so I can still use it to test drive on.

I then split this into 40 equal sections, each 1500 tris.

Each of these are then subdivided down to a vert spacing of around 20cm (about 80,000 verts per section).

I then apply a 2cm displacement to any areas that I want to 'feel' - changes in tarmac, or drain covers. I know 2cm is higher than a join is IRL but it feels good to me, so that's what I use . The next step is to apply some random noise to the verts - usually a single 'light' pass of noise (+-10mm) over every section, and a second 'heavy' pass (+- 25mm) only to certain areas that I think would be bumpier IRL. I usually go with what feels right though - it's not really an exact science

Then I just optimise each section back down to around 10,000 tris per section (400,000 for the whole track). I set the optimiser modifier so that it is weighted towards small clusters of verts - that way I get to keep the important details in the mesh, rather than losing verts indiscriminately.

Oh, and thanks for your suggestion. I actually taught @LilSki everything he knows It was a struggle to get him to move away from RTB but he's doing ok now he uses Blender

Seriously, he has been a real help on numerous occasions - mostly telling me when he thinks something sucks As great as it is to hear people say they love your project, it's much more useful to hear what they don't like. Listening to and accepting criticism is something I have only recently learned how to do, but I do feel it has made my project better

 

[mantasisg]

Excellent post again @Fat-Alfie , I get the message. And thank you for sharing info about the process of modeling.

 

[GT VIRUS]

For anyone working on a newer circuit, this is what the FIA dictate for bumpiness on a new circuit

.
The track surface should meet the following requirements:
 The surface should be exempt from any undulations so that a 4 m long straight-edge
laid on the finished surface shall uniformly contact it ;
 A tolerance of 3 mm will be admitted only in a few points of the entire surface; at
least three checks should be made every 100 m of the track length


Obviously older tracks won't meet that, but shows how smooth new tarmac should be

 

[andrea zorzetto]

Thank you for the kind words

The physics mesh is made in a very similar way to my Bilster Berg and Deutschlandring track - a simple process of subdivide, random noise and optimisation (I'm sure this is how all track modders make their non-laserscanned physical mesh)

I take my original low-poly mesh (which I would have kept as an editable spline up to this point, to be able to make small changes @mantasisg ). This will have fewer than 60k tris so I can still use it to test drive on.

I then split this into 40 equal sections, each 1500 tris.

Each of these are then subdivided down to a vert spacing of around 20cm (about 80,000 verts per section).

I then apply a 2cm displacement to any areas that I want to 'feel' - changes in tarmac, or drain covers. I know 2cm is higher than a join is IRL but it feels good to me, so that's what I use . The next step is to apply some random noise to the verts - usually a single 'light' pass of noise (+-10mm) over every section, and a second 'heavy' pass (+- 25mm) only to certain areas that I think would be bumpier IRL. I usually go with what feels right though - it's not really an exact science

Then I just optimise each section back down to around 10,000 tris per section (400,000 for the whole track). I set the optimiser modifier so that it is weighted towards small clusters of verts - that way I get to keep the important details in the mesh, rather than losing verts indiscriminately.

Oh, and thanks for your suggestion. I actually taught @LilSki everything he knows It was a struggle to get him to move away from RTB but he's doing ok now he uses Blender

Seriously, he has been a real help on numerous occasions - mostly telling me when he thinks something sucks As great as it is to hear people say they love your project, it's much more useful to hear what they don't like. Listening to and accepting criticism is something I have only recently learned how to do, but I do feel it has made my project better

Then i suggest to send the track beta to my buddy that have a motion system to check at best road mesh response
if u are on AC official forum he is Nick Moxley

 

[LilSki]

Then i suggest to send the track beta to my buddy that have a motion system to check at best road mesh response
if u are on AC official forum he is Nick Moxley

The mesh is fine don't worry about it.

 

[Fat-Alfie]

For anyone working on a newer circuit, this is what the FIA dictate for bumpiness on a new circuit

The track surface should meet the following requirements:
• The surface should be exempt from any undulations so that a 4 m long straight-edge
laid on the finished surface shall uniformly contact it ;
• A tolerance of +-3 mm will be admitted only in a few points of the entire surface; at
least three checks should be made every 100 m of the track length

Obviously older tracks won't meet that, but shows how smooth new tarmac should be

All valid points (though obviously they don't apply to this track as it is a public road from the 1960s). What does bother me though, is the thought that track modders might stick to those tollerances religiously when making tracks for AC. When I added the joints in the tarmac to my physical mesh, I started with a 10mm step but could feel nothing through my T500RS. It wasn't until I increased that to 15-20mm that I could start to feel the bump through my wheel.

If the same is true for surface undulations, and if people make their tracks as smooth in AC as they are IRL, hardly anyone will feel anything through their wheel. This may be physically correct, but I don't feel it would make for a better or more enjoyable experience. I am not trying to make a 100% physical copy of Thomson Road, rather something that feels good to me, that is fun to drive. If that means I have to make the road bumpier than it really is then that is fine by me. If reality feels dull and lifeless then you can keep it

 

[LilSki]

Oh, and thanks for your suggestion. I actually taught @LilSki everything he knows It was a struggle to get him to move away from RTB but he's doing ok now he uses Blender

Don't be hating on RTB. We all know it produces only the best quality, and best performing tracks

 

[WagnumPI]

Just thought i'd say after playing a few times, maybe you could make the lamp post on the left just after the high speed bump drive throughable? It pretty much tempts you to go at it at full speed and as it veers to the right you can quite easily come off and instead of just crashing or losing control, you end up stuck in the post... Just a thought but if not keen on the idea leave as is and i'll just drive more sensibly

 

[mantasisg]

I wonder if Wagnum finds himself stuck in one particular pole (Wagnum, be more careful, jk), then maybe it would work fine to have just a physical plane for the posts ? Everybody will be approaching them just from one direction anyway.


The formulas are already as same, as same color but different shades, and they are about to do it for tracks too. How is such flatness and smoothness practical ?

 

[WagnumPI]

Sorry, it's just too tempting. We have lift off!!

 

[mantasisg]

The Jungle guy approves

@WagnumPI I think this track should look very immersive at night with your mod

 

[AccAkut]

Don't be hating on RTB. We all know it produces only the best quality, and best performing tracks

It's a great tool, give the creator some credit. He explicitly said that his tool is just the first step.

 

[WagnumPI]

The Jungle guy approves

@WagnumPI I think this track should look very immersive at night with your mod

Ask and you will recieve!

 

[Fat-Alfie]

It's a great tool, give the creator some credit. He explicitly said that his tool is just the first step.

I agree, credit where it is due. The trouble is the people who try to use it for all of the steps, producing tracks that run so badly. They never learn how to make tracks correctly because with RTB they don't have to