Formula Two Discussion

Discussion in 'ISI cars and tracks' started by HumanZob, May 20, 2013.

  1. Spinelli

    Spinelli Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    32
    Just giving a quick update since i told you, Paul, that I would try your setup and FFB settings. I haven't had time yet, but hopefully in the next day or two.

    P.S. Happy bday speed. Try not to let these forums get to you, I'm sure if we were all discussing this over a coffee or beer it'd be totally different.
     
  2. speed1

    speed1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it is a missunderstanding going on Paul, because as i said already i'm talking about the standard setup in the first place and in the same time trying to understand what is going on and how it may could be improved for the end user, so that he can feel at home with his hardware and get the best possible experience out of it, no matter how cheap it is, and i think the way we try to compensate it with adjusting the steering torque sensitivity in the controler file isn't the best choice in my opinion, because that, and as i understood this controler technics, manipulates the torque charecteristic of the controler. Therefore i'm saying that it may would helpful to have beside the steering torque sensitivity a feature which allows to balance the steering torque increasing rate at the steering column directly, before any signal is transmitted to the terminal device aka the controler/hardware. I'm thinking about this that way because i think the controler torque charecteristic should be the last way to fine tune it, but not the only one choice.

    If it would be possible to balance the steering torque increasing rate before to adjust anything on the steering torque sensitivity of the controler, we wouldn't manipulate the torque charecteristic of the e-motor/device, and if i don't missunderstood how all this works, it should mean, it would be better to balance the steering torque increasing rate at the steering column first.

    Otherwise i'm agreeing with you and with almost all what you say, you know that, as we did not talked the first time about this stuff, and i also mentioned more often in different threads that the resistance features in the controler file, such as the steering resistance and zero speed multi are static forces, what as it seems you either didn't read or wan't believe me, until Techade or anybody else descriped it to you again. At least we are on the same way and sharing almost everything with our opinion, but i think you missunderstood simply what i was trying to explain.

    Cheers !

    edit: .....sorry and thank you for the greatings, of course. Thx to Spinelli as well.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2014
  3. Guimengo

    Guimengo Guest

    @ Paul:

    Instead of doing the speed multiplier in fractions you should simply reduce the minimum steering value to remove oscillation. Should be better. You construct your arguments well but you mix personal impression and judgment into fact.
     
  4. Marc Collins

    Marc Collins Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,159
    Likes Received:
    162
    I'll chime back in after being out of the conversation for a long while. I agree with this conclusion about lack of resources. It explains why the F2 feels completely different (and vastly worse) than every other ISI car on the Fanatec. They didn't screw it up on purpose, but somehow the (lack of) testing process and new approach they were using conspired to result in FFB that has serious issues for many people with various combinations of equipment. Despite this, some can fiddle for hours and eventually get it to something acceptable or good, but this is an anomaly. When 5 or 6 ISI cars in a row have stunningly accurate and awesome FFB better than any consumer sim has ever had at 100% default settings, when one comes along that is completely bonked, I have to conclude that it's the programming, not the lack of fiddling with settings that is causing the problem. rF2 is not designed to support multiple FFB profiles--only a strength slider. For me at least, adjusting the strength slider only makes the problem worse. Funny when for other cars the strength slider behaves exactly as one would expect it to.

    I will wait for the update to the F2 at which point unless ISI is completely oblivious, they will apply their latest knowledge and/or check all the code for mistakes and we'll all be happy. It sucks to have to wait, especially because with ISI it is an indeterminate amount of time, but there is no user-based fix for the problems some of us are having.
     
  5. Guimengo

    Guimengo Guest

    The whole wheel thing is just one of the reasons why there are testers, and a bunch of them. Now if they're actually doing a proper job is a whole different topic... it is not uncommon for a bunch of people to be mostly useless and enjoy the early content and lifetime sub while only a small few contribute properly.
     
  6. stonec

    stonec Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    I doubt there will be further updates to F2 because the series died. The way FFB in rF2 works is that it models directly the forces on steering arm, the FFB code is apparently very simple. Anyway, I believe the biggest reason why F2 feels so different is that it uses very low caster (around 2 if I remember correct). Almost all other race cars have something in range of at least 5. Less caster = less self-centering effect of tires. Somehow low caster doesn't combine very well with rF2 FFB, it basically means you will get zero self-centering force on low speed turns.
     
  7. Marc Collins

    Marc Collins Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,159
    Likes Received:
    162
    I think ISI tends to update all cars and assets regardless of whether they are part of an active series. It's just that we have no idea when they will do it! Remember also ISI promised to update the F2 to deal with the missing boost feature/function. And they may want to make the car a bit less indestructible, too, though the NSX can give it a run for the money in that department.

    There is low caster to make a race car without power steering easier to steer and more pointy, the way most race drivers like. And then there is FFB that feels like the car is completely detached from the steering rack for left and right g-forces and steering resistance, but magically still gives full and vibrant feedback through the wheel for every pebble and undulation you drive over. I'm presuming it only affects Fanatec, because others are confirming they feel what you would assume is appropriate for a low caster set-up (less self-centring, but still very connected to the road and weight that makes you believe you are in a car, with big rubber tires, not a hovercraft). Since only the one element of the FFB is screwed-up on Fanatec, I'm assuming it's a lack of testing oversight, not that someone actually thought it should feel this way. Just like the months of agony the Logi G owners had early-on with the too-strong rattling forces that felt absolutely delightful on the Fanatec (both at default settings).

    When 90% of the ISI cars feel absolutely sublime in terms of FFB out of the box, I am reluctant to start mucking around with settings because one car feels awful.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2014
  8. Marc Collins

    Marc Collins Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,159
    Likes Received:
    162
    I'm willing to experiment some more, but I already adjusted the steering resistance a few weeks ago and that did very little (so I put it back). Suggest precisely what I should change from my otherwise completely default settings and I will report back. It may be useful overall or at least for Fanatec users.

    FYI, the steering weight and feel on other cars ranges from quite stiff, but realistic, in the Clio, to too light, but not ridiculous like the F2, in the 370Z. The difference with the other cars is that you can use the multiplier to adjust up or down and the road feel versus the steering weight remains in balance with each other. As mentioned, the F2 has strong road surface feedback, but close to zero steering weight. Any increase to the standard multiplier and the tires start to feel like solid rubber or wood!
     
  9. Marc Collins

    Marc Collins Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,159
    Likes Received:
    162
    OK, default is already 0.45. What sort of range should I try and what SHOULD happen if I lower or raise it?
     
  10. Marc Collins

    Marc Collins Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,159
    Likes Received:
    162
    Was just wondering what was the operating range--from 0.45 to 0.50 or 0.0 to 1.0 or ??? There is no range in the description and you said bump it up to 0.5...which it is already nearly at.

    How do I remove static effects like spring or damper? I certainly never use centring spring or any other fakery. Just pure FFB. Wouldn't have paid big $$ for a Fanatec otherwise :) But are there some settings related to this I should pay attention to?
     
  11. Marc Collins

    Marc Collins Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,159
    Likes Received:
    162
    Ah, thanks for reminding me about the torque filter. Had set that to 0 eons ago, but forgot about it when I reset all to default on the weekend.

    The steering resistance coefficient and steering resistance saturation is what I already tried playing with as per suggestions way above. Had minimal effect. But I wasn't setting both to 0. I like the idea of zeroing-out as much as possible as that fits my usual philosophy of not filtering things that don't need filtering!

    I'll report back on all this later after testing. Thanks for the detailed suggestions.
     
  12. Marc Collins

    Marc Collins Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,159
    Likes Received:
    162
    OK, pretty boring report.

    "Steering resistance coefficient", "Steering resistance saturation", "Steering spring coefficient", "Steering spring saturation". All of those should be set to 0. They were already at 0 or 0.1, so not a big surprise that setting them to 0 did nothing noteworthy.

    You may also want to test the "Steering torque filter" by turning it down to 0 and see if the wheel can handle that, if it can then it would probably give you more detail at 0 than the default value of 4. Turns out the ISI guys know what they are doing. 4 feels better than 0. But very little difference.

    ...increase the steering torque zero-speed multi to a higher value. Maybe closer to 0.5 like i have it. As mentioned, mine was at 0.45 default. Raised it to 0.5 - no effect. Raised it to 0.95 and a slightly increased natural (physics-based) centring effect could be felt. Raised it to 4.95 - felt about the same as 0.95 so 1.0 may be the maximum. Unfortunately, the levels above default introduced a significant harshness into the road surface feedback, so I had extreme rattling and shaking wheel and desk when driving over sawtooth curbs. Default feels better.

    So I await the update.

    I forgot to mention that the vaunted iRacing has the same, well-documented issues with FFB. Certain cars are just amazing and so natural feeling, but others are complete crap and have been for months or years. Not a crank's opinion, either--you can just read the forums to find out significant agreement on which cars are the good versus bad ones, independent of hardware.
     
  13. speed1

    speed1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    It could be an torque increasing rate in positive and negative direction such as a vehicle/controler related slider. The max torque can be controlled via the multi. The torque sensitivity could be used for surface contact sensibility.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2014
  14. Marc Collins

    Marc Collins Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,159
    Likes Received:
    162
    It's a simple programming adjustment from the olden days of RealFeel. It just requires a change in the balance between tire force feedback and steering rack feedback. Right now it's tipped way too far toward steering rack for my liking (and/or my wheel's capabilities).

    R3E has a wonderful feature of a slider that you can go from 0 to 100 on this axis and so easily feel the differences that one extreme to to the other causes and the pleasure of finding the right balance that leads to a natural, realistic sensation/immersion.

    Perhaps we could have a car-by-car slider to go with the basic multiplier? It may be necessary given how difficult it seems to get something that feels right on all three major wheel manufacturers at the same time.
     
  15. TechAde

    TechAde Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    38
    'Fraid not, there's nothing in the code to balance between tyre feedback and steering rack feedback, the tyre feedback gets to you through the steering rack, they're not two different things.
     
  16. Marc Collins

    Marc Collins Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,159
    Likes Received:
    162
    So how did the RealFeel balance setting and the current R3E slider operate? I have no issue if they are using creative labelling claiming to do this and are not, but what are they really adjusting? It's certainly instantly recognizable via the feeling in the wheel.
     
  17. TechAde

    TechAde Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    38
    R3E not a clue sorry.

    The RealFeel mixer was between RealFeel and the original ISI FFB.

    You might be thinking of a mix of LeoFFB & RealFeel?

    Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
     
  18. Spinelli

    Spinelli Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    32
    Because R3E is based on a pre-rF2 ISI engine (like Race 07 is, GTR 2, GT Legends, etc) which means it works like in rF1. It's not just a purely steeeing rack forces FFB, it's tunable FFB from physics as well.

    For eg. (Editing numbers in the controller file)

    - this number represents what rate the FFB will decrease once into the slip angle
    - this number represents how early/late into the slip-angle you need to be before the above setting takes place
    - this number represents how much front tyre grip affects FFB
    - this number represents how much FFB force is based on grip VS steering force
    - this number represents how much FFB force is based on front tyre grip VS rear tyre grip
    - Etc. etc. etc.

    Programmed to work with physics output of the car and can be disastrous if not set up well, and bloody amazing if setup well (in terms of pure laptime info FFB, but the rF2 system is more raw and natural in terms of pure steering forces).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2014
  19. Marc Collins

    Marc Collins Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,159
    Likes Received:
    162
    Sorry, yes, it's been a while! I was hoping to never have to touch or think about settings like that again. And it was true in rF2 until the F2 came along. Only car that doesn't feel great. Unfortunately, it feels like a vehicle without mass or downforce, but that can still pick-up every bump and small undulation on the road surface. An other-worldy feel.
     
  20. hexagramme

    hexagramme Registered

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,245
    Likes Received:
    194
    I really don't understand why so many people are bent on the idea that this car isn't supposed to feel like that.
     

Share This Page