2019 MotoOption Supercross Round 17 Las Vegas

[jlv]

Currently, we feel the 2049x2049 terrain is important and not something we should sacrifice. Keep in mind nationals have been 2049 for years, so we'd expect the game to be able to handle them in a smaller environment with less overall elevation change.

That's not the way it works. An outdoor track has a larger scale setting so there are way less height elements for the same radius.

[checkerz]

Currently, we feel the 2049x2049 terrain is important and not something we should sacrifice. Keep in mind nationals have been 2049 for years, so we'd expect the game to be able to handle them in a smaller environment with less overall elevation change.

That's not the way it works. An outdoor track has a larger scale setting so there are way less height elements for the same radius.

What is your suggestion to fix?

A lot of negatives come from going back to a 1025. We've devoted endless hours to make erode work and be somewhat visible with the tools we're being given.

Are you suggesting leaving a 2049 terrain but going to a .5 versus a .285 scale in terrain.hf and saying that will relieve some issues? Or is only solution going all the way to a 1025 terrain?

[MOTOZ293]

Okay Chex. You ready for my feed back?

1) I don’t know why you went back to flat berms. The berms that barrington has on west coast were perfect.

2) the track seemed a little wider then usual, just wondering why that is. Has nothing to do with feedback just curious

3) why was the supercross triple so big? It felt like the height of it was about 2x bigger than anything I’ve saw in a long time.

4) the 90 berm before the triple was virtually flat. I had a couple times in qualifying where I would triple to the outside and land fairly good and then slide out Bc there was not enough “bankage” (also that happened a lot more when the erode hasn’t formed yet)

5) whoops were gnarly for a 250. Wasn’t expecting that just caught me off guard

6) the rhythm beofre the whoops felt janky. Like in between jumps weren’t smooth (without erode) and when erode starts to develop it was easy to get murdered by the erode Bc if you cased the double in just a tiny bit the erode on the top caught you and either killed you are just about did

That’s all I think. Prolly will get flamed but this is my opinion

[Jakob Hubbard]

The SX triple is FREAKING. HUGE. It's fun and all, but it's so goddamn big lol.

I especially agree with this statement, the triple was so big that it was pretty much a necessity to hit the outside 90 berm on a 250 to get over it. This one-lined 90 berm ended up killing me in the main because I had a lapper crash in front of me while he was tripling into the corner. Nothing I could do. I feel like the triple should've been a little smaller to allow the 250 guys to hit it from the inside so this lapper could've gotten out of the main line.

[checkerz]

Okay Chex. You ready for my feed back?

Always bud

1) I don’t know why you went back to flat berms. The berms that barrington has on west coast were perfect.

Definitely didn't mean to. They are actually Stephen's berms still, but I did make them taller. I think when doing so, I may have gotten more fill in the middle and lost some of the "cup". These are actually 1.7 feet taller than Stephen's. There were a few issues with my process that I'll address when I begin building round 8 to verify. (ps. go play the REAL flat berms form last year, these are nothing like those haha)

2) the track seemed a little wider then usual, just wondering why that is. Has nothing to do with feedback just curious

It isn't.

3) why was the supercross triple so big? It felt like the height of it was about 2x bigger than anything I’ve saw in a long time.

Because I thought IRL triple faces were 8 feet, so scale to nearly 10 in game versus 6 feet scaling to just over 8 feet in game so my triple face way about a foot and a half taller. Length was the same. If you watch 250 practices iRL SX, you'll see the way it rode last night was actually pretty accurate though which is why it was not an issue during building.

4) the 90 berm before the triple was virtually flat. I had a couple times in qualifying where I would triple to the outside and land fairly good and then slide out Bc there was not enough “bankage” (also that happened a lot more when the erode hasn’t formed yet)

This was 100% on purpose to balance the two lines in the rhythm prior. Had there been a big wall berm there everyone would just do the outside line and rail the piss out of it. Also, if you look at the blue print, the last jump into the corner is much closer/deeper into the turn than normal which is why the landing room was so short increasing the technicality. While I agree it's challenging, I think it worked as both lines were used. Also, with a big berm, the inside line was double, triple, quad and by far the fastest. Eliminating the berm to hook you eliminated the quad.

5) whoops were gnarly for a 250. Wasn’t expecting that just caught me off guard

I'm an idiot, I suck at whoops and honestly thought they were extremely easy. These also are shapes stolen from Stephen and may have just changed in translation to PS and then back to game. Next week's are extremely easy and I expect to see some different ones for Detroit.

6) the rhythm beofre the whoops felt janky. Like in between jumps weren’t smooth (without erode) and when erode starts to develop it was easy to get murdered by the erode Bc if you cased the double in just a tiny bit the erode on the top caught you and either killed you are just about did

Rounded/ramped jumps... blame turbo charged 450s with unlimited grip that can quad without trying. I also again have some things I have already changed with building that should make things feel a bit smoother.

That’s all I think. Prolly will get flamed but this is my opinion

Nah, won't flame respectful feedback.

[checkerz]

Constructive feedback/criticism (not rage post)

The burms feel like ski jumps once again, feel slippery and flat.

The SX triple is FREAKING. HUGE. It's fun and all, but it's so goddamn big lol. (I guess it's more realistic then having a small one you can just smash in 2nd gear on a 125.)

See post to Zoa above for these ones

I feel like the 90 degree burms are not linear with the section it's been lead into, almost like the burms are much too small. (if you're on the very outside of the section before hand and you go to take the burm, it feels like you're way too far outside to even hit the burm effectively.)

This has been addressed moving forward.

Also, the erode doesn't form until the exit of the rut, it kinda makes it go from flat to just a sudden drop into a rut halfway through the burm.

This is to get rid of super rut/berms and is something I'd like to find a way to ease the transition, but it is what it is right now.

[317]

Chex, I think the track was awesome personally. I like when things aren't "perfect" and you can't run that burner lap because the track is difficult.

I had a fun night, thanks to you and Kellen for streaming me in the LCQ! I was one away haha. Thanks for all you do!

[TrentAdams]

I loved the track this week great work Chex! I like the challenge of hitting those whoops and bigger sx triples so I loved the track.

[Yamahaman95]

does anyone else think the transition is too rough between tiles in rF races? is there a way to blend the 2 tiles where they meet to make a smoother transition between the too? almost like a gradient of some sort? (this is all trying to be done without adding 5 tiles by hand to blend them)

[Racers52]

does anyone else think the transition is too rough between tiles in rF races? is there a way to blend the 2 tiles where they meet to make a smoother transition between the too? almost like a gradient of some sort? (this is all trying to be done without adding 5 tiles by hand to blend them)

I think jlv said that you cant "feather" per say tilemaps.

But I completely agree, in some cases where the tile changes you will get a drop off or a build up.

[jlv]

Currently, we feel the 2049x2049 terrain is important and not something we should sacrifice. Keep in mind nationals have been 2049 for years, so we'd expect the game to be able to handle them in a smaller environment with less overall elevation change.

That's not the way it works. An outdoor track has a larger scale setting so there are way less height elements for the same radius.

What is your suggestion to fix?

A lot of negatives come from going back to a 1025. We've devoted endless hours to make erode work and be somewhat visible with the tools we're being given.

Are you suggesting leaving a 2049 terrain but going to a .5 versus a .285 scale in terrain.hf and saying that will relieve some issues? Or is only solution going all the way to a 1025 terrain?

Every time you cut the scale in half, it takes 4 times as much processing to do things like erode and do collision checks against the field. So you want the scale as large as possible for maximum efficiency.

2049 vs 1025 is more of a memory thing. The terrain tessellation works well enough it's not that much slower to render. There is more area to reshade so there will be a longer delay before shading updates happen with the larger map. If the track fits in a 1025 map at the scale you choose there's obviously no reason to use a bigger map.

In general, if you want something to be fast you have to scrutinize everything and make every single byte, polygon, texel or whatever, justify its existence. If 7 works for setting X, test it at 6. Maybe you can get away with it. If you just set everything to 11 it's not going to perform and you can't really blame the tools for that.

[BydesigndecalsCO]

That's not the way it works. An outdoor track has a larger scale setting so there are way less height elements for the same radius.

What is your suggestion to fix?

A lot of negatives come from going back to a 1025. We've devoted endless hours to make erode work and be somewhat visible with the tools we're being given.

Are you suggesting leaving a 2049 terrain but going to a .5 versus a .285 scale in terrain.hf and saying that will relieve some issues? Or is only solution going all the way to a 1025 terrain?

Every time you cut the scale in half, it takes 4 times as much processing to do things like erode and do collision checks against the field. So you want the scale as large as possible for maximum efficiency.

2049 vs 1025 is more of a memory thing. The terrain tessellation works well enough it's not that much slower to render. There is more area to reshade so there will be a longer delay before shading updates happen with the larger map. If the track fits in a 1025 map at the scale you choose there's obviously no reason to use a bigger map.

In general, if you want something to be fast you have to scrutinize everything and make every single byte, polygon, texel or whatever, justify its existence. If 7 works for setting X, test it at 6. Maybe you can get away with it. If you just set everything to 11 it's not going to perform and you can't really blame the tools for that.

thats a big yikes to erode

[jojodash33]

im getting really bad screen tear on Minneapolis anyone know why? i deleted and redownloaded a few times still the same thing

[Official rF Gaming]

Updated first post with Arlington!

[808]

Glendale is that you?