Latest update

@SPASKIS @patchedupdemon I can only suggest that if you have factual evidence (proof) that the FFB response is wrong, and surely you must do because you're very confident about it, you forward it to S397 for fixing. Because to this point both ISI and S397 have failed to fix something that anyone can notice within 2 laps of driving the F2, which makes you wonder how it got through even initial testing when the car was first built after obtaining the license.

Regarding linear vs non-linear response, I do agree rF2 could probably do with some simpler options regarding making it more like a 'normal game' for consumer grade wheels, while keeping the fully linear model for powerful wheels or those who just want it that way. But to me that's a separate discussion to the F2.

 

Yes patchedupdemon I think that is the core issue that is being over looked.
Fact is some car in rf2 have wonky ffb,and no matter how much you play with the ffb setting of your wheel,it won't make it feel better

 

@whitmore Like the F2? How is it wonky? And how do you know it's wonky?

(and how weird does the word 'wonky' look after you type it a few times... lol)

 

This is true for a lot of situations and cars in rF2, not just with FWD cars. The steering often does things on it's own with no significant influence from the car to justify such a behavior in the steering. Almost like a ghost is operating the steering at times, it really makes no sense, and I'm surprised that some people continue to insist that there's nothing wrong with it.

That iracing idea sounds interesting, I may have to get a short subscription to try it out.

 

You didn't understand what I wanted to say. No special transformation when close to the limit. It would be the same downscaling transformation all the time but leaving the greatest detail for the most important steering torque range which are the ones where you are close the limit.

 

I don't think I still completely understand, but it sounded like you were suggesting a situation "A" results in behavior "B", sort of thing. Guess not.

 

What the hell are you saying?
Did you even read what I wrote? I said nothing regarding what you suggest. All I am asking throughout all my posts is to treat FFB as another physical output and to be correlated with respect to real values. The fact of not seeing this eay of proceeding makes it very probable that calculated FFB presents errorrs. These seem to be more prominent in FWD cars. Apparently tire model pneumatic trail calculation seems to be not validated with respect to real data.

In latest post I just talked about the problem to have to downscale FFB to fit lower end wheels proposing what IMO should be the way to do it and you jump with that stupid post. Unbelievable man.

 

Tone it down please.

 

It's probably extremely difficult to get useful data from an actual car for this purpose and would require a lot of driving time. I mean, you can use torque sensors in the steering (I assume that's what they do currently?), but even that would only give you a torque, which isn't enough information to reproduce the steering behavior 100%. That's just one facet of the behavior, a result of other multiple forces actually, so not even really where the behavior comes from.

They should measure the speed of the steering wheel as it rotates during a controlled self-aligning test at multiple constant speeds, starting from multiple steering angles, all in straight lines of course, rather than torque. I never understood why the torque figures were even so important, it's not like every wheel can use all of that torque anyways, the actual rotational behavior is what is important, not some measured force.

Actually, now that I think of it. If they simply have some min/max torque figures, then spread that "linearly" across all possible loads that the car can ever experience, then it wouldn't be realistic, since the forces through the steering don't match those loads in a linear way in real-life. Maybe that's why the FFB is a bit weird at times with default "linear" settings?

 

Indeed not.
I'll try to explain in other words.
With regular sensitivity adjustment, highest slope is always in the beginning or in the end of the graph. It just depends on if the value used is greater or smaller to 1 which is default value. What I propose could provide the pattern drawn in the image I attached.

 

It is exactly done as you say.
In order to correlate it, you use simple driving conditions like constant turning radius and speed situations. You can see that in preseason they typically perform these type of test to provide the most valuable data for engineers to analyse.

 

But do they do this for rF2? That's what I meant.

 

I would say the same thing, if the steering didn't bounce back and forth like it's possessed by Satan with default settings.

Some of us are not simply whining about not having it exactly the way we prefer. It's just not realistic, and in a very obvious way. There's nothing I can do with my wheel settings to fix it, I have to adjust FFB settings in the game to deal with it.

Also, to add, I've driven a multitude of actual cars on actual race tracks, and I've never been the type to complain about a setup. I just drive the cars and enjoy. But, of course, none of those real life cars ever exhibited the sort of behaviors I've had a problem with in rF2 with default settings. Any real car like that would be a death trap.

 

It would be interesting to know, and to see how exactly they do it. It may shed some light on why there are some issues with the FFB for so many people.

 

Thread closed