Released Caterham Academy

mantasisg said:
By the way, turns out the steering range setting in setup is not for steering wheel, but is for cars front wheels. This is very odd to me, could this be a mistake ? Whats the point to limit cars turning circle ? It would much more sense to alter steering wheel lock to lock range to make steering either faster or slower, and it would also be instrumental to get different resistance FFB, slower steering would make it heavier. Any Caterham guys could confirm that steering ratio is adjustable instead of turning circle ? I bet there was a mistake.
Click to expand...

Funny you noticed this just now as it's like this in almost all Studio 397 cars. This setup option reduces LockToLock as well as SteeringFraction. Effectively making the ratio the same (or closely similar) on all settings, but limiting the maximum steering and wheels lock. It never made sense to me and I had to use my wheel program if I ever wanted to actually increase the ratio. One notable exception is Formula Pro that has a settings for a NEW steering lock method that actually only changes LockToLock which is what should've been done from the begining.

In any case my latest play with fixing the AutoBlip made me have a go at increasing the FFB strength in the car's feel. I made two simple changes. Increased the maximum caster angle that can be changed in the setup (which I know is not realistic for this car) and reworked steering lock. If anyone want's to have a go have fun. If you feel that original feel of the car is absolutely fine and what I did is wrong and unrealistic, I know. Ignore this post and carry on. To all of you that need a little more feel you can try this mod.

There are 3 settings now, "Standard" in each doesn't modify anything:
Code: 
1. Caster Angle - increased maximum caster angle for car setup to 10.
2. Steering - changed the default wheel lock settings to 5 new:
   - default, LockToLock = 2 (which is lower than default S397 anyway,
                              makes steering 720 degrees as it should be)
   - 8% faster as Mikee did in his Caterham, LockToLock = 1.93
   - 8% faster as percent of LTL, LockToLock = 1.84
   - 22% faster as Mikee did, LockToLock = 1.75
   - 22% faster as percent, LockToLock = 1.56
   (Mikee in 22% variant also decreased wheel lock, I know, I didn't)
3. Auto Blip - fixed some clutch timings that made possible to drive this car
   in semi automatic mode with paddles with auto clutch, auto blip and auto lift.

https://e1.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZLS0YZ57GSRJTAiCSHd8kwae4L6HqQbFbV

If you want to have a little bit more pleasure in driving this car have a go. With the default car I had to set per car strength to 150%, but this made the curbs and road feel much too strong. Increasing caster a little and making the steering rack faster I can go to 75%. And it's a pleasure to drive now. Even making the rack faster (which isn't that unrealistic if at all) makes it a little bit nicer to drive.

What's really curious for me is that Mikee's Caterham has 4.5 degrees caster and drives much better in this regard. What other geometry settings for the car have effect on the self aligning FFB forces? Why does S397's Caterham needs Caster of 8+ degrees to drive like Mikee's on caster 4.5?
 
Last edited:
@Havner - thx but what do I do with the code you posted? Replace the Caterham rfcmp in my car file? Also what wheel are you using? I have a Thrustie 300 and your suggestion(s) seem a bit extreme for it. Trying to get a better feel for this car is a chore:confused:
 
You put the file in Packages directory, launch ModMgr and "update" your Caterham with this file (it should be marked bold in ModMgr).

Then in car settings you have 3 new options I described above that add or change things in car setup.

I use SC2 Pro, so I don't know what will work for you. I made those changes in a way you can scale them to your liking increasing things even just a little.
 
Havner said:
What's really curious for me is that Mikee's Caterham has 4.5 degrees caster and drives much better in this regard. What other geometry settings for the car have effect on the self aligning FFB forces? Why does S397's Caterham needs Caster of 8+ degrees to drive like Mikee's on caster 4.5?
Click to expand...

I'll give you one more:
link removed, EDIT incoming
(Just uninstall the previous mod first if you had it)

Now instead of the Extended Caster Angle there is an option for a completely new suspension and chassis definition (it's hard to separate those 2 without having full access to the S397 Caterham). Copy and pasted from the free mod by Mikee. Now this car feels like some people on this forum (including me) would expect a car in rFactor 2 to feel, even with caster = 4.0. I know this is a little Frankenstein now, but I made it to try to narrow down what is exactly responsible for this car to feel so weak (in relation to road effects, so this is not about force scaling in general).

I'd be really curious to know what geometry/suspension settings/changes make the biggest difference. Cause like can be showed on the example above it's not the caster. As this car drives not that differently from the S397 suspension, but feels much more in par to what some people would expect.

EDIT: probably the latest version:
https://e1.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZ4o5YZGJ0aTSzXdW5AqBJqL3J7hHHb0qfy
(Just uninstall the previous mod first if you had it)

It comes down to chassis definition. The CasterAngle/Suspension option is now a Chasis option. And it takes only the chassis from Mikee version (+pushrod settings that had to be there for it to work, 99% suspension is from original).

This car with the new chassis drives exactly the same as S397, I achieve the same times on it as on S397 yet has completely transformed FFB. The ratio of road effects and self aligning force is much closer to other cars in RF2, the wheel doesn't get lighter on slow corners and I have enough forces on 50% per car mult while before I had to use 100%+ (SC2 Pro, TD setting: 100%, "Steering torque capability":25) which made road effects much too strong.

I know chassis definition (by looking at it) is responsible for weight and mass distribution/inertia, but because I get the same times with it it must mean that the weight is not that different. And it drives the same for me, which means that mass distribution is also not that different.

It has the same engine, gearbox, aero (if any), tires, suspension, etc. Very similar mass and mass distribution.

Yet, the FFB is completely different. And it feels right now even on caster = 4. Go figure!

To all of you that were saying that light car needs to have light FFB, maybe, but not in rFactor 2 world it seems. There is something very very off happening here and unless someone can provide me with logical explanation I say there is either some bug or some big inconsistency in RF2 engine. You have 2 cars that are 95% the same, drive the same but have drastically different FFB. How's that for RF2 engine producing real physics induced forces in the FFB? I'm honestly at a loss here...

And this is also probably the same issue that plagues Merc GT3. And the higher caster for it was just a plaster. It can be done without changing caster as proven here.
 
Last edited:
Bernat said:
Folks with powerful wheels would feel much better if they had to lower the FFB mult to 30%. It seems like having to raise the mult makes them feel less than they are worth. You could stop looking at 100% or higher like something for loosers that you have to avoid at all cost. It's just a number without meaning. What does it mean that your wheel uses 30% in AMS2 and 100% in rF2? Absolutely nothing. You're going nuts about nothing.
Click to expand...

I don't give a single ^&*$ about the numbers, the issue is much more real for me.
On 30% I feel the road, but I don't feel the car. On 100% I feel the car, but the road brakes my wrists. That's neither real nor pleasant. It's not just about numbers.
 
Havner said:
I don't give a single ^&*$ about the numbers, the issue is much more real for me.
On 30% I feel the road, but I don't feel the car. On 100% I feel the car, but the road brakes my wrists. That's neither real nor pleasant. It's not just about numbers.
Click to expand...

What are your FFB settings for steering torque coefficient and steering torque saturation in your controller files?

I've driven a Caterham Academy car and the FFB for the rF2 version is very close for me and I'm also using a Simucube 2 Pro. I've driven cars that gave way harder kicks over bumps than the Caterham, I would even say the steering is pretty tame for a car with no power steering, so I'm surprised to read your complaints.
 
UGM 133A said:
What are your FFB settings for steering torque coefficient and steering torque saturation in your controller files?
Click to expand...
Controller file does not have a "steering torque coefficient" or "steering torque saturation". My controller.json is purely based on the provided "Simucube 2 Pro.JSON" and I did not change any saturation or coefficient settings. Several people in this thread with DD wheels complained in this thread, it's not only me.

Code: 
player $ grep -i "steering torque" Controller.JSON
    "Steering torque capability":25,
    "Steering torque capability#":"The maximum torque capability of the wheel (in Nm, obviously)",
    "Steering torque extrap blend":0,
    "Steering torque extrap blend#":"Higher blends of extrapolated value allows driver to feel torque changes even when actual torque exceeds 'input max' (0.0=disables, 1.0=max)",
    "Steering torque extrap time":0.015,
    "Steering torque extrap time#":"Time in seconds to extrapolate steering torque based on current change (Range: 0.001 to 0.050.  To disable, set 'blend' to 0.0)",
    "Steering torque filter":16,
    "Steering torque filter#":"Number of old samples to use to filter torque from vehicle's steering column (0-32, note that higher values increase effective latency)",
    "Steering torque minimum":0,
    "Steering torque minimum#":"Minimum torque to apply in either direction to overcome steering wheel's 'FFB deadzone' caused by friction",
    "Steering torque per-vehicle mult":1,
    "Steering torque per-vehicle mult#":"Per-vehicle steering column torque multiplier (this is a copy of the .CCH value)",
    "Steering torque sensitivity":1,
    "Steering torque sensitivity#":"Sensitivity curve applied to representable torques: 0.0=low 1.0=linear 2.0=high",
    "Steering torque zero-speed mult":0.5,
    "Steering torque zero-speed mult#":"Multiplier at zero speed to reduce unwanted oscillation from strong static aligning torque",

To those that asked, I will update my mod for the Caterham and publish it here, I just don't have any means to test it at the moment and would rather not post something that doesn't work as intended.
 
Updated version of my mod for 1.11:

https://e1.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZFOmmZ8ACHdMN2nl5LO9PTUBr9Bh6c5Yry

Car settings to choose from:
Code: 
1. Steering - changed the default wheel lock settings to 5 new:
   - default, LockToLock = 2 (which is lower than default S397 anyway,
                              makes steering 720 degrees as it should be)
   - 8% faster as Mikee did in his Caterham, LockToLock = 1.93
   - 8% faster as percent of LTL, LockToLock = 1.84
   - 22% faster as Mikee did, LockToLock = 1.75
   - 22% faster as percent, LockToLock = 1.56
   (Mikee in 22% variant also decreased wheel lock, I know, I didn't)
2. Auto Blip - fixed some clutch timings that made possible to drive this car
   in semi automatic mode with paddles with auto clutch, auto blip and auto lift.
3. Chassis - taken from Mikee's mod. It changes FFB to something more in par with other rF2 cars.

Hint: if you use the 3rd option to change the FFB move the caster back to its real life default setting of 4.5.
 
Havner said:
Controller file does not have a "steering torque coefficient" or "steering torque saturation". My controller.json is purely based on the provided "Simucube 2 Pro.JSON" and I did not change any saturation or coefficient settings. Several people in this thread with DD wheels complained in this thread, it's not only me.

Code: 
player $ grep -i "steering torque" Controller.JSON
    "Steering torque capability":25,
    "Steering torque capability#":"The maximum torque capability of the wheel (in Nm, obviously)",
    "Steering torque extrap blend":0,
    "Steering torque extrap blend#":"Higher blends of extrapolated value allows driver to feel torque changes even when actual torque exceeds 'input max' (0.0=disables, 1.0=max)",
    "Steering torque extrap time":0.015,
    "Steering torque extrap time#":"Time in seconds to extrapolate steering torque based on current change (Range: 0.001 to 0.050.  To disable, set 'blend' to 0.0)",
    "Steering torque filter":16,
    "Steering torque filter#":"Number of old samples to use to filter torque from vehicle's steering column (0-32, note that higher values increase effective latency)",
    "Steering torque minimum":0,
    "Steering torque minimum#":"Minimum torque to apply in either direction to overcome steering wheel's 'FFB deadzone' caused by friction",
    "Steering torque per-vehicle mult":1,
    "Steering torque per-vehicle mult#":"Per-vehicle steering column torque multiplier (this is a copy of the .CCH value)",
    "Steering torque sensitivity":1,
    "Steering torque sensitivity#":"Sensitivity curve applied to representable torques: 0.0=low 1.0=linear 2.0=high",
    "Steering torque zero-speed mult":0.5,
    "Steering torque zero-speed mult#":"Multiplier at zero speed to reduce unwanted oscillation from strong static aligning torque",

To those that asked, I will update my mod for the Caterham and publish it here, I just don't have any means to test it at the moment and would rather not post something that doesn't work as intended.
Click to expand...

I meant steering *resistance saturation and coefficient.

Use any up to date car and mess around with those settings. I think the default of 0.1 for both is unrealistic and makes the bumps and curbs more prominent than they would be in reality. I personally have mine set to 1.0 for coefficient and 0.025 for saturation. This also eliminates oscillation in the karts and the open wheelers with strong FFB. I also don't use any of the static effects in true drive.
 
UGM 133A said:
Use any up to date car and mess around with those settings. I think the default of 0.1 for both is unrealistic and makes the bumps and curbs more prominent than they would be in reality. I personally have mine set to 1.0 for coefficient and 0.025 for saturation. This also eliminates oscillation in the karts and the open wheelers with strong FFB.
Click to expand...
But those setting affect everything, the whole FFB, not the bumps or road effects in general. From the description they basically control baked in damping which you can also add with your wheel software. Damping is useful and I use if in true drive depending on sim, car, situation, but to increase damping just to lower the bump strength hindering the rest of the FFB is a poor idea. In case of the Caterham I'd have to add a lot of damping, I actually tried that already. The discrepancy between the strength of road effects and car effects is order of magnitude higher than in other cars.

UGM 133A said:
I also don't use any of the static effects in true drive.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter, rF2 is not using DirectInput FFB effects anyway.
 
Havner said:
But those setting affect everything, the whole FFB, not the bumps or road effects in general. From the description they basically control baked in damping which you can also add with your wheel software. Damping is useful and I use if in true drive depending on sim, car, situation, but to increase damping just to lower the bump strength hindering the rest of the FFB is a poor idea. In case of the Caterham I'd have to add a lot of damping, I actually tried that already. The discrepancy between the strength of road effects and car effects is order of magnitude higher than in other cars.


Doesn't matter, rF2 is not using DirectInput FFB effects anyway.
Click to expand...

The static effects aren't direct input effects. They act on the wheel before the sim does anything. You literally said this is something you do in your first paragraph and then said it doesn't effect rF2 in your second paragraph.

The resistance effects within the controller files are, first off, direct from the sim, so you don't have to worry about any inconsistencies when changing FFB multi, and second they're not the same as the damping effect in true drive, you get a lot more control over how it's effecting the wheel when you adjust it from the controller files because it's a saturation and coefficient rather than just straight damping.

If the car really has such a huge range of forces in FFB then that's how the real car is, because that's how it felt when I drove the damn thing in the real. The biggest difference between the real car and the car in rF2 is the balance of traction, where the car in rF2 understeers more than what I drove. However, that doesn't mean it's unrealistic in rF2 because they're using different tires, which can make a huge impact on the balance.

Of all the cars in the game, I would never have guessed anyone having such a complaint about this car since you get plenty of self aligning torque and minimal feel of bumps. I did a couple of times laps at the Nordschleife when I first drove it and not once did I think the kickback over bumps was that much, especially compared to any of the open wheelers.
 
UGM 133A said:
The static effects aren't direct input effects. They act on the wheel before the sim does anything. You literally said this is something you do in your first paragraph and then said it doesn't effect rF2 in your second paragraph.
Click to expand...
You said: "I also don't use any of the static effects in true drive.". For me that reads the bottom of the settings page with damping, friction, spring, sine wave, etc (direct input). That's how I read it. By your reply I presume you meant damping/friction/inertia in "other filters". I said I use damping. And it affects rF2. The direct input effects don't. So besides our misunderstanding what you mean by "static effects" what I wrote is consistent.

And the "other filters" act *after* the sim, not before.

I'll reply to the rest later on, I'll test the settings you suggested.
 
Havner said:
You said: "I also don't use any of the static effects in true drive.". For me that reads the bottom of the settings page with damping, friction, spring, sine wave, etc (direct input). That's how I read it. By your reply I presume you meant damping/friction/inertia in "other filters". I said I use damping. And it affects rF2. The direct input effects don't. So besides our misunderstanding what you mean by "static effects" what I wrote is consistent.

And the "other filters" act *after* the sim, not before.

I'll reply to the rest later on, I'll test the settings you suggested.
Click to expand...

I guess if you read it that way, but I mean, the direct input effects are not static. Or at least they have the potential to be dynamic if used accordingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top