erode sucks

[aeffertz]

im not a kid so shut up. ffs

Then quit acting like a petulant brat! I'm certain he fully understands the question. He's gotten this far.

stop talking down to me you utter shrimp. he obviously doesn't understand because hes talking about Track Editor, and to me it seems like you don't know what i mean either.

He’s talking about the tile erode settings, not the track editor.

[checkerz]

For whatever it is worth, my goal was the same as JLV's - to have the track deteriorate and force you to take new lines. In SX that would've been jump faces getting rutted making them either risky to not cross rut or the lips getting depleted making it tougher to jump far enough to triple. For corners, they'd get acceleration chop exiting causing you to lose exit speed and bumps coming in causing you to have to come in slower or choose a new line.

For outdoors, it'd be rougher as you go in the main lines. Corner ruts would get choppy causing you to lose speed and move out of them or get long and deep enough that they were a challenge to stay in and it to be faster to switch lines.

The difficulty with this was and still is largely based around visibility more than the erode system itself as JLV provided quite a large number of options to tune the erode on our side. In order to make new lines, you need to be able to see them developing so they don't become a criss cross of chatter ruts before they can develop. In order to make realistic sized bumps that gradually get rough enough you start to avoid them without making it endurocross as guys like to call it, you have to be able to see them better.

There were plenty of other issues and wishes, but I still believe with a huge improvement in visibility it could be light years better with the system exactly how it is.

I will say, in theory the pre-rough tracks adding erode to them has always been something that's been tested and it does have some positives; however, it does 2 things negatively... 1) it neuters the theory of erode creating each race as an organic experience as the lines will always develop in the same places. 2) more often than not the erode actually smooths out the premade bumps and rails up the premade ruts making the main lines get faster versus slower as the race goes on. This isn't a unique problem as it's something I had to deal with all the way back to working on reflex.

The best erode system I ever played was a protype in development for Reflex and it was the most simple. The bike literally just "drew" a dark line into the displacement map with a higher opacity the more down force it was applying to the dirt. The more times you went over it, the deeper it got, but with any loading and unloading of the suspension it would still cause bumps. Jump faces would start to go away and you'd switch lines from it. It wasn't perfect either, but I haven't played anything in any game better than that. When that system was written to actually go into the game, it was also re-engineered to be more "real world physics correct" and the end result was way less appealing. A "map" was then created to erode down to for the final version where you could hide bumps and such that you'd uncover, but it was really just a hack because doing it physically properly wasn't working there either.

For those talking about it working better on the slower/smaller tracks. I think you're probably onto something. I also know JLV implemented some traction stuff that could've possibly opened a ton of new doors, but without any really good way to test and develop in a timely manner, it takes a ton of dedication from both a creator and the whole community.

It's not just an uphill battle, it's like smashing 5th gear head on into a cliff over and over. It's why I finally threw in the towel and from what I've seen it's why no one else has even attempted to put in much effort into making huge strides forward. I will never get those 200+ hours of my life back and it's really disappointing to see I never really was ever able to come up with something great. Sometimes, you just have to cut your losses.

[Glizzyz]

would it be an option like erode 'Server, Erode 0.4' you could do the same with smooth but 'Server,Smooth 0.15' or something along the lines to take the choppiness out of the ruts?

Already answered. Use a larger radius in the tilemap settings.

Yeah he means how we can go "server, erode 1.5" , it would be an in game command like server, smooth 1.0 or whatever . to change the "radius" as your saying on the fly.

[ROSE822]

Already answered. Use a larger radius in the tilemap settings.

Yeah he means how we can go "server, erode 1.5" , it would be an in game command like server, smooth 1.0 or whatever . to change the "radius" as your saying on the fly.

thank you sir least someone understands me.

[TeamHavocRacing]

Duh! We all understood!

[jlv]

I think all here understand that you think the rear tire should have a smoothing tool. What the hell else could you mean? JLV DIRECTLY answered your question FOUR times. How in the fuck is that confusion, except on your part. I forgot to mention the entitlement issues you have too.

shouldn't you be at bingo or something old man?

If you keep insulting people you're going to lose your posting rights. If you need help understanding my answer, read my tileinfo post. The setting I'm referring to is "erode_radius". Try making a test track and playing with that setting.

It's not just an uphill battle, it's like smashing 5th gear head on into a cliff over and over. It's why I finally threw in the towel and from what I've seen it's why no one else has even attempted to put in much effort into making huge strides forward. I will never get those 200+ hours of my life back and it's really disappointing to see I never really was ever able to come up with something great. Sometimes, you just have to cut your losses.

Yeah, it's the test cycle that's the killer. It's like nothing I've ever worked on before. You literally have to spend hours testing even the most minor changes. You can try to cheat by using higher erode numbers but it doesn't work the same so you wind up having to hit the same turn or jump 100 times to test. It's a nightmare.

[motokid499]

For whatever it is worth, my goal was the same as JLV's - to have the track deteriorate and force you to take new lines. In SX that would've been jump faces getting rutted making them either risky to not cross rut or the lips getting depleted making it tougher to jump far enough to triple. For corners, they'd get acceleration chop exiting causing you to lose exit speed and bumps coming in causing you to have to come in slower or choose a new line.

For outdoors, it'd be rougher as you go in the main lines. Corner ruts would get choppy causing you to lose speed and move out of them or get long and deep enough that they were a challenge to stay in and it to be faster to switch lines.

The difficulty with this was and still is largely based around visibility more than the erode system itself as JLV provided quite a large number of options to tune the erode on our side. In order to make new lines, you need to be able to see them developing so they don't become a criss cross of chatter ruts before they can develop. In order to make realistic sized bumps that gradually get rough enough you start to avoid them without making it endurocross as guys like to call it, you have to be able to see them better.

There were plenty of other issues and wishes, but I still believe with a huge improvement in visibility it could be light years better with the system exactly how it is.

I will say, in theory the pre-rough tracks adding erode to them has always been something that's been tested and it does have some positives; however, it does 2 things negatively... 1) it neuters the theory of erode creating each race as an organic experience as the lines will always develop in the same places. 2) more often than not the erode actually smooths out the premade bumps and rails up the premade ruts making the main lines get faster versus slower as the race goes on. This isn't a unique problem as it's something I had to deal with all the way back to working on reflex.

The best erode system I ever played was a protype in development for Reflex and it was the most simple. The bike literally just "drew" a dark line into the displacement map with a higher opacity the more down force it was applying to the dirt. The more times you went over it, the deeper it got, but with any loading and unloading of the suspension it would still cause bumps. Jump faces would start to go away and you'd switch lines from it. It wasn't perfect either, but I haven't played anything in any game better than that. When that system was written to actually go into the game, it was also re-engineered to be more "real world physics correct" and the end result was way less appealing. A "map" was then created to erode down to for the final version where you could hide bumps and such that you'd uncover, but it was really just a hack because doing it physically properly wasn't working there either.

For those talking about it working better on the slower/smaller tracks. I think you're probably onto something. I also know JLV implemented some traction stuff that could've possibly opened a ton of new doors, but without any really good way to test and develop in a timely manner, it takes a ton of dedication from both a creator and the whole community.

It's not just an uphill battle, it's like smashing 5th gear head on into a cliff over and over. It's why I finally threw in the towel and from what I've seen it's why no one else has even attempted to put in much effort into making huge strides forward. I will never get those 200+ hours of my life back and it's really disappointing to see I never really was ever able to come up with something great. Sometimes, you just have to cut your losses.

Thank you for this post Chex, helped me understand erode a lot better. I got curious and went ahead and smoothed out the entire map of some 2012 rF nats and 2013 MXSC GP's and just ran motos at low erode. felt good to me just needs some traction work. I think one of the main problems is just the speed the game is played at with these massively overscaled tracks. The problem is if we downscale to realistic sizes and realistic tractions then nobody will know what to do with themselves. There seems to be a general theme of more traction and bigger tracks as time goes on. I'm just not a fan of the current racetracks.

[checkerz]

For whatever it is worth, my goal was the same as JLV's - to have the track deteriorate and force you to take new lines. In SX that would've been jump faces getting rutted making them either risky to not cross rut or the lips getting depleted making it tougher to jump far enough to triple. For corners, they'd get acceleration chop exiting causing you to lose exit speed and bumps coming in causing you to have to come in slower or choose a new line.

For outdoors, it'd be rougher as you go in the main lines. Corner ruts would get choppy causing you to lose speed and move out of them or get long and deep enough that they were a challenge to stay in and it to be faster to switch lines.

The difficulty with this was and still is largely based around visibility more than the erode system itself as JLV provided quite a large number of options to tune the erode on our side. In order to make new lines, you need to be able to see them developing so they don't become a criss cross of chatter ruts before they can develop. In order to make realistic sized bumps that gradually get rough enough you start to avoid them without making it endurocross as guys like to call it, you have to be able to see them better.

There were plenty of other issues and wishes, but I still believe with a huge improvement in visibility it could be light years better with the system exactly how it is.

I will say, in theory the pre-rough tracks adding erode to them has always been something that's been tested and it does have some positives; however, it does 2 things negatively... 1) it neuters the theory of erode creating each race as an organic experience as the lines will always develop in the same places. 2) more often than not the erode actually smooths out the premade bumps and rails up the premade ruts making the main lines get faster versus slower as the race goes on. This isn't a unique problem as it's something I had to deal with all the way back to working on reflex.

The best erode system I ever played was a protype in development for Reflex and it was the most simple. The bike literally just "drew" a dark line into the displacement map with a higher opacity the more down force it was applying to the dirt. The more times you went over it, the deeper it got, but with any loading and unloading of the suspension it would still cause bumps. Jump faces would start to go away and you'd switch lines from it. It wasn't perfect either, but I haven't played anything in any game better than that. When that system was written to actually go into the game, it was also re-engineered to be more "real world physics correct" and the end result was way less appealing. A "map" was then created to erode down to for the final version where you could hide bumps and such that you'd uncover, but it was really just a hack because doing it physically properly wasn't working there either.

For those talking about it working better on the slower/smaller tracks. I think you're probably onto something. I also know JLV implemented some traction stuff that could've possibly opened a ton of new doors, but without any really good way to test and develop in a timely manner, it takes a ton of dedication from both a creator and the whole community.

It's not just an uphill battle, it's like smashing 5th gear head on into a cliff over and over. It's why I finally threw in the towel and from what I've seen it's why no one else has even attempted to put in much effort into making huge strides forward. I will never get those 200+ hours of my life back and it's really disappointing to see I never really was ever able to come up with something great. Sometimes, you just have to cut your losses.

Thank you for this post Chex, helped me understand erode a lot better. I got curious and went ahead and smoothed out the entire map of some 2012 rF nats and 2013 MXSC GP's and just ran motos at low erode. felt good to me just needs some traction work. I think one of the main problems is just the speed the game is played at with these massively overscaled tracks. The problem is if we downscale to realistic sizes and realistic tractions then nobody will know what to do with themselves. There seems to be a general theme of more traction and bigger tracks as time goes on. I'm just not a fan of the current racetracks.

If it's something you can convince Jeremy or one of the rF guys to do, they have some tools to pretty easily downscale the tracks and keep the decals and we had test versions built with a lot of them smoothed out back in the erode test days. I'm sure if someone could propose a new traction and scaling and ran a test that had positive feedback, it would be something they'd look to use. However; as you said, people will likely lose their minds and god knows rF gets enough hate the way it is, and fighting the wants of the masses isn't going to work to anyone's favor.

[motokid499]

However; as you said, people will likely lose their minds and god knows rF gets enough hate the way it is, and fighting the wants of the masses isn't going to work to anyone's favor.

I think the main cause of this is everyones setup from suspension to advanced stability is all tweaked to work best with overscaled tracks. Setups just get stiffer and stiffer, and majority of players would have zero clue as to how to adjust their setups to work on realistic tracks. Believe me, half the pro field runs shit from me. I also feel like its possible that a lot of the track testers are giving feedback based off what feels good for their overly stiff advanced stabilties, which would contribute to the trend of upscaled tracks.

[KTM57]

What specifically would I change in my stability setup based on track scale? Genuinely asking. Stiffer to hold me up more in a lower berm?

Personally, I just think tracks are super boring when they are scaled smaller than our current standard. I want features on outdoor tracks especially to feel massive.

[checkerz]

What specifically would I change in my stability setup based on track scale? Genuinely asking. Stiffer to hold me up more in a lower berm?

Personally, I just think tracks are super boring when they are scaled smaller than our current standard. I want features on outdoor tracks especially to feel massive.

IMO it still comes down to visibility And feel to the average player. It’s hard to react to bumps you can’t see. Guys want to feel like they are ripping on fast stuff going WFO and hammer the brakes on slow stuff but still slam a rut. Sucking sucks. For example, I’ve always been guilty of over exaggerating height scale. The big uphills need to feel big, the Leap at red bud better feel like a booter, etc. Real MX in a video game without the danger is not exciting to most

[motokid499]

What specifically would I change in my stability setup based on track scale? Genuinely asking. Stiffer to hold me up more in a lower berm?

Personally, I just think tracks are super boring when they are scaled smaller than our current standard. I want features on outdoor tracks especially to feel massive.

Lots of different ways, but the first thing I would suggest is lowering your slow damping speed or slow damping factor. This will change the amount of roll damping at speeds under your set slow damping speed without changing the feel of your stability at speeds above your set number.

[motokid499]

What specifically would I change in my stability setup based on track scale? Genuinely asking. Stiffer to hold me up more in a lower berm?

Personally, I just think tracks are super boring when they are scaled smaller than our current standard. I want features on outdoor tracks especially to feel massive.

IMO it still comes down to visibility And feel to the average player. It’s hard to react to bumps you can’t see. Guys want to feel like they are ripping on fast stuff going WFO and hammer the brakes on slow stuff but still slam a rut. Sucking sucks. For example, I’ve always been guilty of over exaggerating height scale. The big uphills need to feel big, the Leap at red bud better feel like a booter, etc. Real MX in a video game without the danger is not exciting to most

This is true. But the same people that want this feeling get confused when they get a legs off from a 250ft jump. I just can't respect their opinion. It's a simulator, and it will always be divided because the way it "feels" doesn't feel that way in real life. Of course it doesn't, we have no force feedback, no g forces, no feeling. It's all visual feedback so when it's scaled correctly of course the "feeling" will be much more vague. People compensate with bigger tracks but idk it's just not for me.

[motokid499]

Triple post I really need to read before I reply but I also seen that JLV uses way higher than realistic numbers for suspension and stuff so we would have lots of risk if we used realistic settings. Remember? They simply would not work for the way tracks are built, everyone got crazy legs off everywhere. Maybe the two are connected, maybe if we used regular tracks then the game would feel super risky at the realistic suspension settings. I think everyone is just too used to how the game is now, it's set in stone.

[KTM57]

IMO it still comes down to visibility And feel to the average player. It’s hard to react to bumps you can’t see. Guys want to feel like they are ripping on fast stuff going WFO and hammer the brakes on slow stuff but still slam a rut. Sucking sucks. For example, I’ve always been guilty of over exaggerating height scale. The big uphills need to feel big, the Leap at red bud better feel like a booter, etc. Real MX in a video game without the danger is not exciting to most

It definitely sucks to suck! I think there is a lot of validity to replicating the feel of riding, and personally I prefer it to a 1:1 scale model. To me, the experience of a 1:1 track is a bit rinky-dink and less immersive than stretching out The Leap and Tomacing corners. Maybe that's informed by scaled-up tracks simply working a little more smoothly with the game's physics. Obviously everyone will have their own preference.

...the first thing I would suggest is lowering your slow damping speed or slow damping factor. This will change the amount of roll damping at speeds under your set slow damping speed without changing the feel of your stability at speeds above your set number.

That makes sense and I will have to test it out. Speed has never been my primary initiative, but I've never felt inclined to change stability setup based on track scale.