How can you say it doesn't transfer to the FFB when the FFB trace and the steering shaft torque trace are almost identical? The data is right there in front of you, it's clear as day. The FFB curve is a bit smoother than the steering shaft torque, but that's purely down to running the default smoothing level during the test (level 9).
Paul: In order to feel slip angle, one has to define the slip angle. In this case, as TechAde shown, the slip angle may write as: atan2($LF_LateralGroundVel, -$LF_LongitudinalGroundVel)) But, the correlation between FFB and LF_LongitudinalGroundVel -0.02 (2%), so one just can NOT feel how much is LF_LongitudinalGroundVel. Hence, one cannot feel how much the angle is! Yes, you feel slip, this is because strong correlation between FFB and LF_LateralGroundVel. One cannot tell how much slip angle (5, 8 or 12 degree, etc) is from sole FFB. Hope this is helpful to all.
I think you're stuck in that silly telemetry output values you extracted a week ago, and now you think that everything must relate to it, while probably this is not the case. Actual telemetry like what TechAde posted is much more helpful and telling of what is going on under the hood.
I think the problem is the tire patch, no matter what the data shows, it isn't feelable in the ffb, because the bracing of the profile particles on the tire tread not convey the feeling of rubber tenseness, therefore there is no slip angle to feel in rf2 ffb. It's just a friction surface which seems to let you feel equal in all directions. The main resistors and their difference we feel on the steering wheel are the only elements. These are as example lateral acceleration, alignment and carcasse forces, and due to the geometry a bit defferent with each car and tire. The most street tires don't let you feel the slip angle as well, due to the tread, rubber, softness and realtiv large slip angle area.
Look at the data, the FFB output drops from 60% at 2-3% slip angle to 15% at 10°(LF)/13°(RF) (difference presumably due to Ackerman). If you can't feel that then something is seriously wrong with your FFB configuration.
I really can't feel it and i don't know why the data shows that result, but i don't feel something like rubber tenseness from the tire patch.
Have you tried with the Skippy? It's obviously very car dependant. By the way I'm talking purely about slip angle here, I quoted a little to much of your post to make that clear. The tools are out there (i.e. my telemetry plugin and an app that can graph the data from csv files, Excel will do if you don't have ATLAS) for anybody to try this for themselves and attempt to correlate what they're feeling at the wheel with the data that the sim is outputting.
very interesting ffb data. Thanks for posting, I think I just learned how to read some of this stuff.
Of course it is car and tire dependet how the overall feeling is, and also the setup makes a big difference, and i know that i once hit the hotspot with the Mazda 787, where i could feel the carcasse working, due to the grip and slip angle, and it was incredible. I liked the power the tires generated and how fast the T500Rs was with that car and ffb setup, and i also could feel something like a slip angle, but to be honest i really don't know if i should feel a slip angel as some explain it should be on the steering wheel, because i never experienced something like the old rf ffb style in a real car, i also forgot how slicks felt, since it is a long time ago that i droved some for test purposes. I think we should feel rubber tenseness and carcasse forces, but i'm not sure about the exact slip angle, that seems a bit unrealistic to me to feel the exact postion, in other words the offset from the longitidunal direction in degrees, in the steering wheel. edit: ah and it is a long time ago as i've tested the skippy last, maybe i give it another go.
Just so you know, and I'm not trying to offend you here, only help you with the English language. Saying "homie" is extremely lame.
Look, this is the slip angle formula: View attachment 14925 Now, if there is a "nearly" linear correlation between Slip angle (alpha) and Vy (as you have demonstrated) you CANNOT have a linear correlation between Slip angle and Vx, because Vx is at the denominator (let's forget the arctan and the modulus functions for a moment...) so the correlation coefficient you have calculated maybe right or not but for sure can't be similar to the correlation coefficient between slip angle and Vy. Hope I've been clear...
OK, this is good comment. Lets just do this once for all, plot FFB vs slip angle and get correlation between FFB and Slip angle. Attached is the chart of FFB vs Slip angle, run about 2 laps time on Silverstone on GT-R. View attachment 14926 The correlation coff is = 0.325 (32.5%). I am not going to argue if one can feel or not due to 32% correlation. Some do and some do not. I leave there.... @speed1, thanks for cheer; @TechAda: I don't think your argument by using Torque vs Slip angle to derive your conclusion on FFB is correct. Please directly plot FFB vs Slip angle. I just did that. YOu need large sample data, not a few sec of data. I ran over 4 min over 27000 data points. View attachment 14926
The length of the data sample is completely irrelevant. My plots shows FFB v Slip Angle of both front wheels over a number of slip angle inducing manoeuvres, that is plenty of data to draw sensible conclusions from. Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
OK, I could not see your label clearly at first. Now I see. You have about 9 sec data (from 00:18 to 00:27). From the chart, I can speculate that very strong correlation, probably > 75%. My data were including all in two laps: corners, straights, bumps, off side-way, etc, over 4 minutes. Can you give us the correlation results from your data?
