the developer speaks when he makes an update or publishes his work and you prefer... but I prefer that: they surprise me more and better. They already talk in their block about their work and above all they read about bugs here and fix them with updates as soon as they can
Yes - I’ve been doing a fair bit of testing today - playing around with the in-car multiplier and also checking the effect of any settings in the SC2 Pro (True Drive) software. First of all, there’s no real need (IMHO) to throttle the max torque available in the wheel software - I run a .JSON setting of 0.5 for the jolt-effects (have done for well over a year) and this protects against most crash effects. I’m currently sitting with an in-car multiplier of around 120-130% and the forces are closer to my IRL memories. A green(er) track can feel fairly lifeless though - but to be fair, like @Seven Smiles, I tended to run stickier (but not daft) tyres than the Academy control tyre. Going back to the castor - 4 degrees is the suggested setup for a new road build - but if you missed it, I posted a copy of the real race regs which put no defined limit on the castor (other than the hard physical limitation that the lower wishbone can only be shimmed a certain distance before the rear bush is as far forward as the chassis allows). Nobody seems to really quote actual angles as there are only a small number of combinations of the shim washers that physically fit.) Thinking overnight, the fact that the Academy regs allow a longer lower wishbone bolt (a single one runs through the wishbone from front to rear) doesn’t really give them any additional shimming options as it’s the gap (or lack of) between the front face of the rear wishbone bush and the chassis that is (or should be) the limiting factor on the maximum castor setting. The longer bolt option is (guess) purely so that when set to max castor (4-0-4 washer config), there is still a healthy amount of thread engaged at the far end of the bolt - the more you pack out the F washers (using F-M-R notation), the less thread is available to hold the bolt into the chassis.
I didn't say that the car was bad, but I find it curious that the caster is 6 when we have people who know about it and say that the majority of RL drivers use a caster between 3 and 5. As for the communication of S397, this is only a detail. Maybe I'm right or I'm wrong, but reading these 18 pages (diagonally), I plan to use a 4.5 caster instead of 6. A compromise between the value chosen by the developers and the values that seem more realistic. I can't test this setup at the moment because I suffer from foot pain, but I think it will be both good in terms of physics and FFB. Have fun guys with this car, whatever setup you choose.
I have tested with my SC2 pro : there is no issue with the Caterham. I use 65% in rF2, 100% in True Drive panel for the SC2 pro, all is fine I can feel everything. WIth the powerful options of the true drive software I can adjust the FFB to my preference, I have added a little bit of Inertia to add more weight. But I can confirm the FFB of this car has no issue, it's just "light" but it's probably like the real car. Edit : I have tested the BTCC cars, the FFB is very strong, for these cars I have to use 30% and some Static reduction filter. The BTCC cars are more suited for my preference. The caterham FFB is very low, issue or not, it's light.
@pilAUTO the car has the same range of available caster as it did originally (3.5 - 6.0). It's not like they've taken away valid options or introduced unrealistic ones (just as they haven't introduced a 13 degree option for the AMG some people use to "fix" FFB they feel is broken) I did some laps yesterday with 4 deg caster and it did what you'd expect - bit less constant force, probably a bit more understeer feel (though I tend to avoid ploughing through understeer, and was struggling more with learning Cadwell Park ). I'm pretty confident that there's a significant difference in feel from the 1.0 version, and that's not due to caster. No one's said that 6 is unrealistic. No one has really said anything concrete in here that might elicit a dev response - much of the discussion is about subtleties of handling and setup approach, with comparisons between 1.0 and 1.05 but no proof that either is more correct. (If you imagine those versions as a linear progression, a theoretical 0.95 -> 1.0 update might have produced the same criticism of the latter version, but here it's viewed as the more authentic. Why?)
I don't see a big difference when caster is set to a lower value but that's probably just me. The changelog mentions new tires and this will make a difference. Most of the debate is about FFB expectations. What can the devs say?
I was disappointed with the Caterham when it was first released but with the update it's much better but only when I increase the FFB multiplier to 125% and set the smoothing to 10 using the cars default setup. Without the extra smoothing it can feel a little harsh over bumps and kerbs. I use a Fanatec CSW 2.5 base with out any changes to my normal settings. I have found you have to drive it in similar way to the Porsche 917, both cars drive in a similar way, a small amount of opposite lock while braking coming into the corner and ensure your in the correct gear before you enter the corner because if you change down while in the corner you will spin. I have found rear wheel drifts are very controllable and you can feel when you start loosing grip. It's believable to drive, I have just done 25 very satisfying laps around Brands Hatch, I didn't feel I needed to change the caster angle to have good FFB feel. I may try increasing the FFB multiplier to see if there is any more improvement to be gained. I don't feel there is any need to change your normal wheel settings to get the Caterham to drive well.
I've said this before and will say it again. Owning the same CSW 2.5. I don't feel this harshness AND when growing up, I was told smoothing is for weaker wheels that tend to lurch over the smallest of cracks.(like my old Logitech ) CSW2.5 is still not a DD device but does a fair bit more than the older hardware. 10 just seems really out of bounds for what should be the Fanatec's strength.
It also depends what you have the FEI set to in the wheel settings, I have a setting value of 70 normally, if you lower this setting you can use much less smoothing, my normal setting for smoothing is 1-3 with the FEI set to 70. I have found this combination works for most cars, you can vary the values of the combination to get the feel you want. I don't want drive over the curbs and feel as if you are driving with solid wheels. With the Caterham if I was using a setting of less than 70 for the FEI I would use less smoothing to get the same feel.
I tested with my T300 well configured the car with 720 degrees of rotation (there is a systematic visual bug beyond 720 degrees, the visual rotation does not coincide with the angle of the steering wheel. It is a mystery, with all cars that go above 720). I tested both the physics and the FFB, the two are linked but I observed the two separately too. I specify once again because it was perhaps misunderstood that by modifying the caster I seek to make it more compliant with what real IRL pilots mainly use, not to specifically modify the FFB, it is not my approach. I prefer a less pleasant FFB but a physics or a setup closer to reality. As it seems that the caster is usually set between 3.5 and approximately 5 (if I understand correctly), I decided to use 4.5 rather than 6. It looks good to me both physically and approval of the FFB, the car is good, but I admit that I do not find it extraordinary either. It is good enough for me to use it regularly, but not often. Anyway 4.5 really changes the FFB, I think in a positive way in terms of approval. Not retested 6 to compare the physics, but the difference should not be strong. And above all, above all, I am not an expert. The caster is the only setting I've never changed before on a car, but I always get what I want with the rest of the setup settings.
I’ve had someone confirm my guess that the longer lower wishbone bolt - allowed for in the regs - is nothing to do with increasing the available castor range and everything to do with how much thread was left holding the bolt into the chassis when the castor was set to the max castor 4-0-4 shim setting.
do you have the SC2 pro ? If yes, I'm at 100% in the TD panel, what about you ? 120% is too much for me.
I think i figured out the changes, and reasons for them. Comparing 1.00 to 1.05 (croft green track) i found this: For this i put the baseline grip to the 1.00 default setup. So..1.00 with default caster of 3.5 deg has front grip of 100% (the base line). comparing that to 1.05 with default caster of 6 deg has about 110% front grip. So they gave people complaining about understeer that 10% extra grip, and peolpe complaining about weak FFB the (default) caster value that makes it better. The also increased rear suspension stiffnes (they pretty much had to) to accomodate the jacking effect caused by the higher caster combined with the increased front grip. So the changes between the versions are not that big if you use default setup. All in all, they managed to put something together very quickly, that most people find an improvement. Like it, hate it, it doesnt matter. It was job well done if you look at the big picture. However, using conservative caster values, (closer to the 1.00 default), with the 1.05 gives huge advantage for front grip. Comparing to the baseline (1.00 default setup=100%) it is about 140%! Laptimes are about 2-3 seconds faster because of this.. It (keeping the caster conservative) also reduces the jacking effect so much, that it makes the rear stiff enough to go on throttle almost as soon as you stopped braking. THIS, is what makes it feel too grippy for me. And what makes me think "the physics got screwed" a little with the update. Croft (again green track) turn 3 (long right hander), the front grip loss when you start to increase caster from 3.6 deg, is extremely noticeable. Just try it your self? BUT. Im fine with this, if everybody else is too? I like the car, very much actually. Me being used to very responsive front end in all my setups, just gives me (and others who set their car similarily) an unfair advantage imo. To the point that i feel im cheating almost Normally i woulnd't have any problem with this, but as i feel that the physics got screwed a little, im a bit uncomfortable with the changes. But if you all are happy? So am i. Fair enough?
Interesting. So on the subject of caster, taking the preferences of the driver somewhat out of the equation and ignoring if something is easier/harder to drive, going by pure grip levels, why did the lower caster have more grip? I can only assume that on turn-in as the load is shifting to the outside tyre, high caster would give more grip because of the jacking effect and increase in dynamic camber. But for steady state cornering, why is lower caster providing more grip when a higher caster would be giving more camber? I can only guess that with lower caster the pneumatic trail is becoming smaller (the centre of the contact patch is moving forwards and closer to the geometric centre of the tyre), and as a result maybe has more load over the top pushing directly downwards generating more grip? That's only a guess. Does lower caster always (or often) provide more grip during steady state, and if so, how?
I wouldn't say it would generally create more grip. At least i haven't found it to be so in other cars. With this car however i think it is exactly as what you said about the pneumatic trail, as the tires are quite narrow, and they also have quite a bit of flex, that makes the usable area for the contact patch more limited, or those things together just simply moves the optimal place for the contact patch? Thats how it feels, and also just testing on long turns that the steering angle stays pretty much the same, the grip loss on higher caster angle is very noticeable.
Thinking of grip, ALMOST all of our historic GT content uses the Howston/Lola as a baseline. I enjoy driving those but I feel the tires have really cursed the modding community since then. The 1966ish Howston is used as a base for the Historic Trans Am mod for example. That mod covers a time period 5 - 7 years later and especially because of Can-Am, the tire improvements were tremendous. I know the Mini & Cater are one-offs due to tire sizes and construction, but if many of our Historic users are familiar with the Howston tire, anything else might not fit their definition of 'RIGHT'.
Yes, SC2 Pro and always at 100% in TD to avoid potential loss of detail (slew rate unlimited, some reconstruction filter etc.)
