FFB harshness over kerbs and rumble strips

Gary_S85

Gary_S85

Registered
Is there a way to tone this down at all. Kerb interaction tends to be WAY more than cornering forces in an unrealistic way.
Just messing with damping and smoothening on the fanalab sliders. So far the inconsistency between each car is leading me to a separate profile per car, which is ridiculous.

Before I jump into the controller json files and mess about with jolt, off road affect and rumble affect, can anyone offer any info on what I may be overlooking. I'm trying damn hard to like this sim, but the perceived bumpiness, kerb interactions are just not accurate from a steering wheel perspective. I'm running a DD2.
All help and comments appreciated.
 
I haven't driven race cars but when driving any car, going over kerbs is way stronger and violent than any cornering forces at any speed. rFactor 2 doesn't have settings to change pre-baked effects. It's all forces going through the tire, suspensions and the wheel shaft. Just like in real cars, you can't filter kerb forces without filtering cornering forces too. I think the only way to make those kerbs softer would be to change their height. You can still make the FFB softer for all cases, but some kerbs will always make stronger forces than cornering. And same with flatspots.
 
Bernat said:
I haven't driven race cars but when driving any car, going over kerbs is way stronger and violent than any cornering forces at any speed. rFactor 2 doesn't have settings to change pre-baked effects. It's all forces going through the tire, suspensions and the wheel shaft. Just like in real cars, you can't filter kerb forces without filtering cornering forces too. I think the only way to make those kerbs softer would be to change their height. You can still make the FFB softer for all cases, but some kerbs will always make stronger forces than cornering. And same with flatspots.
Click to expand...
Not it's not, certainly to a point. Generally a kerb will be noticeable, unmistakable, but it has not real bearing on the steering load as its not loading the tyre laterally.
This behaviour to that level of spike is not normal.
In saying that, RF2 tracks are also a bump fest. There appears to be a lot of effects either in the track mesh, or the ffb output to give an artificially lively wheel.
What ffb I can feel around the car is good. But the rest of the noise in the signal is way over done. I'll mess about with the controller json and see what I can manage.
 
Bernat said:
rFactor 2 doesn't have settings to change pre-baked effects. It's all forces going through the tire, suspensions and the wheel shaft.
Click to expand...
The issue is that the force ratio in FFB between car feel and road feel is very inconsistent in rF2 between various cars (sometimes very similar). And as I've proven can be even changed within one car without changing this car's physics. So something really fishy is going on there.
 
Last edited:
If that's real then it's very weird that there's this big difference in the way FFB works for some users. Because most users have very good and consistent FFB in a wide variety of wheels including the wheel you use. There must be something fishy going on in the software components between the game and the wheel.
 
Bernat said:
If that's real then it's very weird that there's this big difference in the way FFB works for some users. Because most users have very good and consistent FFB in a wide variety of wheels including the wheel you use. There must be something fishy going on in the software components between the game and the wheel.
Click to expand...
Just try the Caterham I modified on your wheel and then tell me I'm the only one that feels the difference...
Somehow people with various wheels complain about week car feel for some cars and strong road effects. It's not only me. The issue might be a little bit bigger on my wheel as DD is stronger than consumer wheels. Which is pretty obvious. But in general it's not about a wheel in the slightest.
 
Some cars feel nice. Like the ferrari gte feels good. The formula 2 and formula isi or whatever it is, is an embarrassment to the sim.
I downloaded also the btcc pack, the rear wheel drives bmw and infiniti feel great. As for the front wheel drives, clearly they've never driven a high performance fwd on track before the weight at low speed is totally off, and a constant lightening of the steering weight (diff engagement) at almost any speed, which is total tosh.
Yesterday I downloaded the formula E cars and pack. FFB is very light, yet kerb hits are still many, many times harsher than the max cornering force these things can produce. It's like steering a shopping trolly.
Then jumping into the Vanwall, the ffb ramps up to stupid amounts as downforce increases (presumably). All of this can be sort of dealt with by messing about with the wheel driver settings and filters. I also discovered turning off the damper effect strength in fanalab ended up relieving ffb grainy feels. Normal or natural damper still on of course.

I've never picked up a sim that needs sooo much edits to ffb profiles, per car. As for some of the older stuff I've tried, it's as if it been abandoned completely. Horrific.
I've spent money on rf2 packs over the course of this year, but my god, they have work to do. It is easily the worst ffb consistency of all sims right now. And I want it to be good. I'm not anti rf2, but let's remove the fan boy blinkers for a second.
 
@Gary_S85 agree 100% with what you said. Up to specific cars and FFB feel for them you mentioned (I could never understand how people can drive the Formula ISI).

Most of the people here will tell you: that's the output of the physics, rf2 calculates that properly, deal with it, it's realistic. I've heard it over and over again. And I would even tend to agree with it if not one thing few people noticed:
Very similar cars can have drastically different FFB feel. E.g.: LMP3 Ligier and Norma (mostly before the Norma patch, now they feel more similar). Oreca 07 (which has great FFB) and Ligier LMP2 or the newest LMH. BTCC cars made by S397 and various touring cars made by others (e.g. the Tommy78 TCR pack). Formula ISI and Formula Pro. Merc GT3 compared to most other GT3 (although Audis for me also feel borked, just not as much as the Merc). Or the latest S397 Caterham and the Mikee's Caterham from the workshop. Also the Radicals feel wrong for me. You get lots of grain in the FFB with little feel for the car.

In some cars it's very slight, but for some it's so obvious (e.g the Caterhams) that I don't believe that people can actually defend this. Also most (where I could find) people that defend here don't have DD wheels. Which is telling.

For me, having a DD wheel with high dynamic range it mostly comes to the ratio of the car feel and road feel. Depending on how you setup the overall strength either the car feel is weak or the car feels right but the road effects break your wrists.

I was recently triggered but this inconsistency up to a point I narrowed down the difference for the 2 released Caterhams. And I made the S397 Caterham feel much more "right" without changing its physics. It's there, you can download it yourself, test it and prove me wrong.

For me this means one thing: you can modify and "finetune" the FFB in rF2, even drastically, without changing the physics of the car. And all those rf2 calculates that properly, deal with it, it's realistic is BS when it comes to this specific issue.

The proof is there, you can either logically disprove it or you have to accept it. Everything else is a grand example of cognitive dissonance.
 
Last edited:
Havner said:
Just try the Caterham I modified on your wheel and then tell me I'm the only one that feels the difference...
Somehow people with various wheels complain about week car feel for some cars and strong road effects. It's not only me. The issue might be a little bit bigger on my wheel as DD is stronger than consumer wheels. Which is pretty obvious. But in general it's not about a wheel in the slightest.
Click to expand...

I'll try it but if it makes the Caterham feel like a GT3, no, thanks. I don't see this issue on any car, not even the Caterham. Some kerbs and the flatspots make the wheel shake hard but that's what I would expect. On more powerful wheels that might be too strong but I don't see many users complaining, just a handful. It's hard to tell what's going on.
 
Bernat said:
I'll try it but if it makes the Caterham feel like a GT3, no, thanks.
Click to expand...
You still don't understand. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. It doesn't matter if it's realistic or not.
I proves one thing and one thing only: you can have completely different FFB on two cars with exactly the same physics. Which by itself disproves most rf2 defenders telling us: it's the physics, it's correct, deal with it.

EDIT: I'll reword it: it proves you can modify FFB of a car (even drastically) without changing its physics.
 
Havner said:
You still don't understand. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. It doesn't matter if it's realistic or not.
I proves one thing and one thing only: you can have completely different FFB on two cars with exactly the same physics. Which by itself disproves most rf2 defenders telling us: it's the physics, it's correct, deal with it.

EDIT: I'll reword it: it proves you can modify FFB of a car (even drastically) without changing its physics.
Click to expand...

You mean, apart from a completely new chassis file?

Do you know how rF2 physics works?
 
Lazza said:
You mean, apart from a completely new chassis file?

Do you know how rF2 physics works?
Click to expand...
Please tell me. I've read the whole thread on Caterham, all the posts (including yours) and noone mentioned anything chassis related.
Please tell me, what exactly from the chassis has so profound influence on the FFB without changing the car behaviour and performance in the slightest.

And even if that is all fine and dandy it still means that it's possible to tune the car FFB without changing its physics, which all of you claimed is impossible.

Like I said, I'll take a logical explanation, but please provide it instead of throwing doubts.

EDIT: I see you bolded mine "without changing its physics". Yeah, by physics I mean two things: car behaviour/handling on the road and its performance. And those 2 things have not changed.
 
Havner said:
Please tell me. I've read the whole thread on Caterham, all the posts (including yours) and noone mentioned anything chassis related.
Please tell me, what exactly from the chassis has so profound influence on the FFB without changing the car behaviour in the slightest.

Like I said, I'll take a logical explanation, but please provide it instead of throwing doubts.
Click to expand...

The chassis file defines, yes, the mass and location of the main components (sub-bodies, wheels, etc), but also the position and length of all suspension components. Meaning the rods/arms that connect the wheels to the body, and the steering arms that allow you to turn the wheels.

The way those members all connect and are aligned to each other determines the forces that get transmitted to your wheel, just like real life*. Scrub radius, camber gain, toe gain, ackermann %, bump steer, etc, are all defined by that file. It has massive implications for the vehicle physics and FFB.

You can certainly change the ratio of cornering forces vs bumps by changing the suspension geometry.

*But I think another big factor here is the lack of compliance in rF2 when dealing with very large forces. Something I haven't tried yet is having some limited compliance (possibly at the rack end of the steering arm, to avoid the suspension turning into spaghetti when things end up in the wrong place) to help mitigate kerb strike forces.
 
Lazza said:
The chassis file defines, yes, the mass and location of the main components (sub-bodies, wheels, etc), but also the position and length of all suspension components. Meaning the rods/arms that connect the wheels to the body, and the steering arms that allow you to turn the wheels.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I've read from this file (I've mentioned some in the other thread). Mass and mass distribution must be very similar as the behaviour (e.g. car balance, cornering grip) and performance (acceleration and lap times) is the same for me.

Now, we have all the rods and arms. Few things here:

1. Do those things change the handling and performance? I think they should to some extent. If they changed the FFB so profoundly surely something else should change. I don't feel any change.
If they don't then we don't have ANY means to tell they are right or wrong.
If they do they are clearly bugged.
Third option is that something else is bugged and those chassis definitions (clearly I don't have the one for S397) are very similar but some small thing having profound effect on FFB is different there. Hence again, my question: what makes the FFB so different without changing the car physics?

2. When talking about cornering "weight" of the car felt through FFB (speaking purely about FFB here) all of you were saying that caster is the main responsible. I do understand caster, I understand how it makes the steering heavier in corner. What I don't understand is that for few cars (e.g. the S397 Caterham, S397 Radicals, S397 Merc GT3) the cornering strength in slow corners (take Brands Hatch Druids) the more your turn the wheel it gets heavier up to some point and than it goes incredibly light. Which isn't completely what I would expect. The Mikee chassis doesn't behave this way, the other GT3 cars don't behave this way (apart from Audis a little). For me that would mean that some chassis definitions are not correct.

Lazza said:
You can certainly change the ratio of cornering forces vs bumps by changing the suspension geometry.
Click to expand...

Without changing the behaviour of the car and its performance?
 
Havner said:
What I don't understand is that for few cars (e.g. the S397 Caterham, S397 Radicals, S397 Merc GT3) the cornering strength in slow corners (take Brands Hatch Druids) the more your turn the wheel it gets heavier up to some point and than it goes incredibly light.
Click to expand...
Do you understand variable steering ratio racks? Do you know about Ackerman steering? Have you driven say, a Triumph Spitfire, where if you take the steering lock to its fullest the tires will begin to go sideways instead of rolling nicely? Do you know how caster can change due to suspension position?

Basically, there are a lot of ways to achieve the effect you think is strange.
 
Havner said:
Without changing the behaviour of the car and its performance?
Click to expand...

Without changing the cornering balance of the car enough to be noticeable? Yes.

I think you're looking for absolutes in something that has a lot of nuance.

PS I never mentioned Caster, though it obviously has some bearing (haha... mechanical pun there), but it's not the be-all and end-all.
 
Lazza said:
The chassis file defines, yes, the mass and location of the main components (sub-bodies, wheels, etc), but also the position and length of all suspension components. Meaning the rods/arms that connect the wheels to the body, and the steering arms that allow you to turn the wheels.

The way those members all connect and are aligned to each other determines the forces that get transmitted to your wheel, just like real life*. Scrub radius, camber gain, toe gain, ackermann %, bump steer, etc, are all defined by that file. It has massive implications for the vehicle physics and FFB.
Click to expand...

This is not the case and can't be the case in rf2. The fact that we have a json to tinker with rumble effects and jolts etc put that out. As for the cornering loads, there is such a difference from one car to the next that it cannot be physics driven. I sincerely hope not, else the physics engine is very, very suspect. Drive any other sim and the steering feel is consistent across the board which would indicate physics driven alone. I know ACC run this as well as AC. AMS2 also, but you can amplify road affects only. The actual ffb and physics feel similar across the board. Not the case in rf2. It's time this was called out. It is shockingly poor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top