Getting started with a new track, few questions.

[Tuttle]

The most efficient way to do it would be to layer the line mesh 1-2mm on top of the surface, and checking the Decal option in the exporter.

You may feel the 1mm bump in the FFB, but paint has its thickness as well so it's not unrealistic on the physics side. If you do want the lines to be flat, you can use the TDF's OnTop value to compensate. Personally, I'd keep the 1mm bump.

Thanks! A stuff like this:

linetrack.JPG

[Luc Van Camp]

The Decal option marks the object as being on top of the others. In other words, it greatly reduces the flickering that rF1 suffered from. In the past, 5cm sometimes wasn't even enough to prevent the flickering. Now, when you use the Decal option, you can place the decal object much closer to the source object and it won't flicker. My own tests indicated that 1-2mm was fine in virtually all cases.

[Luc Van Camp]

And yes, Tuttle, those settings look fine.
You can always look at the Joesville section for examples of exporter settings. I tried to include an example of every bit of new technology .

[Tuttle]

And yes, Tuttle, those settings look fine.
You can always look at the Joesville section for examples of exporter settings. I tried to include an example of every bit of new technology .

Uh sorry....never opened.

BTW, thank you Luc for your help!!!!

[feels3]

Does rf2 have a possibility to control shadows color?

In real life shadows during a day have blue tint and I wanted to get this in my track.

[feels3]

bump

[GUBBA]

I am trying to convert an rfactor 1 track but when i convert the gmt's, using gmt converter, they come out as normal gmts not the rfactor 2 version, so when i try to load the track it syas wrong gmt version, i have the plugin changer installed, but what am i doing wrong?
Any body?
Thanks for any answer given
Gubba

[freew67]

Gubba wonder if you have the plugins in the wrong folders. Check your C:\Program Files (x86)\Autodesk\3ds Max 2010\plugins folder and make sure they have dates of 2011/2012.

[Tuttle]

Another question for Luc ;

Ok...we have a very long straight on a completely FLAT terrain....I really needs these tons of polys (1.5x5mt)?

[ethone]

What you need those tons of polys for is for the groove/marbles to work. The sim uses vertex alpha values to control their visibility. If there are no vertices, there can't be any changes in the groove visibility.
If it's a long straight and your cars won't be moving left or right on it, you can probably get away with much less polys. Try it out though, I'm not sure how far vertex alpha can "stretch". In any case since you might not have any groove there anyway, it might not even matter.

[Tuttle]

What you need those tons of polys for is for the groove/marbles to work. The sim uses vertex alpha values to control their visibility. If there are no vertices, there can't be any changes in the groove visibility.
If it's a long straight and your cars won't be moving left or right on it, you can probably get away with much less polys. Try it out though, I'm not sure how far vertex alpha can "stretch". In any case since you might not have any groove there anyway, it might not even matter.

Tnx Ethone. I'm searching for a good polycount budget to reserve much more polys for other details...like objects, structures..buildings...etc. This is why I'm asking if I can get with less polys...without loosing nothing in feedback and/or other specific features (as groove/marbles...).

I would like to experiment with modeling the edge of the track with a step of asphalt inside the grass. All this stuff needs a lot of polys...so I really need a PCount budget for the basic surface, before proceed.

Ty.

[Luc Van Camp]

Precisely. RealRoad is where graphics meet physics on the track, and you need to keep that in mind when building a track. For that reason, I'd very much prefer driving a low poly car on a detailed surface than admiring a million poly car on a piece of road that isn't segmented properly. According to where the action takes place, you'll want to use the polys so the physics engine can do its work. You can get away with really low poly surfaces if no action takes place on the surface, or if you're using pivot-point-based physics .

I too recommend to do a few tests to find out how you can balance that poly usage. There's a wireframe shot of Portugal in a different thread, somewhere in this thread: http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.ph...ne-Poly-Limits .

[Tuttle]

For that reason, I'd very much prefer driving a low poly car on a detailed surface than admiring a million poly car on a piece of road that isn't segmented properly. According to where the action takes place, you'll want to use the polys so the physics engine can do its work. You can get away with really low poly surfaces if no action takes place on the surface, or if you're using pivot-point-based physics .

100% agree!

Thank you for the very exhaustive reply...

[Tuttle]

Look at the WIP; Of course, areas with less spline vertices have less polys compared to turns with the 3 vertices around the corner. I could cut this areas for a merge with the same spline loft...but with more steps/cuts to increase the straight resolution in these specific straight....That's ok? The actual Editable Poly (for the entire mesh) is around 14.000 Polys/28K Triangles.

dunsfold_WIP.jpg

[Luc Van Camp]

That looks pretty good. I wouldn't go beyond 12m on those low poly sections.
The bit of runway you can't drive on doesn't require that many segments, indeed.

Looks fine to me . I recommend getting a test version exported and drivable. If this is your first time with RealRoad, you'll want to spend a bit more time testing various density levels.

[Tuttle]

That looks pretty good. I wouldn't go beyond 12m on those low poly sections.
The bit of runway you can't drive on doesn't require that many segments, indeed.

Looks fine to me . I recommend getting a test version exported and drivable. If this is your first time with RealRoad, you'll want to spend a bit more time testing various density levels.

This is not the first time with RR (I've tested for days with a private SPA conversion)...but I'm testing various solutions on devmode so we can proceed to the next step:

dunsfold_testing.JPG

I'm working with a !!great!! texture artist so...stay tuned!

[JJStrack]

dunsfold! very nice for us topgear fans
but won't you do the topgear layout? i see you didn't model the shortcut...

[Tuttle]

dunsfold! very nice for us topgear fans
but won't you do the topgear layout? i see you didn't model the shortcut...

Of course yes. We are working on the TG layout (I'm modeling the shortcut right now...)...but we want to get extra drivable areas...as the longest out circuit and the high speed straight acceleration test....

[JJStrack]

Of course yes. We are working on the TG layout (I'm modeling the shortcut right now...)...but we want to get extra drivable areas...as the longest out circuit and the high speed straight acceleration test....

veeery nice! always was bummed that you weren't able to drive those sections in GT5...
very looking forward to this one!

[Tuttle]

Guys.....I'm looking for a basic AIW for our Dunsfold project.

As you know, the original Top Gear configuration it's not intended for multicar races...so I'm searching for the right way to program the basic AIW for it. Maybe we will made another Track version for multicar races...with pits and garages...but not at this time.

I would like to set up the AIW for a time trial starting from the grid (the blue circle), without pitlane/garage position but for now I can't find the solution.

Is there a way or I need to think for a standard garage/pitlane position?

Ty...

DunsfoldAIW.jpg