Whatever the cause, I would expect the best sample based sound system to capture all these nuances. If you were to blind fold me, I could probably tell you whether I was in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd just based on what I hear from the drivers position.
Also, I've read in a few places that if you record too many samples (let's say every 1000 RPM), it will be obvious when the samples are changed. Most games simply use low rpm, mid rpm, and high rpm.
I thought it would be the opposite effect. The more samples you have, the more realistic it would sound and the less obvious the change. Any thoughts?
I thought it would be the opposite effect. The more samples you have, the more realistic it would sound and the less obvious the change. Any thoughts?
Interesting point
for each increase in gear and car speed the engine would be under more load for the same RPM. So I would guess that intake and exhaust noises would be different along with even the intensity of each explosion of gasses be slightly different due to varing air/fuel mixture.This is the case in music, the more samples you can map to keys and velocity changes the more acurate it will sound, eg. http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=6042
The difference between hitting a piano key hard and soft is more than just amplitude.
Most modern synths use samples in some shape or form, from complete notes sampled directly from instruments then passed through envelopes, filters and effects(sample+synthesis) to single cycle waveforms, sine, square, saw etc.. used in analogue modeling to replace unreliable oscillators of true analogue synths.
On paper both look the same but in reality there is a world of difference. s+s is easier, cheaper and can recreate real instruments well but sounds lifeless, analogue modeling on the other hand sounds meaty and can create a wide range of noises but not real instruments very well.
http://www.vintagesynth.com/ is a good place to hear the variety of synthesis types out there.
Lost interest in LFS for good/for a while/until something big comes along but here's my 0.12 Finnish markkas (2 cents).
Recording engine revs:
VERY expensive to do properly. You'd need many mics - both dynamic and small diaphragm condensers placed at various distances (dynamic up close, possibly stereo mic set in driver's head position and possibly LDC or two for ambience). Impossible to on a highway as road and wind noise would come through. Even on a dyno you'd possibly encounter unwanted reflections from the walls.
Does LFS have enviromental audio effects? It does have cockpit muffling (?) slider in the engine sound editor but as far as I remember it acts like a soft low-pass filter. Could a VST-based impulse reverb used? That way you could create impulses from real-life car interiors (race cars vs. road cars... open wheelers do not apply!
) to make very immersive in-car audio enviroment.
What LFS really needs is lots more ambience, chassis and suspension clanks, tyre well rattle from small rocks, seatbelt suffle and various creeks and dings that should make you feel like the car is about the crumble to pieces when you plow through the chicane curbs before your wheels fall off eventually.
Recording engine revs:
VERY expensive to do properly. You'd need many mics - both dynamic and small diaphragm condensers placed at various distances (dynamic up close, possibly stereo mic set in driver's head position and possibly LDC or two for ambience). Impossible to on a highway as road and wind noise would come through. Even on a dyno you'd possibly encounter unwanted reflections from the walls.
Does LFS have enviromental audio effects? It does have cockpit muffling (?) slider in the engine sound editor but as far as I remember it acts like a soft low-pass filter. Could a VST-based impulse reverb used? That way you could create impulses from real-life car interiors (race cars vs. road cars... open wheelers do not apply!
) to make very immersive in-car audio enviroment.What LFS really needs is lots more ambience, chassis and suspension clanks, tyre well rattle from small rocks, seatbelt suffle and various creeks and dings that should make you feel like the car is about the crumble to pieces when you plow through the chicane curbs before your wheels fall off eventually.
To synthesize a "stupid" piano is difficult. As you know sound of piano is rendered by hitting a string with a small "hammer" which is attached to a piano key. This gives the string a vibrations and voila .. you have a nice sound. Of course: add a reverb and a "wooden" tint which gives a piano case, thats kind of issue too.
To be honest i can tell you wont get a synth piano as good as real.
After all I wrote above you would like to get a decent a synthesized engine sound? The sound of cylinders(4/8/more?) where petrol explodes, sound of drivetrain, sound of all the mechanical parts that are moving and making all that noise - you would like to get it right?
So i just wanna say one word "synthesized sounds" arent what all sims should pursue.
I remember when I asked here,on this forum, wheres the point to synthesize sounds. Wouldnt be easier to go and make some recordings? Moreover it would be not only easier but closer to reality....
and one guy replied something like:
and that was a bloody good answer.
I would still prefer sampled sounds tho
Long (crossfaded)samples are not "locked" to the engine model. They are just adjusted in pitch to match the rpm. Also they usually sound bad at very low rpms.
I would not like to see the synthesized way of producing them abandoned. Very short "explosion" samples fired at proper sync with the engine model are the way to go IMO. As no doubt stated before, this way of creating the sound offers better feedback, and isn't the feel what LFS is all about?
My thoughts for improving the current model for better immersion:
I would not like to see the synthesized way of producing them abandoned. Very short "explosion" samples fired at proper sync with the engine model are the way to go IMO. As no doubt stated before, this way of creating the sound offers better feedback, and isn't the feel what LFS is all about?
My thoughts for improving the current model for better immersion:
- Multiple impulse sounds which could change according to load, rpm range etc.
- "Polyphonic" stream of explosions so that the sounds can overlap. Don't know for sure, but i get the feeling the current system is monophonic - at high rpms the explosion sound is interrupted by the next one. This is not the way it works IRL. Overlapping explosion samples would sound richer and less tinny, i assume. Maybe a few "channels" per cylinder?
- Some kind of reverberation processing could bring out resonances from intake, cockpit, etc.
- Separate impulse samples for header / collector / tail. Filtering a single sample does not offer enough flexibility.
- More dirt! Random variations firing when lifting throttle. (Like the popcorn effect.) Race-tuned engines should not idle so smoothly.
- Variable distortion
Lots of different opinions on this old old topic
Personally, I believe that it will be possible to create a very convincing synthesized engine sound, however it will take development resources and a lot more cpu that the existing system.
My understanding of the current system is that the tiny 'impulse' samples are fed into a series of filters that make up a VERY simplified physical model of the engine and exhaust system.
For the sound to improve, lots of things can be tweaked, but there are IMO two areas that will provide the most significant improvements:
1. Use more complex filer types... this is where I believe we are losing the raw 'alive' sound...
The best example I can think of is the difference between a clarinet and a saxophone.... clarinet is a smooth sound that doesn't vary a whole lot, like most woodwind... sax on the other hand can produce a huge range of timbres and can be extremely wild compared to a clarinet, and there is a very good reason why: a clarinet is a tube with the same diameter all the way down, with a bell on the end, a sax is a cone. This causes the vibrations of the sax to exhibit much more chaotic behaviour, and as a result it is much more responsive to changes in input(what the player does).
It is relatively simple to model a tube like a clarinet, and uses very little cpu. It is comparatively very difficult to model vibrations of the air column in a cone, and uses much more cpu.
IMO if a real engine is like a saxophone, LFS is like a clarinet. (no, I'm not saying a real engine is a cone - its a metaphor)
If LFS had more advanced filter models that could simulate changes in bore in the different engine and exhaust components, the sound would be MUCH more 'alive' and 'raw'.
2. Model more individual components and connect them in a more 'authentic' way... this means more filters which in turn means more cpu.
An example of this from physical modelling synthesis for music would be a basic flute model.
It's pretty simple to create a simple flute that plays just one note (at least simpler than pretty much everything else 'cept maybe a plucked string).
To get different notes, there's a very easy trick - just change the length of the modelled tube. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound quite right. A much more convincing way to do it is to model each of the finger holes. BUT or course, this is way more difficult - each one has to be modelled as a filter, and divides the tube into two parts, so suddenly, instead of one simple modelled tube, you've go a whole bag of tubes and a load of complicated filters.
I reckon it is the same deal with the engine - if LFSs car sound system had more components with more complex filter types that could model the chaotic vibrations of complex shaped resonating columns of gas... with filters to conect these components in a more realistic way, combined with a way of varying the pressure within each component (to deal with the varying engine loads?), then I believe that it would be a whole lot more convincing.
Of course, even with all this, it would be a hugely simplified model of whats really happening, but I reckon is would still seem a lot more 'realistic'.
I also believe that Scawen knows this stuff (it's certainly been mentioned here on the forum at least once), but many other things currently take priority development wise.
Col
Personally, I believe that it will be possible to create a very convincing synthesized engine sound, however it will take development resources and a lot more cpu that the existing system.
My understanding of the current system is that the tiny 'impulse' samples are fed into a series of filters that make up a VERY simplified physical model of the engine and exhaust system.
For the sound to improve, lots of things can be tweaked, but there are IMO two areas that will provide the most significant improvements:
1. Use more complex filer types... this is where I believe we are losing the raw 'alive' sound...
The best example I can think of is the difference between a clarinet and a saxophone.... clarinet is a smooth sound that doesn't vary a whole lot, like most woodwind... sax on the other hand can produce a huge range of timbres and can be extremely wild compared to a clarinet, and there is a very good reason why: a clarinet is a tube with the same diameter all the way down, with a bell on the end, a sax is a cone. This causes the vibrations of the sax to exhibit much more chaotic behaviour, and as a result it is much more responsive to changes in input(what the player does).
It is relatively simple to model a tube like a clarinet, and uses very little cpu. It is comparatively very difficult to model vibrations of the air column in a cone, and uses much more cpu.
IMO if a real engine is like a saxophone, LFS is like a clarinet. (no, I'm not saying a real engine is a cone - its a metaphor
)If LFS had more advanced filter models that could simulate changes in bore in the different engine and exhaust components, the sound would be MUCH more 'alive' and 'raw'.
2. Model more individual components and connect them in a more 'authentic' way... this means more filters which in turn means more cpu.
An example of this from physical modelling synthesis for music would be a basic flute model.
It's pretty simple to create a simple flute that plays just one note (at least simpler than pretty much everything else 'cept maybe a plucked string).
To get different notes, there's a very easy trick - just change the length of the modelled tube. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound quite right. A much more convincing way to do it is to model each of the finger holes. BUT or course, this is way more difficult - each one has to be modelled as a filter, and divides the tube into two parts, so suddenly, instead of one simple modelled tube, you've go a whole bag of tubes and a load of complicated filters.
I reckon it is the same deal with the engine - if LFSs car sound system had more components with more complex filter types that could model the chaotic vibrations of complex shaped resonating columns of gas... with filters to conect these components in a more realistic way, combined with a way of varying the pressure within each component (to deal with the varying engine loads?), then I believe that it would be a whole lot more convincing.
Of course, even with all this, it would be a hugely simplified model of whats really happening, but I reckon is would still seem a lot more 'realistic'.
I also believe that Scawen knows this stuff (it's certainly been mentioned here on the forum at least once), but many other things currently take priority development wise.
Col
1
2
Discussion: Sampled sounds vs synthesized sounds and an experiment
(33 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG