A question to the modders: is it difficult to create bumps in a track? i explain my question: I notice that many tracks are often sad ponds. While others (the minority if you do the summary) are full of movement (bumps that liven up the suspensions). Now no one asks the perfect realization of reality, but the feelings that I have in a lot of conversions bring me to the question done. Because.. if the answer was "Yes man, it's a fool moment", would be nice if there was, in the rf2's tools, a function for easy generation of something, even if not real at the cm at the existing runway, could still give the feeling of asphalt of a circuit =) Thank you and i hope that my english is of this earth
Physical bumps in rf1 are limited to the frequency of the track surface smoothing/filtering. It will take a large poly and break it down into smaller bits to make the flow smoother. At the same time, poly's that are too small will have no effect because the smoothing won't go down that low. That is why artificial bumps are added using the tdf and material properties. I don't know the exact value of this frequency (although I would like to know), but lets say hypothetically the frequency is 1m. Then if you have a 2m long poly, it will make it into two 1m long poly's. But if you have two 0.5m long polys, it will take them and make them a single 1m long poly. To put that in layman's terms so non moders can understand . It means the game engine will take a big square and make smaller squares out of it. But it will also take smaller squares and make a big square out of it. So moulding small bumps in rf1 is not really productive. But if rf2 it will be all different, small physical bumps will be more effective. I got this info from this post MB made earlier. I could be completely wrong about my interpretation of Michael's post, but I can't say for sure. I have tried to track down the precise information but have not had any luck yet. So for now, don't take my explanation as gospel, just take it as a theory
1. Only use tdf bumps as an absolute last resort. They are horrible and predictable. 2. You need a high density mesh, with polys roughly ever 4m squared, this is sufficient. So somewhere in the region of 2m x 2m is good. Then boost that up in the tight corners again. 3. Select all the length edges apart from the outer ones, and then add a noise modifier. First of all make the effects huge so you can clearly see the bumps, then reduce the Z scale so that it produces realisitc results in game - Important to use a car with good physics here too, cars with terrible physics - and that's most of them in rF1, wont react correctly to them. 4. This is your base pass, after this you should add indvidual bumps manually. This presumes you use 3ds max.
I'm with Alex here, the tdf bumps aren't going to bring your track to life, they just add uniform bumps all over the section of the track where you're placing them. Step 4 should be the most important one for bumps. You will have to manually place those individual trademark bumps anyway. At Topeka there are two trademark "bumps" where the road course crosses the drag strip. Can't do those with tdf bumps.
that was because it was made before the g25 existed and was experimental. it was only once the g25 came out that any problem appeared, quite an easy fix but one that I just never bothered to do.
I-I-I kn-n-now, I-I ha-ave a-a G-G-G 25 I did the fix myself but couldn't get the guys I was racing with to put it on the server. I'm in no position to complain, the one track I attempted was crap, I have no idea how much work goes into tracks of the quality that you've produced. I don't like fantasy tracks generally but Seven Hills is a cracker
TDF bumps are now fractal patterns and feel very random and natural. As for track undulations, with the new collision, tire model and FFB you can feel all sorts of undulations in the track surface. For sure there still is a minimum height that you probably won't feel in the straights, but overall the track surface can now have a LOT more character. You will actually notice this a bit in the first few tracks for rF2. Some of them were made when we still had the old systems and the bumps had to be exaggerated a bit in order to be felt. When the new systems came online some of these that felt just right before seemed a bit on the extreme side--not bad, just extreme. Tracks like Monaco and the ones we're working on now feel "just right". As for creating them--it's not hard in MAX. Using various noise modifiers with fractal patterns will get you a good start. You can use FFD's for larger undulations. There's lots of ways to bring the track to life...
Excellent, was looking forward to an improvement in this area - will be great to open up a suspension trace and not see uniform sine waves Quick question: these TDF bumps are placed consistently on the track? ie anchored in a specific way (relative to the texture itself perhaps) so that a 'random' bump at a particular spot will be consistent lap to lap, load to load, player to player. From appearances the rF1 system looks two-dimensional, and since you encounter the undulations whether moving along the surface longitudinally or laterally it would seem likely you could actually hit the peaks and troughs at different locations based on how you've arrived at them. I can't say I've actually looked into it though. Obviously with the small scale involved it's probably not likely to have much of an effect, especially with the much greater variance from other factors coming in rF2, but to me it seems preferable for these bumps to be consistently placed to avoid some drivers being advantaged or disadvantaged (a track geometry bump might line up with a TDF peak for one player, and a trough for another).
Wow, that is great news! I was hoping some improvements on this area. With rF1 it was worky to get bumps feel right. Trial-and-error method with TDF and exaggerated polys was quite time consuming...
Not 100% sure on this--would have to ask the programmer about that. But, that being said, I really only use tdf values now for off-track excursions (where you're not supposed to be anyway) or on distressed bits of track, like the inside of a pothole or something just to give a bit of extra roughness. All the bumps and undulations you'll feel on rF2 tracks (at least from ISI) are provided by track geo....
Sounds good to me Scott, any improvement is welcome and in those years someone noticed how tdf bumps are simply not enough. I mean, from my point of view are useful anyway. The worst thing (but this one is related to car physics too) is that a brake zone for example, if good for a Touring Car, is almost undriveable (or unrealistic) with a F1. Scattered skidmarks of front tires lockup, are clues that something behaves not so good. Is the tdf?, the car setup/physics? both probably. I'm looking forward for new features. Fractal is good for heterogenic effects. I'm happy to see all those improvement how a racetrack behaves, physically too.
Probably feel-driven development of both tracks and cars. Track Z was developed using Car A to have the right "feel" over bumps. Car B was developed using Track Y to have the right "feel" through that trademark corner and over the curbs. Put Car B on Track Z and, if the creators strayed too far from confirmed data to make it feel right, you can get bad combinations that end up undrivable.
Mainly no, but at least when you want to test out the feel it should be done at tracks that have geo-bumps instead of procedural bumps.
And now the dog's biting its own tail if the track's geo-bumps were calibrated using a car that didn't have a proper suspension/tire setup...
Bumps will be felt if they exceed the limit of minimum surface noise noticed by the game engine. Unless you drive some old super soft US classic car.