Oh, ok. I thought I found 886 (or 885.5) when searching for info, but I'm not familiar with the various models either. Was there a base and then faster rack option, or is that something earlier?
Edited to say l beaten by SevenSimles and Lazza! Again - from memory and Googling of trusted resources - the standard Caterham steering rack has just over two turns (some say 2.25, others 2.5) lock to lock (not that you’d ever use that except in a car park). The 22% race rack (which is not fitted to Academy cars, I believe) is around 1.75 turns lock to lock. So, 720 degrees is a sensible number and a sensible compromise if you are experiencing issues with synchronising the physical and virtual wheels.
Not for the Academy cars. There is a ‘+22%’ race rack option for other series and road cars - which is what mine had. Caterham did recommend not fitting this fir Road use when I ordered mine, but it was fantastic. You had to be careful sneezing on a motorway though (not that you’d want to drive one there much!) as a stitch twitch could send you into the next lane…
@MileSeven ok, yep. I should probably take notes when searching because it all melds together - the 886 I'd seen was regarding a car in AMS, not a real life discussion/spec sheet. I did just find a discussion stating 1.9 and 1.7 turns for the 8% and 22% rack, with some 'Tony' guy at the end waxing lyrical about his 22% rack upgrade Curious why this car defaults to 886 then. The steered angle is still a mystery as well - I think I was getting around 20.5:1 steering ratio, and that's not matching any of the values in the steering setup...
Hey Lazza, per your MOTEC graph, where did you get FFB% from? I see shaft torque and Lat force in my i2 Pro.
Setting the steering to 720 in vehicle set up fixed a few things for me. No more need for smoothing. Loving this car now. Just wish the devs would fix the gearbox. It's supposed to be a manual 5spd but shifts like a sequential?!
That is their first attempt at enforcing gearbox sanity. Hopefully more improvements will follow. The Mini has the same procedure at this point.
Yes, as for the gearbox, in a model close to the first one used by the receroom and the automobilista 2, it is closer to reality, being synchronized transmissions separated from the dogbox, being more realistic exchanges like this, I think simply forcing the clutch is very bad.
I will play AMS2, it seems that AMS2 hype is more important than rFactor 2 now, I'm hyped about the Caterham in AMS2 for a comparaison with the rF2 one.
Back home finally after 2weeks in Europe Tried the car and had to pump up FFB multiplier to 150% to replicate a reasonable wheel weight then driving was very enjoyable my memories of testing a IRL Cathe is almost 2 decades old and only few laps on our test track but I would rank the S397attempt as pretty good
I advise everyone to try the Caterham and also the Mini on the entirety of the Targa Florio, fantastic experience. I get a better FFB experience and from what I've heard something more realistic with a 4.5 caster. This is the only car I use that has over 85% (100%) multi FFB (T300). I don't understand why people who have better wheels go over 100% at the risk of clipping.
Ok if you sure no problem. But caster 4,5 + Overall forces TM control panel 100% and 100% multi is perfectly acceptable in term of forces for me, and T300 is very weak (your wheel is 60% more torquey). What I don't understand is people which have DD2 or SC2 and go over 100% multi, there is something wrong. Or it "sim bodybuilding" lol.
Having driven a great number of cars in my life, the weakest steering I ever felt was something like a Nissan micra that I rented. The Caterham at 100% with a CSL DD has weaker steering than that! So maybe people are experiencing different things, because even at 200% and with 6 degrees caster, the Caterham is nowhere even close to any non power steering car I have ever driven. (Edit: the ffb is still GREAT in the car, just not 'real' force wise imo). The whole "you're doing it wrong if you have heavy ffb" thing doesn't make any sense to me and I think it's getting a bit old. On the contrary, people use low ffb all the time to be more precise and gain an advantage. If anything we should view that as 'doing it wrong'. Watch the hands of a driver racing a car with no power steering, then compare that to the hands of a sim racer! Go race a go kart at maximum attack for an hour and see how your hands and wrists feel, then compare that to a go kart in a sim. It's not even close. Rant over
Have you driven a caterham, and recently enough to perhaps be able to compare? Earlier in the thread some former (and current?) owners gave their opinions with the usual variation (I think one saying the steering is quite light, another saying it's not that light... how long's a piece of string I suppose). I presume your CSL DD is 8Nm, so should be capable of outputting 1:1 the cornering forces in this car. Whether ~5.5Nm is realistic is the question I can't answer, and I don't think anyone has yet. I don't think many people actually do, unless they've turned the wheel itself down (to limit the peak forces) and are compensating with extra FFB Mult, and hopefully checking for clipping at the same time. The main people talking lots about having to turn their wheel right up are very vague on exactly what settings they're running, and might be the sim-bodybuilder type.
with my sc2 im at 100% with all at max in TD panel, and I know someone at 120%.... With AMS 2 at 100% it's a earthquake for comparaison....
