MX Simulator

It would be pretty nice to have the proper frame geometries for different brand of bikes, but also some SF and AF conversions of 250 2-t and possibly the 500 2-t bikes. For example, use the 2006 kx250 engine with the 2009 kx250f frame geometry.
No idea how big differences there is with different suspensions and how hard would it be to get the needed data to model them in game for jlv, but if possible, correct suspension models for different bikes.


And a bonus question for jlv, what kind of things would you need in order to put different frame geometry ingame?
Just thinking, that depending on what kind of stuff is needed, forum members could provide data for different year/brand of bikes from the bikes they themselves own.

...I'm talking about the PHYSICS models.

I'm thinking about how I'll do that, but don't expect anything soon. It won't be simple to get it right.

What made you choose the current frame/suspension geometry? What all goes into the geometry of the bike?

One of the magazines did an article on the geometry and weight distribution of each type of bike. For some reason, they decided to use a KX250 for the 250 2T

Shadow wrote:
...I'm talking about the PHYSICS models.

lol. sorry. i get what your saying now.

all bikes have +- same geometry except honda (thats why they use dempfer) but you can lower your fork in triple clamps so maybe you can just adjust this?

mbork-1 wrote:all bikes have +- same geometry except honda (thats why they use dempfer) but you can lower your fork in triple clamps so maybe you can just adjust this?

Even between bikes in the same brand there can be fairly major differences in geometry.

He means in the game the pivots are all in the same spots. Not accurate but way easier that way.

Why would he mention all except the Honda then?

Have you ever checked out this site.... http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/honda_crf450r_2012.php

Really the only useful information listed there is weight, rake and trail. Maybe wheelbase. It doesn't list link ratio, or mounting points, I would imagine that has the biggest effect on handling. I know by lowering your motor in a MX based flat track bike you can gain loads of off corner traction, but you give it up going in. Something to do with the tire not getting sucked up as much under acceleration. I mean we're talking 2mm of change here, and it's VERY noticeable.

The biggest hurdle is that one bike will end up being the fastest. This is something we dealt with a lot in making rFactor mods. Everyone always wanted extra physics options, more chassis designs. They always argued that they sucked because they cars didn't suit their style, and if they had other options they would be better. Well, the fast guys were always the fast guys, and the slow whiners always drove the same car as the fast guys, because it was still the fastest car. All that development time wasted.

I realize in MX Sim it doesn't necessarily come down to flat out dirty nasty raw speed, but where do you draw the line? Say JLV adds in realistic geometry for each bike. We all eventually find out the (examples ahead, not necessarily real info) Suzuki is the fastest bike, but you can be most consistent on the Kawi. Is everyone allowed to qualify for races on the Suzuki and then ride whichever steed they are most comfortable with for the race? That's lame as. Do you force people to choose a bike for an entire series, and end up with a bunch of riders squidding all over the place because you feel they are forced to ride the "fastest" bike? Also lame. Lets face it, most of the people in the races aren't smart enough to realize that by riding a slow stable bike you will finish better than you will by riding a fast unstable bike.

Phathry25 wrote:Why would he mention all except the Honda then?
I realize in MX Sim it doesn't necessarily come down to flat out dirty nasty raw speed, but where do you draw the line? Say JLV adds in realistic geometry for each bike. We all eventually find out the (examples ahead, not necessarily real info) Suzuki is the fastest bike, but you can be most consistent on the Kawi. Is everyone allowed to qualify for races on the Suzuki and then ride whichever steed they are most comfortable with for the race? That's lame as. Do you force people to choose a bike for an entire series, and end up with a bunch of riders squidding all over the place because you feel they are forced to ride the "fastest" bike? Also lame. Lets face it, most of the people in the races aren't smart enough to realize that by riding a slow stable bike you will finish better than you will by riding a fast unstable bike.

whats the current rule in AMA? obviously you could change after each event, but do they have to ride the same bike they qualified on? does it make a difference between day qualifiers and night show? i know for sure that for outdoors you can only tech in one bike. that came up when dungeys suzi wouldnt start and people said they are surprised they didnt have a back up bike. someone (i think davie coombs) chimed in and said they have to race the bike they brought through tech inspection.

but i do remember tyler whartons honda blowing up during day qualifying at SX, and then he rode jlaws yamaha in the night show.

this may be a long shot, but what if the game came to a point where a stock bike has X power curve. and adding different pipes and stuff changes each bikes curve in different ways. tires and tire pressure. offset clamps. handle bar position. rear wheel position (ok now im getting carried away, but the pros really do test all this stuff) that would add so many more variables that i dont think people would all end up on the same stuff.

You have to ride the same bike you qualified on. Was it possible Wharton's bike blew up in the first session and he rode JLaw's in the second session. According to the rule book that's how it would work. While Dungey could have tech'd two bikes he can only race the bike he qualified on. They can tech more than one bike, even ride more than one bike in qualifying, but they have to race the bike the qualified on.

Have we not covered why tires and tire pressures are a non factor enough yet? Why in your list of adjustable setting is bar position higher, and more relevant via your "carried away" comment than rear wheel position? You hear that on vital?

Phathry25 wrote:
Have we not covered why tires and tire pressures are a non factor enough yet? Why in your list of adjustable setting is bar position higher, and more relevant via your "carried away" comment than rear wheel position? You hear that on vital?

it wasnt in any particular order. the carried away was talking about the adjustments in general. do you not think that the bars make any difference?
did i hear what on vital?

Do they make a difference in a real lift situation? Yes. In MX Sim? No.

Why would adjustable trail and wheelbase be getting carried away?