Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Steven Luppino, May 13, 2017.
AC FFB is like gambling, flat and lifeless ...
That is exactly what I found when I tried turning everything up for FFB in AC. Just a bunch of noise. I couldn't undo it and uninstalled AC for now. Will try it in a month or so.
To be perfectly honest, I have never noticed/acknowledged it but next time I'm playing AC I will keep a conscious mind for this effect on FFB.
It's a debate how sims generate their FFB, simple as that and if it fits in the grand scheme and makes sense. When you go over a crest or drive down a drop the car get's light and not heavier. Pictures this as going over Flugplatz or Raidillon in a car at speed. In rF2 you are not supposed to feel the weight of the car itself, but how weight transferes on the tires, suspension and the steering rack and the FFB is basicly your butt feel. If you keep this in mind, the FFB makes perfect sense. The moment you touch the ground on the other hand the FFB get's heavier, as it should.
rF2 forcefeedback is by far superior to anything else , but AC FFB is quite good on high end steering wheels once they are setup correctly.
Is not neccesary at all to add canned effects , is just different.
Quite off on some kunos cars, feels better on some others.
And modded content can be the key for good FFB, i was lucky i could test the DRM beta, and physics are so good that they transform the FFB on something very close to what we feel in rF2.
I had my triples out and I forgot how to get into triple screen setup. Which keys are they?
Is there a thread that shows all the settings?
CTRL+= (i think, from memory )
Yes! I think that is it? Many thanks!
I just thought RF2 is like sailing a boat when it looks over the nose hitting bumps it doesn't send the smallest shock on the steering wheel. When in Assetto Corsa It does.
You could probably pick the multy polyed road mesh of RF2 as the culprit and if you wanted fixed it by adding noise to the road mesh.
It's amazing really when you think how it is missing in FFB of most of the sims, it didn't take me long after playing these things to pick it (except in AC). I was curious to find out what or how it's not been given priority. What if you drove a rally car. Yes the steering would lose its weight in the air but it should feel the intense load when the car landed on the ground. Without it it feels fake or a waste of time driving the thing.
Ok could some with the knowledge clue me in,I know iracing produce their ffb from the steering column,so I just read rf2 ffb come from the tyres,where does ac get their ffb from.
Also when ever I bring up in iracing that I prefer the ffb in rf2,all I get is in reply is,rf2 ffb is canned effects,is this true,could someone clarify this,I mean if there are no canned effects then I want to be able to put those people right when they say that.
When they say rF2's FFB come from the tires they mean that tire loads acting in the steering linkage which are being used to calculate the reaction at the steering column.
However, the important part is not this itself. This should be quite straight forward considering the steering geometry is quite simple. Leo FFB plugin already did this for rF1.
The key factor here is tire loads and pneumatic trail. For car dynamics the small offset does not imply a great variation. But for FFB calculation it plays a significant role considering the small distance to the spindle around which tire loads produce the self aligning torque.
rF2 has a completely different tire model compared to AC and iracing. In rF2, tire deformation and contact patch are previously calculated based on FEM model results. This includes the calculation of the pneumatic trail.
In iracing and AC Pacejka formula is used. Quoting from wikipedia:
The Pacejka tire models are widely used in professional vehicle dynamics simulations, and racing car games, as they are reasonably accurate, easy to program, and solve quickly. A problem with Pacejka's model is that when implemented into computer code, it doesn't work for low speeds (from around the pit-entry speed), because a velocity term in the denominator makes the formula diverge.An alternative to Pacejka tire models are brush tire models, which can be analytically derived, although empirical curve fitting is still required for good correlation, and they tend to be less accurate than the MF models.
So in principle rF2 should provide better results if good data are provided and the effort of correctly parametrizing the tire has been done.
Empirical formulas like Pacejka fully depend on having real results to correlate with. All the parameters are unknown since they not based on any tire characteristic but on its results.
FEM models also have their uncertainties but many of them are measurable. The effect of tire dimensions, tire pressure, tire load... can be correctly addressed. Its only a few parameters which need to be adjusted based on empirical correlation.
Wow that was great reading,forgive my ignorance,I didn't know iracings tm was based on the mf type,I've been told there's no other like it,all I knew for sure was that rf2 use lookup tables,where iracings does the calculations itself.
I love reading a learning about this stuff,it's both amazing and fascinating,so regarding people saying rf2 has canned effects,is this true,and could you explain why or why not,sorry to be a pain,but I enjoy learning about this stuff
Maybe there is no feeling of what OP says (havent thought about it), but there is a lot of things simulated that imo is awesome in rF2. Take a historic Formula One and go down a slightly bumpy straight at high speed in rF2 (Belgium 66 for example), and you have to hold on to the wheel like your life depends on it while in AC if you take a similar car, Lotus 49, and go down a similar straight it is much calmer and you can even do it with one hand. Accelerating the similar classic formula in rF2 you feel the twist of the car as the torque comes on and you have to let up throttle a bit and counter steer to go straight (scary stuff). Lots of work to keep the beast straight. Lotus 49 in AC going full throttle from stand still and its a calm acceleration since the car isnt twisting and trying to kill you. Thats pretty damn cool in rF2 and it has you putting in a lot of work to drive these old school beasts.
Curbs that arent low flat ones in rF2 can actually be dangerous and you have to adapt your driving style to nail the apex while in AC it doesnt matter as much if you go over similar kerbs. You might lose a bit of time but you dont fear for your "life" like in rF2 because it can send you into the nearest wall if you arent careful. It will upset the cars balance and/or push on the wheels and force a quick small direction change which can send you packing if you arent aware.
Braking in rF2 is also better simulated imo for example during corner taking, if you come too fast and have to apply brakes while turning you can/will upset the car (depending on car a little bit) and you lose control over the car while in AC you can go fast, during cornering brake hard (last second hard brakes), go over the kerbs - pass the apex and start feeding throttle a little bit (this is the area where its dangerous and you can upset traction in AC - as it should be) until you are safe and then go full throttle again. So basically the only place where its really dangerous in AC it is during corner exit when going on throttle again. In rF2 you have to modulate throttle and brakes much more during your corner taking. More work on the pedals rather than - full throttle - full brakes - take corner - easy on the throttle corner exit - and full again. rF2 you really gotta learn the brake points to take a corner well. Not just for the time, but to not upset the balance of the car and lose traction during braking and nastier curbs. Not as much work and care needed as in rF2 so its easier to drive hard on the limit in AC. less shaky, twisty, bumpy and scary. Fast old cars for example are scary in rF2 and demand your respect at the limit where in AC it is a calmer experience.
Same with drifting where in rF2 you can really use brakes (tap) to get more rotation during steering and lose traction in the rear and start to drift. This works on and off in AC from my experience. You got flicks, handbrake and throttle to work with to send the car into a drift in AC while in rF2 you have all of them plus brakes. Braking to achieve drifting is a well known real life technique and it works great in rF2. As a result you feel you have more control over the cars for good and for worse. Overdo it and you are punished quickly in rF2. AC is less punishing in that regard as it lets you get away with harder driving.
I have over 2000 hours in AC and i think Kunos did a fantastic job with it. I have not been able to drive much of anything for a while now (just tests here and there) as i am sick and going through doctors almost every week so some things could have improved since i tested AC a couple weeks ago (quickie). But AC is a great product overall and they managed to get the sim and all those licenses and laser scanned tracks which i think is super, and they were just a handful of guys making all that happen so much respect to them. I hope there will be Assetto Corsa 2 where Aris (and co.) can go a bit deeper with his physics wizardry.
I think the answer is no and yes. Yes, because rF2 doesn't laser scan their tracks. Guys in AC say (fake road mesh). And no because rF2 has more physics details as in frame flex and tire bolge.
Over all rF2 feels the most correct but I think every setup behaves a little different as with Steven Luppino. For me with my system using AC's Nordschleife track I can feel many many more times the road FFB physics detail as you can see in these two videos.
I am pushing these two cars as hard as I can to demonstrate the reaction to the FFB. Also AC's ridiculous on off brakes. Probably because my system has no weight transfer in AC for some reason. Still working on it.
If I had to guess, it's missing in rF2 because it's a fake effect. When you think about it, the wheel FFB can only give signals to the left or to the right. When you hit a bump at a straight angle, it doesn't necessarily move your wheel to left nor right, and in rF2 the entire FFB comes from the physics engine. So if the wheel isn't moved by the bump, the only way to represent this feeling would be with a fake vibration/jolt effect. I know that from other sims at least Assetto Corsa uses a number of canned FFB effects, they have spoken openly about it.
First, for those not too well learned with .TGM files, these few paramaters basically can directly affect or alter FFB feel?
Second, if one is true, then does it still work in dx11 beta?
2000 hours in AC! I only have 1500.
I couldn't agree more. rF2 does a great job with back end FFB information.
I had downloaded a ripped historic Spa for AC and all I can say is it is a long boring drive in the 49 compared to rF2 in the Spark. I know they are different cars in AC's defense, but still!
Having said that I rate AC in the top 5 sims and will support Kunos with anything they put on the market for the love of sim racing. I think they're on the right track!
This is a good clean hobby and I would be lost without you guys and these great driving simulars!
PS. Not sure what your illness is but here in North America stem cell treatment is really taking off. It basically regrows whatever is failing. No open surgery and months of recovery and its not that expensive from what I heard.
My best wishes to you my good friend!!
For sure all models have errors. Even rF2 tire model. For example you cannot simulate all possible situations in the tgm file.
Also, as I have already stated in some older post in this thread I don't know how linear the simulation tool is. For extreme loads the geometry of the tire changes a lot and in terms of simulation it would require a mesh redefinition in order to properly yield accurate results.
Those familiar with TGM file building tool may know if this is being done. I am no car modder so I haven't used it. I may take a look some day just for curiosity.
Less than a month ago I was lucky enough to finally drive a real race car for five laps, the Mitjet 2L. I was shocked by the different feeling I had on the wheel compared to rF2. Bear in mind that I own a humble G27, so my home experience could be far from what's intended, but rF2 FFB is mega light compared to the real thing. The real car was more physical to drive, but at the same time you couldn't really separate the different forces you felt on the wheel, so it was like feeling nothing, except for the engine vibrations and the heaviness. Of course, with some track time you can learn to feel them.
For what I can tell, it was a mix between AMS and R3E, but even heavier (not that it was impossible to turn, you can very well, but there's an unexpected resistance that took me off guard). Assetto Corsa is way off. I read that iRacing's FFB doesn't shine at all with the G27, so that's why I can't even consider it.
It was shocking, because rF2 seems so detailed, but at least with the G27 it lacks the heaviness I had on the Mitjet.
sort of the same impression when I drove the car in my avatar. Rf2 feels well too light compared to real life. But I haven't got a DD wheel and lets face it that's what rf2 is desiged for. But on my wheel as much as theres is awesome detail in the ffb, you can feel every tire. its just not the right weight on my t300 compared to real life. Especially at low speed corners when irl you need the most strength to turn the wheels in rf2 its as if on ice.. Imo other sims get the weight better (rre AC even pcars)
People are going to disagree and to be honest , this is my experience and I know what I felt. Take it or leave it...
Separate names with a comma.