It actually makes more sense to lower the steering torque sensitivity instead of increasing it based on your representation of what the steering torque sensitivity does in that graph. If you increase it, then you simply oversaturate everything except the low end, and then the natural thing for someone to do is to lower the FFB multi, which just makes the low end forces even weaker since you have everything else after the low end using up nearly the full strength of the motor. If you lower it, then the peak torque comes much later, meaning you can increase the FFB multi which will allow you to feel the low end forces.
Before i go further, if reading just this then I don't agree and here's why. I'm not saying one should raise the STS value so high that it over oversaturates the high end forces like shown in my mock up representation of the extreme ends of STS values could do. But let's say someone did use a high enough STS that produce a way over saturated ffb response curve with a severely plateauing high end (which is effectively the same as inducing high end ffb clipping) but they also found the strength of the low end forces was an improvement to them (where they could not feel anything before, then also lowering the ingame ffb multi to avoid the clipped high end forces caused by the high STS value, in my mind this can be a solution to weak/non-existent low end forces.
The problem with doing the reverse and using a low STS value is that it reduces the strength of the low end forces sent to the ffb wheel and this will also increases the intial ffb deadzone of you wheel (and dramatically so if we took an example of a 10% initial ffb deadzone for some arbitrary ffb wheel with a linear ffb response curve, STS = 1 used, vs a lower STS value that hypothetical produced the green response curve in my graph the initial ffb deadzone would become 53%...ofc you could remove this with STM as so it won't be an issue). And you are right in saying that you would then need to increase the ingame ffb multi to increase the strength of the low end forces (as well if you didn't use the STM option to remove the much enlarged initial ffb zone by using a lower STS value) but doing so then induces early onset ffb clipping which is a big problem in of itself ofc. Even if this did cure a problem for you in the low end forces (as you describe later on in great detail), raising the ffb multi above the optimal value seems to produce another problem in it's place.
That said, the graph you show, and what i explained above, isn't a very good representation of what the steering torque sensitivity actually does in a practical way, since this isn't just about torque, it's also position and speed that needs to be accounted for, torque doesn't really represent anything in the real world unless it somehow relates to physical action and your graph doesn't represent any sort of physical action, it just shows torque vs torque. It doesn't make sense to represent the torque as a curve regardless of what value you use either, since it doesn't behave like the pedals where the position of your pedals can be different from the actual throttle position. The steering wheel always matches the steering position in the game, so the linearity of the torque doesn't help represent what actually is happening in a practical sense, which is why i have always said that the concept of linearity doesn't apply to this, there are too many variables controlled by the STS to use the concept of linearity. When you lower the steering torque, there is no delay of the torque in a non-linear way across the entire range of torque as is represented by your graph.
Ok, the bit in bold is not what the graph represents. The graph is simply a pictorial representation of how the percentage of max ffb torque calculated at the virtual steering wheel by rf2's physics engine is correlated with the percentage of max ffb torque output by your wheel. That is all. So for the same percentage of max ffb torque calculated at the virtual steering wheel, lowering the STS will reduce it's corresponding percentage torque output at your ffb wheel.
What actually happens is that when you lower it you would essentially extend the range, let's say for example you have the STS at 0.5; in order for the steering wheel to turn 100° in 1 second, 200° in 2 seconds, and 400° in 4 seconds, etc., you would require 20nm of torque from the physics to turn the steering wheel 100° in 1 second, 200° in 2 seconds, and 400° in 4 seconds, double the torque and you effectively double the speed with it; if you increase the STS value back to 1, what actually changes is how much time is required for a particular amount of torque to turn the steering wheel to a particular rotational position, what doesn't change is the correlation between the physics' torque and the steering wheels' rotational position, so it never behaves in a non-linear fashion in a practical sense.
Ok i think we're actually in agreement here but i think you may have mistaken my graph to be a representation of the physics torque vs
virtual steering wheel torque. I understand and agree that the physics torque and virtual steering torque and one and also linear (because they are in fact the exact same thing ofc), my graph is a representation of physics/virtual-steering wheel torque to ffb steering wheel torque.
For example, with a higher STS value of 1, it would take 40nm of torque (more torque than before) from the front wheels from the physics in order to turn the steering wheel 100° in 1 second, 200° in 2 seconds, 400° in 4 seconds, but again if you double the torque you still double the speed with it, this correlation is always linear regardless of the STS value.
I agree.
This is why, in a practical sense, an STS value of 1 with the T500 makes the steering feel very springy, with an unnatural amount of self centering behavior, because an unrealistic amount of torque from the front wheels is required for the steering to start turning into a slide, almost like the car has an enormous amount of caster, the only difference being that the behavior of the car doesn't match that of a car with that much caster, even when the wheel will feel like it. The balance between the steering turning into a slide and returning back to center is completely out of balance, which is why a STS value of 1 is simply inaccurate with the T500.
And this is where i'm a little stumped on because i feel like i understand what you saying and describing (though i've not had any real-life experience to use a reference to know if the feeling is supposed to be correct or not) but i don't understand how it can be the ffb wheels fault. This issue of equilibrium between the moment force from car rotation and the opposing self-centring moment force from the front wheel caster is purely confined within the rf2 physics engine and is therefore a closed/isolated system. And if you are finding that the self-centring moment is greater than the car rotation moment should be based on your real-life experience, i can't see it being the ffb wheels fault. In fact it sounds like what you've done to try to alleviate this problem you see with the car behaviour in these types of cornering situations (presumable only happens in the low end force regions of cornering?) is by numbing them out completely (hence lowering the STS). I can see how numbing them out would then produce the illusion of the equilibrium between these two forces in those situations but if i've understood everything correctly it doesn't change the fact your problem is actually with rf2's physics behaviour in those situations.
Think of this as almost a direct mechanical connection, like a normal gear pair, or a ratio, or anything like that. If you have a gear ratio of 60:1, then one of those gears will turn once for every 60 turns that the other gear makes, and so, if the larger gear turns half way, then the smaller gear will turn 30 times, regardless of how much power you use to turn them. You could use a million nm of torque to turn these two gears, or 1nm, and you will always turn the larger gear 1 time for every 60 times that the smaller gear turns, what would change is how long it takes for the gears to turn. With a million nm, they would probably turn very quickly, and with 1nm they would turn much more slowly, the exact time depends on how much friction and mass must be overcome in the gear train (FFB wheel). With the FFB, you have two "gear trains", one for when the wheel is turning into a slide, and another for when the wheel is returning to center, these two gear trains need to match each other in order to have the front wheels follow the path of least resistance and therefore get a realistic feeling from the steering wheel.
I understand what you're saying but doesn't seem right that the ffb wheel should be in the loop of what your describing which should be isolated to the physics engine.
In order to get a realistic feedback from the wheel, you have to make the STS value match the path of least resistance based on the behaviour of the cars, so that as the car rotates around it's center of gravity, the front wheels will always try to follow the path of least resistance, which generally turns out to be the direction of travel, and this is even independent of the caster setting, since the tires will naturally want to roll in whatever direction that the car is traveling at. In every real car i've driven at high speeds, when you get into a slide, you don't fight the wheel in either direction to control the car, you let the wheel turn into the slide until the car is balanced in the slide while at the same time using the throttle to try and coax the front tires back into the forwards facing direction of travel, and once enough momentum is gained by the drive wheels you will feel the steering start to return to the center position to turn the sideways motion of travel into the forward facing direction of travel. This is why it's often described as the wheel "going light", it's not actually going light, it's just that the torque from the direction of travel is overcoming the self centering effect of the caster on the steering arms, it's really just a transitional phase, where if you hold the wheel perfectly still at this point while still allowing the car to continue to rotate in a slide, the wheel will not remain light, it'll pull in the direction of the slide. This should be a smooth transition, and not abrupt like the default FFB settings in rF2 often creates, where the steering wheel will somehow return to center on it's own even when you haven't achieved any more momentum from the acceleration of the drive wheels. This is why in a real car, the steering torque helps the driver control slides, and why a driver who is considered to "turn with the rear" is a driver who slides the car around, you need that acceleration from the drive wheels to make the steering want to return to the center position, it shouldn't do it on it's own like the default FFB settings, there is always a direct connection between what you're doing with the throttle and what the steering wheel does. In rF2 with the STS, it probably all depends on how much friction must be overcome in the FFB wheel combined with whatever the physics is trying to do. What i've found for the T500 to be close to the path of least resistance is a STS value of 0.276. With a higher value, it takes far too much torque from the physics in order to turn the steering wheel a certain amount, and a lower value takes far too little torque from the physics to turn the steering wheel a certain amount, or vice versa depending on what part of the slide you're in. I don't know of an exact way to determine an accurate STS value, i just know where it roughly should be based on my understanding of driving, since there's a point where both actions of the wheel turning into the slide and returning to center balances out based on how the car is behaving and neither overpowers the other, this is what i consider to be an accurate point, or the direction of travel, or path of least resistance, and is what helps me know what direction the car is traveling at all times through the steering.
Those are some very interesting observations and fantastic food for thought. Again i think i've experienced what you describe based on memory but i also think i've remembered plenty of times where the wheel does go completely light when i've attacked the corner well and the forces are in equilibrium but i can't be 100% certain. Which makes me wonder if there is possible another variable that is causing your observed problems, possibly other ffb variables/settings that you've changed and used differently to me?
All that said, the STS isn't the only important part of the FFB settings, but is probably the most complicated. My full FFB settings are in my signature if you'd like to try it. I know you mentioned you were going to try the settings i posted quite some time ago, i'm not sure if you had a chance, but either way, the settings i have now are much better than before, so it's worth giving them a try again.
I'll try to test your settings but may likely not be able to since i've moved homes temporarily and don't have the space to setup properly. Then i'm moving to Hong Kong in Jan/Feb for 6-12 months. But i'll try to just no promises.
Also, i hope you don't take everything i'm saying as some sort of attack to you personally, i just want to share what i've discovered about the FFB and how i've made it feel very realistic for myself.
Not at all, didn't remotely sound like an attack at all. And i welcome hearing any view opposite to my own...freedom to inquire, question and be questioned are required to get to the truth of things, doesn't mean i always agree with an opposing view but every now and again after hearing them i realise that i was wrong in my thinking. But you can't be afraid to make mistakes and it's only really a mistake if you don't correct it.
Your post definitely took me time to digest and provided me with many instances of cognitive dissonance.
I'm not 100% sure i'm right and i could be completely wrong and the ffb wheel is the cause of the problem and if so it could be linked with the very thing Leo Bodhnar is describing in
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17548791/FFBdontwork.pdf.
Or perhaps our mainstream ffb wheels are just too slow in transient response times (which is certainly the case due to the use of small weak ffb motors that need very large gear/transmission ratios to increase torque output at the severe cost of transcient response time which induces lag). And if it is a lack of a PID controller problem as descirbed by Leo causing/contributing said problem, then only a better more powerful ffb wheel will help but only up to a point.
