That feature is highly experimental, as I noted. Until I can get word back from the developers, I can only guess how it works.
I’ve used both views and get almost the same result. I can send you the files if you want to take a quick look.
OK, so I made a real track today, instead of a NASCAR oval. Actually, I re-made a track today for Suzuka because it was never quite right before. Here are my
**The good: ** I like the editor layout.
]It makes it easier to see the track while making changes. The line is thinner than the previous editor which makes turning radii easier to gauge. /:m]
]The larger image with the controls on the side do make the track easier to work with, so I do also like that a lot. /:m]
]Finally, the elevation chart in v0.12 is fantastic! Phenomenal!! Brilliant!!! Thank you so much for adding this. It was always the hardest part of making a track, being able to see what kind of slope was really there, and since I get most elevation data from a very similar chart from Google Earth, it is even easier to be sure I have it right. (No, I have not made any elevation changes on the new version of this track yet)/:m]
]I have not yet tried the simulator./:m][/ul]
**The bad: ** I don’t have many concerns with this editor, but there are a couple. Concerns probably isn’t a good word to use here, but I can’t think of a better way to say it.
]I used v0.10 the first time because I was being super lazy and this one was already available to use on my laptop. The more curves used, the more the car goes off the line in-game, even though the editor line looks just fine. I updated to v0.12 but ran into the same issue. Track line in the editor looks perfect while in-game car line gets further off-track as it winds through the curves. I have no idea if there is a way to fix this. This is not a complaint, however, as the previous editor suffered the same exact issue on longer, curvier, technical tracks. My version of Suzuka has 44 segments, which isn’t a lot for a 3.6 mile track, where only 18 of them are straights. I see your version actually has 55 segments, and also ends up off-track, so you’re probably already aware of this. This is also only the second track I’ve done with this editor, and the only complex track. Perhaps it is just learning to use it better on my part. I will let you know if I figure anything else out./:m]
]I would actually like a way to resize the image in the editor. 1280x720 is larger than my available screen on a 1366x768 laptop once the controls and elevation map are added. Is there a way to make it automatically resize to the available window space after controls? It isn’t a huge deal, but side-scrolling is just an extra thing to do, and can have part of the track hidden from view at times./:m][/ul]
Suzy Track v3.zip (257 KB)
More feedback to come…
I don’t have access to the system with the code for this at the moment (I should soon, I just moved so… you know). The simulation view is in the layout, which tries and get the track so it looks like the one in game, but it hasn’t been heavily tested, and is highly experimental. I know it goes off the track, the way the game simulates the curves is different then how I do it.
Mine is highly precise using mathematics, while the game uses some kind of stepping method (because it has to actually drive the car on the track and all). But I haven’t gotten a reply with the information I need to properly simulate how it works in game, so I can only guess.
Autoscaling the image based on the size of the window is certainly possible. I was considering adding a zoom option anyway, but it was low on the list of priorities.
Yes, the first editor did the same thing, so it wasn’t a complaint, just noting it was still present in your version too. It can be fixed manually, but can be really tedious on long tracks as you have to “Kentucky WIndage” it back onto the track which requires running the track and fixing where it goes off, then repeating. I have spent many hours trying to fix some tracks which were just stubborn as can be.
As for calculations, the game tracks the path in .2m increments, if that helps at all. That is what they told us soon after they implemented custom tracks.
And now the editor isn’t opening files after working fine all afternoon.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was quite aggravated and confused when I figured that out. I guess I will have to for some more updates until I start making more rally tracks. I can wait though.
It’s not a new problem. ElSaico’s editor had the same woes as BitTwiddler’s editor with curves. The editor does just great on smaller and/or less technical tracks. I’m going to build a track using only simulator mode (experimental still) to see how it works for me later today. The few tracks I’ve looked at didn’t seem to get that far off track in-game (a couple of them went off the map in simulation mode when perfect in precise mode), so we’ll see if it does any better. It appears the actual game calculations are somewhere between these two modes. (or maybe I’m just awful at reading angles)
If you have a bunch of examples of tracks that are both broken and fixed for proper in game travel (that is both a fixed version and the original editor version), I can just toss all that data into an neural network and have it figure out how to adjust the track for the in game. Unfortunately, I need a good training set, say 10-20 tracks like this (the more the better).
I have a question. I made a track with the online creator (at that time i didn’t know about your program) now i’m remodeling the track in the program, but when i open it in Automation and press START nothing happens. I get this bug for a 3rd time now. I tried other cars on the track, same thing. Tried other custom tracks - works like a charm, but on mine the car just stays at one place, the gear number (red square) disperses and nothing happens.
I have a request for v0.13. Currently the editor won’t allow any distance greater than 20km to be entered for the split time locations, though if you set them higher by editing the LUA file the editor displays them (numerically and graphically) and saves them without issue. Assuming it’s a minor fix, could you please remove or increase the limit?
There’s probably something amiss in the LUA file, post it up here so we can take a look.
Sure, I decided that limit somewhat arbitrarily.
[quote=“oldgreg”]I have a request for v0.13. Currently the editor won’t allow any distance greater than 20km to be entered for the split time locations, though if you set them higher by editing the LUA file the editor displays them (numerically and graphically) and saves them without issue. Assuming it’s a minor fix, could you please remove or increase the limit?
There’s probably something amiss in the LUA file, post it up here so we can take a look.[/quote]
Here is the track. Note it’s still WIP.
TMP-86.rar (154 KB)
The problem seems to be the 1m corner radii, when I changed them to 10m everything worked normally.
A corner radius smaller than the turning radius of a car does not really make sense anyway.
Yeah, even bicycles have a turning radius of more than 1 meter.
I use the 1 meter turns as joint points so i can rotate the following straight at an angle i want.
But the car will want to drive that 1m turn and cannot do it. It does not cut corners. The approach you are taking just does not work and can never work, sorry.
Actually, the weird thing is that two of the cars I tried on his course went through the 1m turns just fine.
That actually surprises me, I don’t know what happens that some cars work. But from the way test track works, I can totally understand that at least sometimes things go wrong with such small corner radii.
I am having trouble getting the editor to work. Can someone help me?