A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Simulators
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FFB (new development)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 7th 11, 02:51 PM posted to rec.autos.simulators
Shanghai[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default FFB (new development)

On 11/7/2011 7:20 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic:
>> Mario Petrinovic:
>>> Mario Petrinovic:
>>>> Ok, I am abandoning the idea of low Spring setting. I am back
>>>> with
>>>> Spring and Damper at 100%. I tested all the low settings, and Centering
>>>> Spring is 15% (on my system) with Spring and Damper at 100%. I'll test
>>>> higher numbers as well (for now I tested Centering Spring 0-22%). I am
>>>> using Overall at 118%.
>>>
>>> Ok, having low Centering Spring is also wrong. It looks like the
>>> tension between Spring (S) and Centering Spring (CS) balances forces
>>> (because of lag, I presume). With Spring and Damper at 100% I have
>>> balanced
>>> forces with CS at something like 125% and something like 80%. With 125%
>>> CS
>>> is 25% higher than S. With 80% S is 25% higher than CS. I still have a
>>> lot
>>> to test (I am a working man, so don't have enough time), but I would
>>> really
>>> like to see what effect would be if I replace the CS value with S value.
>>> Also, the difference of Damper and Spring also creates tension, so
>>> locking Damper to 75% dfinitely wasn't a good idea (this only created
>>> even
>>> more confusion). Also, some other values create quazi balance (like
>>> CS at
>>> 15%, which I mentioned in previous post). But at the end it will be CS
>>> either at 125%, or 80% (peobably 125%, but first I must test thoroughly
>>> all combinations, just to be sure what is right).

>>
>> Ok, it looks very much like Spring and Centering Spring should be
>> the same. I tested them from 100% to 138%, and it looks like they have to
>> be
>> even higher on my system (later I will also test how things behave below
>> 100%).
>> It very much looks like Damper and Overall can be per how pople
>> like. I like Damper at 96%, and Overall at 118%. I am not yet finished,
>> and
>> I am looking forward to see how this will end (it WILL end soon, : )).

>
> Hm, it looks like Centering Spring and Spring are locked at 75%. I
> am getting fed up with this. Somebody who comes from some other world
> (other simulation), comes into iRacing, stays one month, and goes away,
> seeing that he isn't compatible with iRacing's world. I mean, there is
> simply no sense in all this. In other simulations guy is using one FFB
> setting, and iRacing has something completly different. Why? To have
> "better resolution"? Resolution of what?
>
> Mario


Your wallet?
Ads
  #12  
Old November 8th 11, 05:05 PM posted to rec.autos.simulators
FolkGT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default FFB (new development)

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:20:24 +0100, "Mario Petrinovic"
> wrote:


> I am getting fed up with this. Somebody who comes from some other world (other
>simulation), comes into iRacing, stays one month, and goes away, seeing that
>he isn't compatible with iRacing's world. I mean, there is simply no sense
>in all this. In other simulations guy is using one FFB setting, and iRacing
>has something completly different. Why? To have "better resolution"?
>Resolution of what?


Every software developer is going to have a different implementation of
FFB, based on *their* physics engine, *their* tyre model, etc. You should
*expect* every simulation to be different because of that. If software
developer "X" invents an awesome new way to express physics or tyre model,
then those new developments will show up in their simulation as new
options not seen in other programs. What developer "X" requires of "100%"
FFB strength might be a completely different requirement/implementation
for developer "Y".

IOW, an expectation that all implementation of FFB will be the same isn't
realistic.
  #13  
Old November 8th 11, 08:36 PM posted to rec.autos.simulators
Mario Petrinovic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default FFB (new development)

FolkGT:
>Mario Petrinovic:
>> I am getting fed up with this. Somebody who comes from some other world
>> (other
>>simulation), comes into iRacing, stays one month, and goes away, seeing
>>that
>>he isn't compatible with iRacing's world. I mean, there is simply no sense
>>in all this. In other simulations guy is using one FFB setting, and
>>iRacing
>>has something completly different. Why? To have "better resolution"?
>>Resolution of what?

>
> Every software developer is going to have a different implementation of
> FFB, based on *their* physics engine, *their* tyre model, etc. You should
> *expect* every simulation to be different because of that. If software
> developer "X" invents an awesome new way to express physics or tyre model,
> then those new developments will show up in their simulation as new
> options not seen in other programs. What developer "X" requires of "100%"
> FFB strength might be a completely different requirement/implementation
> for developer "Y".
>
> IOW, an expectation that all implementation of FFB will be the same isn't
> realistic.


I am always amazed how people have rich imagination.
Believe me, I explore FFB for the last 10 years (I did have a pause
for some 5-6 years), and believe me, there is no much difference in FFB of
Papyrus 10 years ago from this new one. When I fiddle with iRacing's FFB
around 133.33% it is just the same feel like 10 years ago when I fiddled
with some other simulations around 100%.
Besides, did you read what I wrote. The difference is, YES, iRacing
SHIFTED values for 25% (or 33,33%, however you like it), this is your big
difference. You are all into some "new" development, and this excites your
imagination. Well fine.
The movement of a car left is the same in all simulations, this goes
for the movement of a car right, as well. There is no point in changing the
FFB if you change how car responds to your input by the way of better and
more realistic physics. What is the difference between iRacing and N4S? Car
goes through corners in both situations.
If you use standardized FFB you can see what is the real difference.
If you use alchemy, the difference is much bigger, whatever you put into
this alchemy.
I repeat, this is a road to nowhere. A LOT of people are using some
other racing games. Kids are using N4S. When they change to iRacing they are
lost.
Besides, there is very informastive FAQ section in iRacing. Well, if
you ask me, shifting FFB for 25% is THE MOST important thing you have to now
about this simulation, and yet, I don't see a single word about it in this
vast FAQ section. Why? I need to know this very much, but the thing I have
to know very much is not there.

Mario

  #14  
Old November 9th 11, 10:05 AM posted to rec.autos.simulators
Mario Petrinovic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default FFB (new development)

Mario Petrinovic:
> FolkGT:
>>Mario Petrinovic:
>>> I am getting fed up with this. Somebody who comes from some other world
>>> (other
>>>simulation), comes into iRacing, stays one month, and goes away, seeing
>>>that
>>>he isn't compatible with iRacing's world. I mean, there is simply no
>>>sense
>>>in all this. In other simulations guy is using one FFB setting, and
>>>iRacing
>>>has something completly different. Why? To have "better resolution"?
>>>Resolution of what?

>>
>> Every software developer is going to have a different implementation of
>> FFB, based on *their* physics engine, *their* tyre model, etc. You
>> should
>> *expect* every simulation to be different because of that. If software
>> developer "X" invents an awesome new way to express physics or tyre
>> model,
>> then those new developments will show up in their simulation as new
>> options not seen in other programs. What developer "X" requires of
>> "100%"
>> FFB strength might be a completely different requirement/implementation
>> for developer "Y".
>>
>> IOW, an expectation that all implementation of FFB will be the same isn't
>> realistic.

>
> I am always amazed how people have rich imagination.
> Believe me, I explore FFB for the last 10 years (I did have a pause
> for some 5-6 years), and believe me, there is no much difference in FFB of
> Papyrus 10 years ago from this new one. When I fiddle with iRacing's FFB
> around 133.33% it is just the same feel like 10 years ago when I fiddled
> with some other simulations around 100%.
> Besides, did you read what I wrote. The difference is, YES, iRacing
> SHIFTED values for 25% (or 33,33%, however you like it), this is your big
> difference. You are all into some "new" development, and this excites your
> imagination. Well fine.
> The movement of a car left is the same in all simulations, this
> goes
> for the movement of a car right, as well. There is no point in changing
> the
> FFB if you change how car responds to your input by the way of better and
> more realistic physics. What is the difference between iRacing and N4S?
> Car goes through corners in both situations.
> If you use standardized FFB you can see what is the real
> difference.
> If you use alchemy, the difference is much bigger, whatever you put into
> this alchemy.
> I repeat, this is a road to nowhere. A LOT of people are using some
> other racing games. Kids are using N4S. When they change to iRacing they
> are lost.
> Besides, there is very informastive FAQ section in iRacing. Well,
> if you ask me, shifting FFB for 25% is THE MOST important thing you have
> to now about this simulation, and yet, I don't see a single word about it
> in this vast FAQ section. Why? I need to know this very much, but the
> thing I have to know very much is not there.


Actually now, after additional testing, I am not sure what is really
going on.
It turned out that the most balanced setting if Spring and Centering
Spring are at the same value, is at 139%. This is very interesting, because
before when I had Spring at 100%, the balanced Centering Spring was at 119%,
which is exactly half of 100% and 139%. I had thorough testing, and those
values are absolutely correct. I'll test some more, to see how this
all behaves through the range.
I just wanted to say that it doesn't have to be that those are
locked to 75%, it just could be that at my system it works like that
(somewhere around 133.33%). Anyway, it is drivable from 135% to 139%.
Just for additional inormation, this was with Damper at 100%. Later
I checked with Damper at 96%, and the sensation repeated (again the most
balanced S and CS was at 139%), the only correction of the feel was because
of shifted Damper by 4%.

Mario

  #17  
Old November 10th 11, 06:52 AM posted to rec.autos.simulators
Mario Petrinovic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default FFB (new development)

GaryR:
>>Andrew MacPherson:
>>>Mario Petrinovic:
>>> I am not sure what is really going on.

>>
>>You are a martyr to the FFB cause, mario! I just fiddle with in-sim
>>settings for a
>>minute or two, then get on with driving. But then I am nearly 50.
>>Sometimes life really *is* too short. :-)

>
> Martyr? He's the friggin Mad Hatter!
>
> I did a search on the word "drivel" and ended up here...


Lol.
For some reason my server didn't show your post Andrew, but now I
see it.
Well, in my eyes world has sense. Those people at the Immersion
company didn't built FFB just like a random thing, they built it per some
rules. I have to know them if I am to use FFB. Too bad nobody did this
before.
I remember (long time ago) first I started to research FFB on a
small monitor (21") and with the Solstice. This was wrong car for that.
After some time I decided to buy other cars, and with larger monitor (32").
Monitor still wasn't big enough, but one of my first good settings (and the
one I was pretty sure that it works) was 139/139/139/139. At that time
Damper was locked at 75%, so it would be like today's 139/139/104.25/139.
Now I am using 118/139/100/139, which is pretty close.
The drawback of that all 139 setting was that it was too heavy
(obviously because of too large Overall). Also, I was very suspicios because
of too large numbers, being so far form the default all at 100, and
everybody told me that those MUST be wrong. Later I went some other ways,
and it turned out that iRacing locked Damper at 75%, so those numbers (well,
at least for Damper), aren't too big, in fact lower numbers are too small.
Interestingly, in some later testings, when I had numbers around 100, I
liked to use Overall 139. Spring and Centering Spring definitely are 139 (or
very close to it, not more, maybe 135 to 139). It is very hard (I could say,
impossible) to find them if Damper isn't exactly 100, and you will never
find them if Damper is locked to 75%, because Damper that isn't 100 brings
aditional disturbance to FFB. While with Damper at 100 I could find them
easily, with Damper at 96, and with all my experience, it was very hard for
me to distinguish 139. Only because I knew EXACTLY what diminishing the
Damper means to FFB I was able to distinguish this disturbance from what I
am searching for, otherwise this disturbance would ruin my search. If
iRacing didn't unlock Damper, I could never find that setting (when before I
had all 139, it was just because it worked, but I didn't know why exactly,
so I continued to search at other places).

Mario

  #18  
Old November 10th 11, 01:48 PM posted to rec.autos.simulators
Mario Petrinovic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default FFB (new development)

Mario Petrinovic:
> Well, in my eyes world has sense. Those people at the Immersion
> company didn't built FFB just like a random thing, they built it per some
> rules. I have to know them if I am to use FFB. Too bad nobody did this
> before.
> I remember (long time ago) first I started to research FFB on a
> small monitor (21") and with the Solstice. This was wrong car for that.
> After some time I decided to buy other cars, and with larger monitor
> (32").
> Monitor still wasn't big enough, but one of my first good settings (and
> the
> one I was pretty sure that it works) was 139/139/139/139. At that time
> Damper was locked at 75%, so it would be like today's 139/139/104.25/139.
> Now I am using 118/139/100/139, which is pretty close.
> The drawback of that all 139 setting was that it was too heavy
> (obviously because of too large Overall). Also, I was very suspicios
> because
> of too large numbers, being so far form the default all at 100, and
> everybody told me that those MUST be wrong. Later I went some other ways,
> and it turned out that iRacing locked Damper at 75%, so those numbers
> (well,
> at least for Damper), aren't too big, in fact lower numbers are too small.
> Interestingly, in some later testings, when I had numbers around 100, I
> liked to use Overall 139. Spring and Centering Spring definitely are 139
> (or
> very close to it, not more, maybe 135 to 139). It is very hard (I could
> say,
> impossible) to find them if Damper isn't exactly 100, and you will never
> find them if Damper is locked to 75%, because Damper that isn't 100 brings
> aditional disturbance to FFB. While with Damper at 100 I could find them
> easily, with Damper at 96, and with all my experience, it was very hard
> for
> me to distinguish 139. Only because I knew EXACTLY what diminishing the
> Damper means to FFB I was able to distinguish this disturbance from what I
> am searching for, otherwise this disturbance would ruin my search. If
> iRacing didn't unlock Damper, I could never find that setting (when before
> I
> had all 139, it was just because it worked, but I didn't know why exactly,
> so I continued to search at other places).


Ok, it looks like damper likes to be the same as Spring and
Centering Spring. Just the way I like it, : ). The only problem is, now I
have bunch of good settings (there are better ones than the 139 setting),
and I have to choose one.

Mario

  #19  
Old November 10th 11, 02:45 PM posted to rec.autos.simulators
Mario Petrinovic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default FFB (new development)

Mario Petrinovic:
> Ok, it looks like damper likes to be the same as Spring and
> Centering Spring. Just the way I like it, : ). The only problem is, now I
> have bunch of good settings (there are better ones than the 139 setting),
> and I have to choose one.


Oh, I forgot to say that this, of course, means that Spring and
Centering Spring aren't locked to 75%, : ).

Mario

  #20  
Old November 11th 11, 02:29 AM posted to rec.autos.simulators
GaryR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default FFB (new development)

>On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:45:33 +0100, "Mario Petrinovic" > wrote:
>Mario Petrinovic:
>> Ok, it looks like damper likes to be the same as Spring and
>> Centering Spring. Just the way I like it, : ). The only problem is, now I
>> have bunch of good settings (there are better ones than the 139 setting),
>> and I have to choose one.

>
> Oh, I forgot to say that this, of course, means that Spring and
>Centering Spring aren't locked to 75%, : ).
>
> Mario


All I can say is OH......... MY........... GOD


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FFB (so far) Mario Petrinovic Simulators 0 September 25th 11 10:57 AM
FFB Mario Petrinovic Simulators 26 September 5th 11 08:52 AM
G25 v. ECCI - To FFB or not to FFB [email protected] Simulators 1 August 17th 07 02:35 PM
rFactor development Tony Rickard Simulators 8 August 18th 06 07:06 AM
Burnout 5 and Road Rash likely in development AirRaid[_1_] Simulators 2 August 9th 06 02:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.