Modified Track Path Editor + Tracks/Discussion

[The Chosen One]

I'm surprised that we are able to custom make tracks in our own editor and publish it on official servers.
And i'm surprised that PD has not taken any action against this.

Maybe it was their plan all along...

I'm really happen they didn't. My original intent with this thread was to show off what I thought was some kind of bug, but which now created its own sub-community of track modders.

 

[eran0004]

Also @eran0004 I think the grey is a little to dark, maybe brighten it up a tad ? Somewhere in between the original look & what you got now, but I do agree with not to bright

How about this?

 

[Mr Grumpy]

How about this?

View attachment 624768

Perfection

Edit: It's done
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/resources/highlands-motorsport-park-rm-edition.5678/

 

[citroengt1]

Hmm @eran0004, it would be awesome if we can set pictures as a background,
we can then create tracks from the Google Maps.

 

[eran0004]

Hmm @eran0004, it would be awesome if we can set pictures as a background,
we can then create tracks from the Google Maps.

It should be doable, but I need to add an option to hide the border around the track because I don't think the tkinter canvas supports transparent colours :/

 

[eran0004]

Here is the latest version, fresh from the oven.

Not sure if I mentioned the scaling feature before, but you can toggle scaling by pressing s. Then click and drag to scale the points that are currently selected.
Now you can also rotate. Toggle rotation by pressing r. Then click and drag to rotate.
To exit scaling or rotation mode, press s/r again, or press escape. When in scaling mode, all the selected points are light blue. When in rotation mode, all the selected points are pink. When in neither mode the selected points are yellow. Pressing escape while out of rotating/scaling mode deselects all points.

When two or more points are selected, a black crosshatch is drawn at the geometrical center of the selection. This is the center of scaling/rotating when you use those modes.

 

[Blue_Impact]

This thread is amazing, you people are amazing. I don't understand any of this jargon but just wanted to appreciate all the work going into this thread lol

 

[Kornepheros]

Hmm @eran0004, it would be awesome if we can set pictures as a background,
we can then create tracks from the Google Maps.

I second that! This is the critical component for me!

 

[Kornepheros]

Here is the latest version, fresh from the oven.

As an experiment, I just built an 18.3 km oval track with 3 km of vertical relief, basically a roller coaster ride 3 km down and 3 km back up and then a big loop back around to do it again. It loaded fine into GT6, and my Chevy Chapparral somehow was able to climb back up after getting to the bottom. The first 15 or 16 km looked okay, but then after that I hit glitch city. I tried to save it to see if any other cars could climb it, but my PS3 froze.

I ran into one problem while making it. With your new experimental track designer, I zoomed out all the way and put my track at the edge of the screen, but when I zoomed in, I couldn't get over to the track by clicking and dragging. It was like the map got smaller the more I zoomed in, cutting off access to my track that I built beyond the zoomed-in limits.

I also had a problem with the elevation editor. I wanted to manually move the last white elevation dot to match the height of the first one, but after I moved it, I went back to the first white dot and saw that it had moved by the same amount. Then I moved the first dot back, but then the last dot moved back too. I tried this multiple times, always with the same result. I couldn't move one without moving the other, no matter how small the brush I used. I had to hexedit it to fix it. It was almost as if the brush wrapped around to the other side a little bit.

Working on this track had me thinking about features I would like in the elevation editor. Any chance you could add a way to edit single height points in the elevation editor instead of using the brush? Another thing I thought would be very handy would be if we could click on a certain height data point to select it as an anchor, then go to another height data point and adjust it up or down, scaling all the height points in between accordingly. Being able to select two anchor points, one on each side, might be better. Or maybe don't require anchor points at all, just allow dragging of single height points, and the warping of points surrounding them would depend on a certain selectable options (maybe call them "pointiness" and "effect distance"). Another possibility might be to allow us to simply draw a height profile line on the screen with the mouse.

 

[Mr Grumpy]

As an experiment, I just built an 18.3 km oval track with 3 km of vertical relief, basically a roller coaster ride 3 km down and 3 km back up and then a big loop back around to do it again. It loaded fine into GT6, and my Chevy Chapparral somehow was able to climb back up after getting to the bottom. The first 15 or 16 km looked okay, but then after that I hit glitch city. I tried to save it to see if any other cars could climb it, but my PS3 froze.

I ran into one problem while making it. With your new experimental track designer, I zoomed out all the way and put my track at the edge of the screen, but when I zoomed in, I couldn't get over to the track by clicking and dragging. It was like the map got smaller the more I zoomed in, cutting off access to my track that I built beyond the zoomed-in limits.

I also had a problem with the elevation editor. I wanted to manually move the last white elevation dot to match the height of the first one, but after I moved it, I went back to the first white dot and saw that it had moved by the same amount. Then I moved the first dot back, but then the last dot moved back too. I tried this multiple times, always with the same result. I couldn't move one without moving the other, no matter how small the brush I used. I had to hexedit it to fix it. It was almost as if the brush wrapped around to the other side a little bit.

Working on this track had me thinking about features I would like in the elevation editor. Any chance you could add a way to edit single height points in the elevation editor instead of using the brush? Another thing I thought would be very handy would be if we could click on a certain height data point to select it as an anchor, then go to another height data point and adjust it up or down, scaling all the height points in between accordingly. Being able to select two anchor points, one on each side, might be better. Or maybe don't require anchor points at all, just allow dragging of single height points, and the warping of points surrounding them would depend on a certain selectable options (maybe call them "pointiness" and "effect distance"). Another possibility might be to allow us to simply draw a height profile line on the screen with the mouse.

Regarding your track length, may I ask what theme you were using ? As anything over 12 - 15km on Eifel is a big no no. That's why all the large track's are made on Andalusia.

Also Regarding the elevation editor I personally use @Razerman's editor 1st to get all my height points spot on, then use @eran0004's to smooth it all out & raise the whole track to it's desired height on the map

A pic of @Razerman's editor

 

[Kornepheros]

Regarding your track length, may I ask what theme you were using ? As anything over 12 - 15km on Eifel is a big no no. That's why all the large track's are made on Andalusia.

Yeah, it was on Eifel. I haven't learned what all the limits are yet. I am learning though, thanks to all of you!

 

[Mr Grumpy]

Yeah, it was on Eifel. I haven't learned what all the limits are yet. I am learning though, thanks to all of you!

Andalusia 35km / 22miles give or take
Death Valley same as above but the theme's crap so I don't use it
Eifel/Eifel Flat 16km / 10miles give or take, because the map is so big it's a strain on the ps3.

You'll probably get a longer track utilising a smaller area than you would trying to spread it across a larger area.

 

[eran0004]

I ran into one problem while making it. With your new experimental track designer, I zoomed out all the way and put my track at the edge of the screen, but when I zoomed in, I couldn't get over to the track by clicking and dragging. It was like the map got smaller the more I zoomed in, cutting off access to my track that I built beyond the zoomed-in limits.

That is because you moved the track outside of the scrollable part of the canvas. Some kind of visual border of the canvas will be added.

I also had a problem with the elevation editor. I wanted to manually move the last white elevation dot to match the height of the first one, but after I moved it, I went back to the first white dot and saw that it had moved by the same amount. Then I moved the first dot back, but then the last dot moved back too. I tried this multiple times, always with the same result. I couldn't move one without moving the other, no matter how small the brush I used. I had to hexedit it to fix it. It was almost as if the brush wrapped around to the other side a little bit.

That is actually an intended feature, because the first and the last height points should be the same on a circuit, so when you edit the first one you will also edit the last one.

Unfortunately this doesn't apply to all the editing tools, so you can end up with the two height points having different values. I have to think of a good way to fix this.

Working on this track had me thinking about features I would like in the elevation editor. Any chance you could add a way to edit single height points in the elevation editor instead of using the brush? Another thing I thought would be very handy would be if we could click on a certain height data point to select it as an anchor, then go to another height data point and adjust it up or down, scaling all the height points in between accordingly. Being able to select two anchor points, one on each side, might be better. Or maybe don't require anchor points at all, just allow dragging of single height points, and the warping of points surrounding them would depend on a certain selectable options (maybe call them "pointiness" and "effect distance"). Another possibility might be to allow us to simply draw a height profile line on the screen with the mouse.

It's certainly possible to add another selection method. Point selection is already used internally by the editor, so it's just a matter of creating an interface for it.

 

[steve nfs]

Could you great contributor guys with PC can make this track to share ?

Suitable for 450pp or less.

 

[Kornepheros]

BUG REPORTS

TED-EDITOR

I'm having problems with the ted-editor and the way it saves files. I spent several hours tracing a track from a Google Earth image. I saved it a few times during the process of design (using 'Export TED) to protect against crashes (of which I haven't had any). When I reloaded the track later, it had reverted to one of my earliest edits. I figured I messed up somehow so I did it all again (this time using both 'Save Track' and 'Export TED') and a similar thing happened. All my work was lost again.

So, in trying to track down the problem, I'm doing the same thing again, but I plan on saving as a new file each time I save (using 'Save File'), and plan on quitting the editor and reloading the save before I keep going in the hopes of narrowing down the issue. After reloading my very first save, when I reloaded it, the track is no longer aligned with the image. It is about 400m south of the image now, and slightly west. My edits weren't saved either. Either the track moved, or the image imported to a different location. I'm still not sure if this is a bug, or if I am doing something wrong (maybe breaking a limit in the program somehow?). The image I've imported is large (7118 x 3644), and since the image doesn't load to the center (but to the lower right quadrant), my track is being built partially off the edge of the Eifel map. Everything seems to be working perfectly, however, except for the saves. I will keep working on this one...

EDIT: After saving 7 different save files, the 8th one saved incorrectly. I had just finished the track and hit 'o' to close the circuit, then saved it. I exported it as a TED file too because I was done with it. I didn't see any sort of problem, and was careful saving to a new file, but when I loaded it, it was missing the last 800 m (approximately). Importing the saved TED file was missing the same 800 m.

EDIT #2: I cannot seem to save my file successfully now. The image on the left is what my track looks like, the image on the right is what it looks like after saving it and reloading it.

EDIT #3: Trying to get this to save properly, I went into the elevation editor and set the contrast to zero. Closing the elevation editor, the track reverted to the right hand image shown above. Maybe some sort of elevation data discrepancy?

EDIT #4: I finally thought I completed the track. But looking it over, I see that one of my earliest control points disappeared between my 7th and 8th save files. And I wasn't editing anything nearby at all at that time. I don't understand what is going on. Maybe if I continue from the 7th save file, before any errors appeared, I'll be able to save successfully?

Double-clicking to append a new control point doesn't work very well. Sometimes I have to do it a bunch of times before it works. Then, sometimes I end up with more than one point there. Also, a few times I've ended up with branching roads, where two different sections branch from a single control point. Double-clicking to delete a control point always works the first time.

When using the TED EDITOR, what does it do with ROAD and DECORATION data from ted files that already has them? Does it delete them, scale them, or leave them untouched?

ELEVATION EDITOR

That is actually an intended feature, because the first and the last height points should be the same on a circuit, so when you edit the first one you will also edit the last one.

Unfortunately this doesn't apply to all the editing tools, so you can end up with the two height points having different values. I have to think of a good way to fix this.

I think a simple fix would be to put a button on the editor that lets you "equalize" the first and last points. I'd say have it move the last point to be equal to the first point.

The vertical scale on the graph does not indicate the actual elevation for me, but some sort of 'relative' elevation instead. If I raise my track from 0m to 300m, save it, then reload it, it shows the elevation as 0m again, even though looking at the hex code, the elevations actually are at 300m. Maybe this is an intended feature I'm not aware of?

I wanted to import a height map onto a closed circuit track, using the stretch method to compensate for differences in scale between my designed track and my height map data (VERY awesome feature by the way). When I loaded it in, it also needed to be offset by a certain x value, let's say 50m. When doing this, I expected the end of the height data to wrap around to the beginning to fill in the 50m, but that didn't happen. I had a 50m flat spot. When using stretch or scale, I really think the height data needs to wrap around when using an x offset.

 

[eran0004]

ELEVATION EDITOR

The vertical scale on the graph does not indicate the actual elevation for me, but some sort of 'relative' elevation instead. If I raise my track from 0m to 300m, save it, then reload it, it shows the elevation as 0m again, even though looking at the hex code, the elevations actually are at 300m. Maybe this is an intended feature I'm not aware of?

They are relative to the first height point of the loaded file and there is a good reason for that: Using a relative scale is easier to comprehend because then you know that negative values are lower than the start and positive values are higher than the start and you can easily tell how much higher / lower they are. It's not as easy when the values are -248.3, -223.7 and -255.8.

I wanted to import a height map onto a closed circuit track, using the stretch method to compensate for differences in scale between my designed track and my height map data (VERY awesome feature by the way). When I loaded it in, it also needed to be offset by a certain x value, let's say 50m. When doing this, I expected the end of the height data to wrap around to the beginning to fill in the 50m, but that didn't happen. I had a 50m flat spot. When using stretch or scale, I really think the height data needs to wrap around when using an x offset.

Just tick the repeat box and it will wrap around when you're using an x offset.

 

[Kornepheros]

They are relative to the first height point of the loaded file and there is a good reason for that: Using a relative scale is easier to comprehend because then you know that negative values are lower than the start and positive values are higher than the start and you can easily tell how much higher / lower they are. It's not as easy when the values are -248.3, -223.7 and -255.8.

I'm thinking this is a user preference thing. Maybe you'd be willing to add a checkbox to flip between relative and absolute elevations? Maybe there is a value displayed somewhere that represents the offset of the relative elevations? I'm more accustomed to using absolute elevations, so the relative ones just add a layer of confusion for me. At first, when my height map values didn't match the elevations on the graph I thought it was a bug and was getting frustrated because nothing was going where it belonged. I'd set the contrast to zero, and the graph said everything was at zero, and then I'd load a height map based on absolute elevations, and they'd look good on the graph but then I'd load the track and it was no where near where I wanted it. I was lost until I noticed in the hex editor that zeroing out the heights with contrast didn't actually zero it out. I finally realized that I had to use the hex editor to manually zero it out (I could also have used the hex editor to make note of the elevation and then transform the elevation up or down using the editor). But using absolute values would avoid all the confusion and extra work.

Just tick the repeat box and it will wrap around when you're using an x offset.

Excellent! Thank you!

 

[citroengt1]

Hey guys, check out this recent thread, it's about modding the GT PSP version to have custom car skins
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/gt-psp-texture-modding.348126/page-2

It's brilliant!

 

[eran0004]

I'm thinking this is a user preference thing. Maybe you'd be willing to add a checkbox to flip between relative and absolute elevations? Maybe there is a value displayed somewhere that represents the offset of the relative elevations? I'm more accustomed to using absolute elevations, so the relative ones just add a layer of confusion for me. At first, when my height map values didn't match the elevations on the graph I thought it was a bug and was getting frustrated because nothing was going where it belonged. I'd set the contrast to zero, and the graph said everything was at zero, and then I'd load a height map based on absolute elevations, and they'd look good on the graph but then I'd load the track and it was no where near where I wanted it. I was lost until I noticed in the hex editor that zeroing out the heights with contrast didn't actually zero it out. I finally realized that I had to use the hex editor to manually zero it out (I could also have used the hex editor to make note of the elevation and then transform the elevation up or down using the editor). But using absolute values would avoid all the confusion and extra work.

But why do you need the elevation to be at 0? There is nothing special going on at 0 meters.

 

[Mr Grumpy]

@eran0004 sorry mate I got the base level wrong on Eifel Flat it's -155 not -185

 

[tarnheld]

I'm having problems with the ted-editor and the way it saves files.

Have you used the latest version uploaded a couple of days ago or an earlier version? Export Ted saves as ted file, the same data that is sent to PD/GT6, Save Track saves the internal python data in pickled form. They are not much different, but you shouldn't mix up these two file types.

Your save problems sounds like a bug with the internal history used for undo/redo. I'll try to reproduce here, stay tuned.

After reloading my very first save, when I reloaded it, the track is no longer aligned with the image. It is about 400m south of the image now, and slightly west. My edits weren't saved either. Either the track moved, or the image imported to a different location.

I can reproduce this here, i suspect a yet unknown shift of the image location to be the culprit. The image feature is very inconvenient right now, i can only advise to to the tracing in one go and export the track when you are done, the image will be shifted relative to the track right now.

Double-clicking to append a new control point doesn't work very well. Sometimes I have to do it a bunch of times before it works. Then, sometimes I end up with more than one point there. Also, a few times I've ended up with branching roads, where two different sections branch from a single control point.

You should check for the segment to pop out under the mouse and then double click, it's bound to the selected segment. I might revise the mouse bindings, how about pressing somewhere outside track and the point will be inserted on the nearest track point? 💡

 

[nascarfan1400]

Would anybody feel up to making Auto Club or Michigan? Would be awesome to race on a multi grove racetrack with NASCAR cars.

 

[tarnheld]

After reloading my very first save, when I reloaded it, the track is no longer aligned with the image.

I added a fix for the misalignment, even without downloading this fixed version the image should align in the previous ted-editor version when you zoom in and out after you imported the image for the first time. Hope this fixes your problem.

 

[NingDynasty]

@tarnheld I believe you are right about the issue being with the undo/redo feature. Had it happen during sebring edits the other day but didn't catch the error in the console. I'll try to induce the error if I can and capture the result from the console.

 

[Mr Grumpy]

Cough cough, hidden menu, cough cough, lol.

I bet 1 turns up when they switch the servers off grrrr.

 

[Kornepheros]

@tarnheld I believe you are right about the issue being with the undo/redo feature. Had it happen during sebring edits the other day but didn't catch the error in the console. I'll try to induce the error if I can and capture the result from the console.

I am not convinced it is the undo/redo feature... I haven't been using it very much at all, and the control points that are moving around on me when I adjust the elevation and/or save the file are not ones that I undid/redid.

However, I have had to double-click to make control points disappear. In fact, I've had to do this very often because double-clicking doesn't add new control points like it should. I have to at least quadruple click. Sometimes I've had to click 16 times before it would add a new control point. And then, usually when it adds a point, it adds two or three (I assume because I had to click so much). Several times I've even had it add two different segments anchored by the same control point, making a forked road! My double clicking works perfectly fine when deleting control points and when inserting new ones between other control points. It is only when trying to add a new one to the end of the track that I have problems. I've tried clicking far away from the track to make sure I'm not clicking on part of the track, but it doesn't help. I've tried waiting for long periods of time after double-clicking to make sure that I'm not just being impatient, and my computer is not slow or lagging at all as far as I can tell.

 

[Kornepheros]

Ok, check this out:

I had to quadruple-click to get this last control point placed, and it laid down two sections of track at once, with the control points right on top of each other. But when I moved the top control point away, you'll notice that the section before it actually doesn't have a control point - the blue circle is missing.

After double clicking the last control point to delete it, the blue circle reappeared on the section below it.

EDIT: The next control point I added did the same exact thing. The one after that, however, worked fine (though I still had to quadruple-click to add it).

 

[Kornepheros]

But why do you need the elevation to be at 0? There is nothing special going on at 0 meters.

@eran0004 sorry mate I got the base level wrong on Eifel Flat it's -155 not -185

The scenery is "roughly" at elevation 0 (give or take a few hundred meters). If the elevations were in absolute terms, and the elevation graph is showing values near -155 meters on Eifel Flat, I know I am working roughly near ground level. Using relative elevation, there is no indication as to what those elevations are relative to. Thus I have no idea where my height maps are going to end up in reference to the scenery. Using relative elevations, if the elevation graph indicates a height of -155 meters, I have no idea if it is -155 meters relative to the zero elevation, or relative to 1400 meters elevation. Sure, the relative elevation may make it easier to compare one hill to another, but it gives no indication as to how high those hills are off the ground. Both relative and absolute would be useful, but absolute would be much more useful to me because I'm not comparing hill sizes, but rather how high my hills are above the scenery.

 

[Mr Grumpy]

The scenery is "roughly" at elevation 0 (give or take a few hundred meters). If the elevations were in absolute terms, and the elevation graph is showing values near -155 meters on Eifel Flat, I know I am working roughly near ground level. Using relative elevation, there is no indication as to what those elevations are relative to. Thus I have no idea where my height maps are going to end up in reference to the scenery. Using relative elevations, if the elevation graph indicates a height of -155 meters, I have no idea if it is -155 meters relative to the zero elevation, or relative to 1400 meters elevation. Sure, the relative elevation may make it easier to compare one hill to another, but it gives no indication as to how high those hills are off the ground. Both relative and absolute would be useful, but absolute would be much more useful to me because I'm not comparing hill sizes, but rather how high my hills are above the scenery.

-155 is just what the ted editor & @Razerman's elevation editor reads as ground level on Eifel Flat. Off the top of my head (can't remember precisely) but Eifel's lowest point is about -250 & the highest point about +250.

Edit: I may be confused in what it is your actually after / trying to achieve

 

[tarnheld]

I had to quadruple-click to get this last control point placed, and it laid down two sections of track at once, with the control points right on top of each other. But when I moved the top control point away, you'll notice that the section before it actually doesn't have a control point - the blue circle is missing.

After double clicking the last control point to delete it, the blue circle reappeared on the section below it.

The section doubling is a bug, not easy to reproduce. Will investigate...
BTW: with open tracks you can press the left button anywhere to insert a new control point at the open end. You can move the mouse while pressing the button to see the inserted section and only on button release the point is inserted.