I will again tweak my settings to take into account the hardware constraints and limits.
The CSL DD (DD GT PRO) has a torque peak of 8 nm, which corresponds to a GT in normal driving conditions (excluding kerbs), especially since on these cars there is highly adjustable power steering.
The CSL DD has in theory a sustainable torque of only 6 nm, from experience and tests I think it is globally inaccurate, maybe yes to support a torque of more than 6 nm for a long time, but otherwise and mostly no.
No 6 nm. 7+ nm probably.
Simulating the FFB of kerbs, big bumps and shocks in a realistic way, very objectively is of greatly reduced interest and anyway requires a very expensive and very torquey wheel (at the software level, it would take about 25-30% anyway in Ingame FFB Strenght to not have software clipping).
I think you have to choose a compromise both at the level of the :
1/ FFB Hardware Strenght (CSL DD Software Driver FFB Strenght);
AND
2/ The Ingame FFB Strenght (rFactor 2 FFB Strenght).
The first limits the peak of FFB (kerbs/bumps/shocks) while protecting the CSL DD (especially related to the poor quality QR lite) and avoiding exceeding the hardware limits of the wheel while CONTRIBUTING to increase the overall force of the FFB, the second optimizes the Dynamic Range of the FFB range at Software rFactor 2 level (avoid clipping in normal driving on the majority of official cars + have a sufficient level of FFB force for a good feeling).
Using at FFB Hardware Strength (CSL DD Software Driver FFB Strength) 85% = 6.8 of CSL DD maximum FFB strength.
Then the Ingame FFB Strength (rFactor 2 FFB Strength) will be at 70%, because 60 and 65 are certainly better values for the software clipping of rFactor 2, but they would not bring much to fight against clipping let's be honest.
On the other hand, these few % gains, which are multiplied by the torque set in the CSL DD/DD GT PRO software (% of FFB Hardware Strenght * Max CSL DD Torque 8 nm), make it possible to obtain more driving and track feeling, with very few software and hardware constraints.
2 models are to be compared :
1/ Optimized model in my opinion :
(85% CSL DD Software Driver FFB Strength = 6.8 nm) * (70% Ingame FFB Strength) = 4.76 nm.
"TheoricMaximalDrivingDynamicRange"
-> 0 ¦ 4.76 ¦¦ 6.8 ¦¦| <-
With this model, the hardware is preserved and these limits are taken into account, the defective QR Lite is not excessively stressed, and the Ingame FFB Strength is at a level avoiding the vast majority of clipping while driving.
2/ Model in my opinion less optimized :
(100% CSL DD Software Driver FFB Strength = 8 nm) * (60% Ingame FFB Strength) = 4.76 nm.
I consider that anything above 6.8 nm asks too much of the CSL DD compared to these hardware constraints, increases the constraint on the failing QR Lite, the shocks and the large kerbs have an FFB which can very brutally reach the 8 nm which is quite violent or at least unpleasant, but with 60% in Ingame FFB Strength the risk of clipping in normal driving is almost non-existent and that's a good thing.
The CSL DD (DD GT PRO) has a torque peak of 8 nm, which corresponds to a GT in normal driving conditions (excluding kerbs), especially since on these cars there is highly adjustable power steering.
The CSL DD has in theory a sustainable torque of only 6 nm, from experience and tests I think it is globally inaccurate, maybe yes to support a torque of more than 6 nm for a long time, but otherwise and mostly no.
No 6 nm. 7+ nm probably.
Simulating the FFB of kerbs, big bumps and shocks in a realistic way, very objectively is of greatly reduced interest and anyway requires a very expensive and very torquey wheel (at the software level, it would take about 25-30% anyway in Ingame FFB Strenght to not have software clipping).
I think you have to choose a compromise both at the level of the :
1/ FFB Hardware Strenght (CSL DD Software Driver FFB Strenght);
AND
2/ The Ingame FFB Strenght (rFactor 2 FFB Strenght).
The first limits the peak of FFB (kerbs/bumps/shocks) while protecting the CSL DD (especially related to the poor quality QR lite) and avoiding exceeding the hardware limits of the wheel while CONTRIBUTING to increase the overall force of the FFB, the second optimizes the Dynamic Range of the FFB range at Software rFactor 2 level (avoid clipping in normal driving on the majority of official cars + have a sufficient level of FFB force for a good feeling).
What setting I am thinking about :
Using at FFB Hardware Strength (CSL DD Software Driver FFB Strength) 85% = 6.8 of CSL DD maximum FFB strength.
Then the Ingame FFB Strength (rFactor 2 FFB Strength) will be at 70%, because 60 and 65 are certainly better values for the software clipping of rFactor 2, but they would not bring much to fight against clipping let's be honest.
On the other hand, these few % gains, which are multiplied by the torque set in the CSL DD/DD GT PRO software (% of FFB Hardware Strenght * Max CSL DD Torque 8 nm), make it possible to obtain more driving and track feeling, with very few software and hardware constraints.
2 models are to be compared :
1/ Optimized model in my opinion :
(85% CSL DD Software Driver FFB Strength = 6.8 nm) * (70% Ingame FFB Strength) = 4.76 nm.
"TheoricMaximalDrivingDynamicRange"
-> 0 ¦ 4.76 ¦¦ 6.8 ¦¦| <-
With this model, the hardware is preserved and these limits are taken into account, the defective QR Lite is not excessively stressed, and the Ingame FFB Strength is at a level avoiding the vast majority of clipping while driving.
2/ Model in my opinion less optimized :
(100% CSL DD Software Driver FFB Strength = 8 nm) * (60% Ingame FFB Strength) = 4.76 nm.
I consider that anything above 6.8 nm asks too much of the CSL DD compared to these hardware constraints, increases the constraint on the failing QR Lite, the shocks and the large kerbs have an FFB which can very brutally reach the 8 nm which is quite violent or at least unpleasant, but with 60% in Ingame FFB Strength the risk of clipping in normal driving is almost non-existent and that's a good thing.
[[[ I'm testing this in a few days, it's a mixture of theory and experimentation that I conducted 15 days earlier. ]]]
