Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Overdrijf

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 29
Competition 2019 / Re: Cars and rules for 2019
« on: January 13, 2019, 03:36:29 PM »
As for the modified bonus system: I'm curious to see it in action. I think the bonus points awarded by track designers will help a lot for the transition. For example: The Jaguar sits at -19 and would take a year and a half just to get to the positive numbers again (which it usually needs to compete) at 1% per track, but with just one 5% boost somewhere in the year it should become quite manageable. (Especially considering that this is one of the biggest deviators, we just had 2 Jaguar tracks, it should be getting a break.)

Competition 2019 / Re: Cars and rules for 2019
« on: January 12, 2019, 10:58:01 PM »
O, wow, I'm honored. This is pretty cool.

I'm potentially maybe even a little too honored. I like the cars that are staying, the Ranger will never be a personal favorite of mine but it has a good niche of its own and the F40 is a fast slow car, which offers an exiting driving style and a nice contrast to more regular fast cars. One could argue though that the two DTM cars are pretty similar and the kart sits in the same kind of niche, just at a more extreme point. An argument could therefor be made to replace one of the DTM cars with for instance one of the cars made to bridge the gap between IMSA and INDY.

I'm not making that argument, mind you. I designed these things to be pretty much my ideal cars, and I will love driving them. I'm quite happy with the feedback so far and I hope others are enjoying them too. I'm just saying that if anyone does wish to advocate this viewpoint I understand why.

As a counterargument: it's fun to use new cars, keep things fresh. (EDIT: I'm also happy with the inclusion of the BMW, as it's my slight personal favorite of the three DTM cars.)

(Alternatively you could try adding the DTM cars under a single coefficient. I have no idea if that's feasible under the Zakstunts system, it's experimental and you're already experimenting with the coefficients, it could lead to one of these cars being generally favored over the other(s), and it would give both less individual screentime. I'm sure you've already toyed with this idea because I mentioned how the idea of a 3 car pack was inspired by this idea on release.)

(In related news: I posted a graphics update for both the DTM cars (a few days ago) and the Superkart (in the past hour) in their respective threads (kart, dtm). It changes nothing but the 3D model, and some text in the case of the M3. That probably makes the M3 the only car of these four for which the Zakstunts system will make a distinction between the 1.0 and 1.1 versions.)

I'm revisiting this thread to post a 2019 update to this car.

Given how atypical the vehicle is and how many bad modeling practices I used while making the 3D model it actually worked surprisingly well. I'm not here to do anything about how atypical the car is, but I did fix the bad modeling practices I could find. This update renders the car more smoothly. The only thing I changed is the 3D shape. I also successfully resisted the urge to add a readme file and/or remove the track from the package posted below. I kept everything the same as in the 2010 version, except it looks less buggy in game. I also added just the 3D shape below, if you already have the superkart installed you can just paste that in and you'll get exactly the same experience as when you download the full zip file.

Thanks to Cas and Dreadnaut for showing renewed interest in this vehicle.

Car creation with Stressed / Re: Stunts goes Dtm
« on: January 08, 2019, 03:00:20 PM »
This doesn't actually seem to completely fix the "wheels running off" bug (less dramatic than it sounds), but it might reduce it, and the name is fixed. Assuming that I put this together correctly. (If the BMW is still called M30 somewhere, call me (an idiot).)

This new version 1.1 package contains the complete cars, you can paste it over the old ones if you have them or just use this package if you don't. The car behavior is the same as in the 1.0 version.

(I also started on a graphics fix for the superkart since I was going back into Stressed anyway. But that one is a bit more messy...)

(Edit: Just noticed the front wheelhouses of the Audi don't look as intended in the selection view. I suppose that's a detail that'll have to stay as it is. I didn't even catch it myself, so it's not a very big thing, and there's even something to be said for this look. The driving model does look as intended.)

Chat - Misc / Re: Useless messages - place for maniacs!
« on: January 01, 2019, 01:55:53 AM »
Happy '19, pipsqueaks!

Car creation with Stressed / Re: Stunts goes Dtm
« on: December 31, 2018, 12:56:14 PM »
Thanks for the DTM pack, Overdrijf!
Really appreciate it!  :)

It really pays off that I visit the Stunts Forum every now and then!  ;D
Thank you all and a Happy New Year 2019!

Thanks, you too.

I will put the 1.1 together in the coming week. I haven't encountered any new bugs, nor have I had any change of heart regarding the performance, so there will be minor visual and text fixes only.

Stunts Chat / Re: Keyboard issues and ghosting
« on: November 30, 2018, 02:10:17 PM »
This is a keyboard issue? Nice, good find.

Typical. I did the test, and it turns I can use up arrow, left and enter but not up arrow, left and space and I can use down arrow, left and space but not down arrow, left and enter.

I figured I was limited to two keypresses, but I'm limited to two useful keypresses.

Car creation with Stressed / Re: Stunts goes Dtm
« on: November 30, 2018, 02:02:55 PM »
After racing with the three cars, I can confirm each of them has its own distinctive temperament. The Audi is smooth as butter, IMSA like as you say, and definitely the easiest of the three. The BMW is very nimble, and I'm fairly sure it beats the other two on a twisty track. All the responsiveness, however, means you end up being very close to the limit at all times. Another complication is the occasional curveball thrown by the bug-susceptible nature of the car. To me, the BMW is the most challenging of the set. Lastly, the Mercedes feels more like a typical "slow car", and is probably the one for which the conventional driving techniques translate more easily.

Thanks, good to hear feedback like that.

I think there's a few small holes in the wiki, but I couldn't really point them out. It's mostly in the 3D model stuff I think, the description of how the coordinates of a wheel work is for instance wrong, as far as I can tell. RES-file wise I've also got some maybe new insights in length and handling I've yet to post. I'll get around to that one of these days.

Looking forward to it  :)

I need to write a proper post with exact numbers and add the example cars so people can try it for themselves. The gist of it was this: I got two cars with the same handling/length, but one twice as long as the other. The short one steers a lot faster, more responsive. I figure it's related to the reason longer cars jump farther: When a Stunts car turns it doesn't turn by a certain number of degrees per 0.05 seconds, it turns by a certain distance per 0.05 seconds. For a shorter car the front end moving the same distance means it turning a larger angle, so it steers more quickly. The handling parameter seems to be in control more of how long you can keep cornering before the car starts slipping. So they still counteract each other, if you corner slower but can keep it up longer you can corner sort of around the same distance at the same speed.

I think...

Because this is where it gets a little weirder. All of the faster cars can do a single wide corner at around 150 miles an hour, despite their length or exact handling parameter. The superkart does it, the IMSA cars do it, the Indy does it. It's some sort of ceiling, a limit to cornering ability similar to the limit there is to top speed. I found this limit, or the general area of it, for a test version of the Mercedes. And that's where something weird happened. I had four versions of the car. The one with the lowest handling parameter was the slowest around a lap, by a small margin, but it felt quite good to drive. You had some room for error. The three versions above it had roughly the same lap times, but I think it was the second slowest one that usually took more tries than the others not to spin out. When you spun, you spun, no coming back from it. The car was more on edge. When the handling parameter rose further this behavior went away again. I dubbed this place "the sour spot", and I tried to use it on the DTM cars by putting all of them just below that spot. The idea is that the car with the least amount of handling gives the most warning when something is about to go wrong, creating a balance between where the edge of the car's ability is and how well a human driver can stick to that edge. The concept does not completely match your description above though. The BMW has the lowest handling and even the lowest handling/length while being the shortest. To me it feels short and responsive, maybe a little too much so, but I also get pretty good feedback, which is probably part of the reason I did my fastest NoRH lap with it. It sits the furthest from most other cars in feeling due to being so short, but that was less of an obstacle for me after all the testing I did with these. The Mercedes and the Audi have the same handling/length, so the longer Audi has the best handling stat, but it feels a little slower and smoother steering-wise than the others. The Audi to me also feels a little closer to the sour spot, it handles quite well, but I have trouble finding the edge before crossing it. I made quite a few NoRH attempts with that one.

My experience was probably tainted by the design ideas I tried to implement though. There's probably some wishful thinking involved.

That's basically it. I have no idea if the sour spot is even available for all lengths of car, or that it's a artifact of a specific unlucky combination, but I definitely feel like there's a limit to how much handling a car can handle before more handling stops doing it any good. The superkart for instance is massively over-handlinged. It would drive just as well with maybe as little as half its number or more. Have to look the proper number up to make a better estimate.

The torque curve itself has some weird features, it's hard to design to an exact top speed [...]

Do you mean flat track top speed, or real top speed, or both?

The combination, kind of. The BMW has a slightly lower max rpm than the other two with the same top gear ratio, yet I could not for the life of me get its real top speed (the highest of the tree) down just one or two mph, at the very least not without altering the air drag. I could give it slowdowns or lower its flat track top speed, but I think I could only lower that by 2 mph, not one. I think one of the things that's happening is that because the game works in discrete intervals of 0.05 seconds you don't actually touch every bar in the torque curve. You often end up skipping a bunch. That's also what causes the slowdowns I figure. You skip ahead to an rpm that has a really low power (just 2 ticks or so) the game makes its new calculations with that very low torque and drops you down quite a few rpm's on the next time step. But the problem with the top speeds is that it's not one or two bars that decide a particular top speed, just the ones that don't have enough power to speed up any further. If the bars lower on the curve are too high you can skip right over those two. High air drag helps, it makes the high speed behavior of a car more predictable, and a power curve that slopes down over a longer way, giving it a big gap between flat track and real top speed, probably helps as well in that regard. Or you should just not care too much about specific numbers and exact balance.

One tiny issue I noticed is that the stripes over the hood from the BMW's paint job #9 flicker a lot. I'm not sure about what, if anything, can be done about it (I don't see anything obviously problematic when looking at the model on Stressed, though I didn't actually attempt tweaking it yet).

I had some problems with that earlier. I didn't pay a lot of attention to it post release, but I'll happily believe it. I'm not sure what can be done either. I think part of the story was interference from the wheels and the sort of wheel houses. Since the BMW has the lowest hood it's the easiest to interfere with. The final form those wheelhouses take is pretty trimmed down but I also didn't want to leave them out completely.

Car creation with Stressed / Re: Stunts goes Dtm
« on: November 29, 2018, 09:16:58 AM »
I think there's a few small holes in the wiki, but I couldn't really point them out. It's mostly in the 3D model stuff I think, the description of how the coordinates of a wheel work is for instance wrong, as far as I can tell. RES-file wise I've also got some maybe new insights in length and handling I've yet to post. I'll get around to that one of these days.

Most of the .RES stuff is actually pretty straightforward. Torque curve interacts only with gear ratio's, mass and air resistance. If you scale all of them to exactly twice their value you've got the exact same car (assuming the mass falls into the same power gear category.) The handling number interacts with car length (not sure about width) and surface grip modifiers. These actually don't scale the same way, which is what I need to post about, a short car with low handling number is different from a long car with a high handling number. But because speed and cornering are separated systems you're not going to screw up your cornering by working on your speed curve or the other way around.

The torque curve itself has some weird features, it's hard to design to an exact top speed, and if the curve goes down too fast at the end you open it up to slowdowns where you would expect speedups. But you'll notice that happening as you mod and test.

Car creation with Stressed / Re: Stunts goes Dtm
« on: November 26, 2018, 06:21:02 PM »

Only now, after a month of Race for Kicks, copying the scoreboard to save it, I notice I called the M3 the M30.

That's it, I'm doing a version 1.1. And I'm doing it before Dreadnaut has a chance to select the "M30" for next year.

Motor sports, Racing / Re: Formula One in 2019
« on: November 23, 2018, 07:37:43 AM »
The noisiest too.

Competition 2019 / Re: Guest tracks 2019
« on: November 19, 2018, 09:17:23 PM »
O, that would be cool too.

We could just do a 24 race season. Or maybe like a hundred races, that will let us cover most of the cool people from the community. ;D

Stunts Forum & Portal / Re: Forum administration
« on: November 19, 2018, 03:12:46 PM »
 A little greener than usual.  8)

Stunts Forum & Portal / Re: Forum administration
« on: November 18, 2018, 05:30:18 PM »
Ah, so that's what happened. ;D At least I now know you don't have a forum alert set for the sentence "If this earns me fifth place I'll owe Dreadnaut an apology".  8)

Competition 2019 / Re: Cars and rules for 2019
« on: November 17, 2018, 12:18:28 PM »
I did a little Excelling.

I wanted to identify which bonuses might be good to change if the amount of change per month was to go down. So I wanted to identify the cars that are currently far above or far below their typical bonus values.

To that effect I took the average coƫfficients of the current cars over the last three years and their standard deviations, based on all the values the coƫfficients have had in that time. If the amount of change was to go down to +2% for a month of no use I'd consider changing the bonuses for anything that per January first sits outside of a single standard deviation. If it went down to +1% I'd consider changing everything outside of half the current standard deviation. In the final two columns I took the current bonuses (before the end of ZCT208) as an example to see how much change roughly both of those options would require.

In the second to last column you can see the amount of cars outside of 1 standard deviation is pretty manageable. Yellow is too low, purple too high (the shades of green are above and below average but within the limits). If the current bonuses were in effect on January first in this scenario I'd consider lowering the values for the LM002 and the Ranger and raising the one for the F40. But overall the values seem pretty suited to carrying over without or with minimal change.

In the last column we shift to 0.5 standard deviations, the stricter limits I would consider if the change went down to 1%. Yellow and orange are too low, purple and pink too high. I this scenario based on the current values I'd consider changing the bonuses for every car except the GTO, the Lancia and both IMSA cars. Overall the current values would not be very suited to carrying over, and I'd consider looking at averages over longer periods to be able to make more precise adjustments.

The up and downside discussed earlier still apply: bigger chance to see more cars viable per race, but also a shifts towards cars being used on the tracks they're most suited for, with the biggest offenders being good powergear tracks that would see more use of powergear cars and less use of regular fast cars like the IMSA's.

As for the selection of cars for next year: I'd like to voice support for the Xylocaine as a fun fast car, good for rollercoaster tracks and mad tricks, and for the GT3 as one of the fastest of the slow cars, good for technical racing with slow sliding corners but better suited than most slow cars for combining this with faster elements.

I'd also take this chance to promote my own cars some more, but of course I'm too much of a gentleman for that. 8) Although people looking to try the latest batch out can visit the Race for kicks event that's about to enter its last week. ::)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 29