NEED INFO Build 493 Unstable

kosmo1982 said:
am i the only one who lost 50% of fps with this build? amd fx6100 and ati 7850. Must be something wrong with my pc. but my settings seems to be exactly the same as in previouse build.
Click to expand...

For me it's just the other way around. Tested with Silverstone 1.14 + skippy + 15 AI
The beta is WAY smoother and better FPS.

Will do a fresh install with the old 382 just to be sure

P.D. Too slow, current version is 494 now XD
 
I was just about to post that for an unstable build it's pretty damn good, thanks again ISI for letting us help you in the final stages, until next time :)
 
ForthRight said:
You mentioned in your earlier post that T500 users should try a minimum FFB torque value of 8-10% when using 60% FFB in Control Panel. I was just wondering what you recommend if using 100% FFB in Control Panel, or is the whole point of this new setting so that we can use 60% (to remove clipping) and still remove most of the FFB deadzone?
Click to expand...

I just did an extra 2 hour stint in the megane at MillsMetro with 60% FFB in the control panel again....trying different min ffb torque values (between 0-8%) over and over again to try and be sure that i'm not getting a placebo effect (yes, yes....i know i'm the one administering the configs so i'm not really able to avoid/rule-out any possible placebo effects) and i believe that i am genuinely feeling a difference. In the corners, with 0% min FFB torque the situations where the ffb would drop off completely at the wheel despite the fact that the pedal plugin is clearly showing a force output to the wheel (as high as 20-30% at times....really weird) i would still feel some amount of force which was more than enough to give me the confidence to know what and in which direction the car's balance/yaw was wanting to go (if at all). This was a really nice confidence boost in the braking and trail braking zone as well (where the ffb can go unusually loose at the best of times). When the ffb goes loose in the corner or braking zone, you usually end up doing the seesaw motion at the steering wheel to try and get a feel for the car's balance/grip but if your driving at the limit and you do this, 9/10 times the grip is going to snap on your and the car becomes unstable and you lose speed and time. So you end up taking those situations below the limit so you have a margin of error for the seesaw motion at the wheel which is just not ideal at all when your trying to feel the car around the track to drive at the limit. So removing the loose ffb moments means you don't have to worry about that anymore and you can confidently drive the car closer to the limit consistently and without as much correction by yourself (because again...you getting accurate information at the wheel).

I found i made less mistakes with a min ffb torque than without one and it really showed in the exits of corners where i hardly ran out wide at all because i was nice and tidy (and yet as fast if not a little quicker and more consistent) in the entry and mid-corner phase. Similar to how ffb clipping gives us "bad" information to the brain meaning we have to cognitively "guess" what the car's true balance/yaw-rate is when it's clipping.....in this case we're receiving ffb information where there was non before (i.e. those loose ffb moments) resulting in less "guess" work and allows you to drive more "naturally" (e.g. you can rely more on feel to drive the car which I could visibly see whilst i was driving....always tidy on exit and better exit speeds in general!)

8% is good but the straight line oscillations are bit annoying. 4% can still be felt but the min force was more subtle but (to my surprise) it still made a difference i could feel as all the lower end forces felt stronger (or should i say they were being produced at the wheel more accurately). 6-8% is what we should be using really as in the corners when the pedal plugin showed a 20-30% force output, it actually felt like i was feeling 20-30% of the max force output of my wheel. However, the oscillation in the straight is annoying enough for me to only want to use 4% for now (the oscillations in the straights just don't that nice).

The whole point of a min FFB torque is actually a double whammy. It means you won't need to use 100% FFB in the control panel anymore (as this was used to try to reduce the deadzone effect but it's no where near as affective as this new min FFB torque) and it removes the deadzone completely! If/when the new build includes this min FFB torque again, i will be using it that's for sure. It would be nice however if a solution could be put in place to remedy the slight oscillations because that is the only negative side effect, the rest is really really positive. And if it's remedied, i can use maybe use 8-10% min ffb torque instead of just the 4% (because it has less oscillating strength).

ForthRight said:
Sorry if it's a stupid question - i'm not used to this level of technical stuff with FFB, but I'd definitely like to have the best setup for my wheel.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's stupid at all.....or else i wouldn't have gone down this rabbit hole in the first place, lol. :p


Overall....i'm very happy and it would be nice to be able to use it in the current build right now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DrR1pper said:
I just did an extra 2 hour stint in the megane at MillsMetro with 60% FFB in the control panel again....trying different min ffb torque values (between 0-8%) over and over again to try and be sure that i'm not getting a placebo effect (yes, yes....i know i'm the one administering the configs so i'm not really able to avoid/rule-out any possible placebo effects) and i believe that i am genuinely feeling a difference. In the corners, with 0% min FFB torque the situations where the ffb would drop off completely at the wheel despite the fact that the pedal plugin is clearly showing a force output to the wheel (as high as 20-30% at times....really weird) i would still feel some amount of force which was more than enough to give me the confidence to know what and in which direction the car's balance/yaw was wanting to go (if at all). This was a really nice confidence boost in the braking and trail braking zone as well (where the ffb can go unusually loose at the best of times). It saw me doing non of the rapid seesaw actions at the steering wheel that you end up doing when the ffb goes super light and your dirving close to the limit, meaning guessing it wrong and the car snaps on you which means you don't go as close to the limit the next time because you need a larger error margin so you can seesaw the steering wheel when the wheel's ffb goes super light again.

I found i made less mistakes with a min ffb torque than without one and it really showed in the exits of corners where i hardly ran out wide at all because it was nice and tidy (and yet as fast if not a little quicker and more consistent) in the entry and mid-corner phase. Similar to how ffb clipping gives us "bad" information to the brain meaning we have to cognitively "guess" what the car's true balance/yaw-rate is when it's clipping.....receiving ffb information where there was non before (i.e. those loose ffb moments) means less "guess" work and more natural driving (e.g. you can rely more on feel to drive the car which you can visibly see whilst i was driving....always tidy on exit and better exit speeds in general!)

8% is good but the straight line oscillations are bit annoying. 4% can still be felt but it's a bit more subtle but (to my surprise) the difference it made could still be felt as all the lower end forces were stronger (or should i say they were being produced at the wheel more accurately).

The whole point of min FFB torque is actually a double whammy. It means you won't need to use 100% FFB in the control panel anymore (as this was used to try to reduce the deadzone effect but it's no where near as affective as this new min FFB torque) and it removes the deadzone completely! If/when the new build includes this min FFB torque again, i will be using it that's for sure. It would be nice however if a solution could be put in place to remedy the slight oscillations because that is the only negative side effect, the rest is really positive. And if it's remedied, i can use maybe 8-10% min ffb torque instead of just the 4% (because it has less oscillating strength).



I don't think it's stupid at all.....or else i wouldn't have gone down this rabbit hole in the first place, lol. :p
Click to expand...

Thanks for this info - it makes sense so I'm going to test it. I'll report back.
 
Hmm... I have a problem where my wheel is vibrating or slightly oscillating violently all the time when this min torque is active.

I noticed the new setting had been added to the default 'controller.ini', but I had to manually add the 'Steering torque minimum' setting to my saved T500.ini

I didn't know if 4% torque should be entered as 4.0 or 0.4, but I tried both and got the same problem. I will test some more to see if I can get rid of the vibrating thing.

Also, I definitely reduced my control panel FFB to 60%.
 
I was editing my post over the last 15 mins....you may want to read again as it makes a bit more sense perhaps. lol

ForthRight said:
Hmm... I have a problem where my wheel is vibrating or slightly oscillating violently all the time when this min torque is active.

I noticed the new setting had been added to the default 'controller.ini', but I had to manually add the 'Steering torque minimum' setting to my saved T500.ini

I didn't know if 4% torque should be entered as 4.0 or 0.4, but I tried both and got the same problem. I will test some more to see if I can get rid of the vibrating thing.

Also, I definitely reduced my control panel FFB to 60%.
Click to expand...

hmm....i only had to change the one in the "controller.ini" file. And both of those values are not right. 4.0 = 400% and 0.4 = 40%. No wonder it's so violent, lol.

Try 0.04 = 4%.
 
DrR1pper said:
I was editing my post over the last 15 mins....you may want to read again as it makes a bit more sense perhaps. lol



hmm....i only had to change the one in the "controller.ini" file. And both of those values are not right. 4.0 = 400% and 0.4 = 40%. No wonder it's so violent, lol.

Try 0.04 = 4%.
Click to expand...

lol Yes 40% is pretty bad. I'll try 0.04 and report back, and I'll re-read your main post.

Thanks.
 
I have tried it a bit more. So far it is okay but I need to test it further (more laps) to decide if I prefer it. It is too late tonight though so it'll have to be tomorrow or Friday. :(

I do understand exactly what you said though, or why it is a good thing - when you brake, or often when you've just finished braking and you turn into low speed corners the steering goes light (or the FFB 'disappears') and it's hard to know the level of available grip. This setting seems to remove that issue so technically it should be better. My initial laps weren't totally positive but as I said - I need to do more than a handful of laps to be sure. I could feel the slight change in FFB though.

I do have the extra shaking on the straights though, even with just 4%, and that was a bit distracting.

Anyway, I will test more over the next couple of days and decide which way I want to go with my FFB setup.
 
yeah, that sounds right Forth. Don't forget, this build just went live about 50 minutes ago so you can update your main rf2 and starting using that instead.

edit: nvm...just saw your post in the 494 release thread. :p
 
All working fine using in game updater.. except Tyre sound?? cant get it to the levels I require ,being an old school non FFB driver.
 
Considering the length of time between builds I have to say I expected allot more functionality and enhancements that have been supplied. Am I being greedy and expecting too much? It is disappointing to read the problems users are experiencing. It makes me wonder were all our dollars are going. I am an advocate of RF2 and I appreciate the tireless effort by certain individuals however something does not feel right with the development model. It seems to me more skilled hands and brains are required. I know it is easy to sit back and harshly judge without being in the thick of it. I guess I really want RF2 to become the product I know it can be. I just worry if it continues to blow out another year or two without drastic improvements that this could really hurt this product massively down the line..

Time will tell I guess..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tim I always fully read your posts as I respect what you have to say.. Fair enough regarding the complexity of the new HDR system. I still believe the developments are far too slow for the growing community/competition and your company would heavily benefit from the investment of having more than one JM.

What do I know...
 
mingmong said:
Tim I always fully read your posts as I respect what you have to say.. Fair enough regarding the complexity of the new HDR system. I still believe the developments are far too slow for the growing community/competition and your company would heavily benefit from the investment of having more than one JM.

What do I know...
Click to expand...

I think Tim was referring to a number of things being held back from this build, as he said in the first post. So we haven't yet seen everything that has been worked on since the last build, as far as things we can actually see go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top