Let's talk about what FFB editing is possible in rF2

Discussion in 'Technical & Support' started by Spinelli, May 19, 2014.

  1. speed1

    speed1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    The linearity probably refers only on signals but not the steering of the vehicle. I think it would be harmonious with the steering characteristics of the given car when the steering dictates the linearity and the power ratio affected as it in reality is. The mechanical linearity relationship in connection with the ffb seems suboptimal imho. So we have to search the optimal values ​​for the given car and steering wheel, and who doesn't know the car will probably never find the optimal values.
     
  2. DrR1pper

    DrR1pper Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Likes Received:
    29
    The measurements for ffb response/output in my graph were not taken from rfactor 2. I used the wheelcheck.exe program....has nothing to do with rfactor 2.

    Again, the graph shows what the outcome of forces before even using rf2. I use to use 100% with around about 0.53 ffb multi ingame but i changed it to 70% and 0.75 which felt better in my opinion. I spent about 2-3 days on non-stop back and forth testing trying to make sure that the difference i felt was there. I couldn't double blind test myself so i had to settle for continuous testing and came to the conclusion that it felt better using 70% and a higher ingame ffb multi. I won't try to argue that there is a genuine difference because i can't show or explain why i think so.

    Well, this is where i must strongly disagree with you. Increasing the overall forces in the control panel (as shown in the graph) starts producing aggressive ffb clipping (much like increasing the ingame ffb multiplier above a certain point) unless you have taken this into consideration by lowering the ingame ffb multiplier sufficiently to avoid operating in the wheels ffb clipped region. The whole purpose of my optimal ffb thread was centered on this very issue which once i realised and corrected for i saw a 1-2 second lap time improvement across the board on each and everyone of my pb's per track in the megane (where they had plateaued for many months), though i did not save pb's for all the other cars and tracks i noticed the same affect on all other cars as well. The effect was not just observable in my lap time improvements and consistency but it was very self-evident to me in how i could now feel the car, as if a heavy vail was lifted off my senses.

    I linked back to a post i made when i initially realised the change in my driving performance from setting up my ffb multiplier to avoid ingame ffb clipping. Here is that first post (which eventually lead to the optimal ffb thread) if you're interested: http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.php/17796-Take-a-Bow-ISI?p=247786&viewfull=1#post247786

    To be fair, it's been a while since i tried the formula 2's and i'd like to try it again as well as your own settings but i cant till the end of June. Also, if you're going to try my settings then you should also use the default ini files so you get a taste for what it is i feel. 70% overall, 100% Constant and Periodic, 0% Spring and Damper, 0% centering, 0.77 (Megane) or 1.0 (karts), 0 ffb smoothing , 3% stm.

    fyi, non on my comments were aimed at your personal changes to other ffb lines in the ini file. I've not even had a chance to try them yet so i will reserve judgment till then. But they were aimed at the importance of making sure your not getting ffb clipping...nothing more, nothing less. When i hear someone is using 100% overall and 0.9 ffb multi in game my ffb clipping alarms fire off because the 100% setting is garenteed to produce clipping and 0.9 is also for the majority of the cars in rf2 (except for the karts which i know is fine with 1.0). But the degree of how much clipping your willing to accept from the sim is up to you ofc (as i allow a little as well to make the low end feel a little stronger) but using 100% is causing indisputable clipping.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2014
  3. DrR1pper

    DrR1pper Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Likes Received:
    29
    I'm definitely looking forward to trying your settings for myself but it's going to be a while. :(

    Btw, when you tested my settings you were still using your 0.27 sensitivity right? Have you tried it with the default 1.0? Let me know if you get the chance.

    One last thing, not sure from what you wrote if you know or don't know, but the pedal plugin overlay does not show the resultant ffb at the actual wheel, only what is being produced by the sim's physics engine. So if say the ffb bar at 60% in the plugin overlay, the sim is sending a 60% ffb force to the wheels software on the pc first and then depending on the overall effects strength, adjusts the final ffb signal sent to they wheel. So if you were using 60% overall, the wheel would indeed be sent a 60% ffb signal. But if you were using a 100% overall, as shown in the graph, the wheel is actually being sent a 100% signal and any ffb output ingame calculated to be above 60% would result in the same 100% force output at the wheel.

    And to anyone interested, if you'd like to make your own ffb response curve graphs for your own wheel, here are the instructions and download:

    Ok, i really must go to bed now. Very tired. Discuss more tomorrow. ;)
     
  4. speed1

    speed1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tested a low value of 0.3 (linearity) with 0 steering resistance and the last two lines (spring) at 0

    T500RS
    50%
    100%
    100%
    0%
    0%


    feels pretty good but with a multi up to ~ 1.4 and 0 filter with the F3.5. I was shocked what you can feel on a curb while one wheel almost without load rolls over, madness.
     
  5. DrR1pper

    DrR1pper Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Likes Received:
    29
    That's fair enough, but what does it mean (if anything) if those faster were using default?

    I often wonder this myself after I discovered the significance of ffb clipping to my driving performance vs people who do not.
     
  6. Spinelli

    Spinelli Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    31
    Paul what exact settings are you using for the 2014 WSR3.5? Same ini and control panel settings you previously provided with the exception of a higher car specific FFB milti?

    Without any threshold braking feel at all I have to leave so much time on the table constantly. I either have to just guess my braking amounts because I'm scared to lockup and therefore I lift the brake too early, or I may luck out and start lifting right before lockup but then I lift it too much too quickly, or I don't press brake hard enough in the first place I also don't know just how much, and at what rate to progressively let off the brake as I am slowly adding more steering degrees as I trailbrake into the apex. It's just a guessing, hope-and-pray, "what's going to happen this lap", sort of game.

    Eve F3 @ Limerock. 0 opponents, 100% default setup (including fuel). I managed a 58.0, but there is SO MUCH time left on the table, and it all come from braking and corner entry. Extracting this extra time all comes down to using as much as the front tire grip as possible and all times of the braking and corner entry phase, not just certain moments, but the entire time in a constant smooth threshold of grip/slip state from the moment you touch the brake until the apex. As I brake and slowly bleed off the brakes as I slowly add more steering into the corner, I could literally tell when I have extra grip left over from releasing the brake too much. I can see and sort of "feel" exactly where I can gain time and even what I need to do to gain that time, BUT I can't actually do it because I jus't can't get the initial straight-line braking, and the releasing-brake-as-I-add-more-steering phases correctly. It's always either under the limit at certain points of the phases and therefore leaving lots of laptime on the table, or over the limit at certain small points of the phases and therefore small lock-ups.

    A, at least, low to mid 57s is possible. It's not a case of not knowing where this laptime comes from, not know what to do to achieve that laptime, or not knowing what techniques or styles of driving are needed to achieve the lap time, it's simply just a case of "I know exactly what to do to get this lap-time, I know the exact way I need to brake and turn into the corner, I know exactly how to make the car do this laptime, but I can't actually do it because I am not recieiving any information from the car, without that info I just can't do it and will always either under-drive the cat from my personal potential or overdrive.". It's not a matter of driving talent or feel, it's just a matter of receiving feelings.

    There has to be a way to make a plugin which can extract direct physics based, but non steering column, FFB into the game like in rF1. "Fake" FFB or not, at least that way you don't have to drive "blinded" from feeling car physics at work. Going by just steering column forces is not how you drive a real car hard, I'm sorry but it's not how it's done in real life. We should at least have the option to use rF1 physics based FFB cues. Those who think they can drive better, faster, more consistent without it can leave it off, and those who feel they need it in order to feel those last few tenths when really pushing hard and trying to extract every last ounce of time from the car that they can can turn it on and customize it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2014
  7. Spinelli

    Spinelli Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    31
    I really wish rF2 had in-game chat. Joining a server so we can all drive together and discuss all this stuff while helping each other would be so much better.

    Do any of you guys want to join a server and also download some sort of chatroom program lol?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2014
  8. argo0

    argo0 Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2012
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    8
    I would if I had time right now Spinelli, my rf2 time is limited at the moment.
     
  9. Spinelli

    Spinelli Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    31
    Are you talking about "Steering resistance type=" when you refer to steering resistance? And 0.3 linearity, what line is that in the controller.ini? Is that "Steering torque sensitivity=" (which you used to have set to 2.0)?

    Thanks, no problem :)
     
  10. MystaMagoo

    MystaMagoo Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    4
    Do you find that to be realistic though?
    Have you raced on any real life tracks that are in rF2?

    I find that a low FOV although looking great is not worth it.
    I don't like the 'squishing' of the track,I also believe it may squish the FFB also?

    Imagine an elastic band 2ft/2m long,grab one end in each hand and pull.
    Mark the band in 2 places 1ft/1m apart.
    I think lowering FOV is like releasing the pressure/pull of the elastic band.
    Logically this also means 'everything' gets squished.......brake points,turn in points,timings,ffb signals,corners become tighter and slower.

    We all have different setups so we will all have a different 'real' FOV,the bigger viewing area the better.
    What I want from my FOV is reality in speed,brake points,turn in points etc relative to my viewing area.
    A 50mph corner to be a 50mph corner,not a 50mph squished and tightened into 40mph.
    Eau Rouge would be a good example I think of demonstrating this effect.

    I found I could set differing times with differing FOV's.

    Does 32 look 'real' with your setup?
    Does it match up with real life track to rF2 track?
     
  11. Adrianstealth

    Adrianstealth Registered

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,543
    Likes Received:
    1,044

    I hosted a server a while ago for me & pals to join
    ( really just to test rfactor 2 )

    We also used team talk ( which I hosted too ). & it worked very well

    Users just have to get their volumes right which meant us all having to turn down our rf2 sound options a tad
     
  12. Spinelli

    Spinelli Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    31
    One of my biggest problems in real life open-wheel racing was when approaching a corner at full speed, the 50 and 100 meter boards before the corner looked like they were MUCH closer to the corner than 100 or 50 meters, it's an illusion probably because of the speed or because of how low you are or something. It makes it hard to convince yourself to brake later because you feel like you are much less than 100m from the corner even though the board says 100m. It really messed with my head and gave me problems in real life. I never had this problem in sims when using a high arcade-like FOV. Then when I lowered it a lot to imitate real-life.....VOILA....I experienced the same sort of issues I had in real life. I wish I used a low FOV in-game before I started in real-life, I would have really been able to train myself and get used to this phenomenon/illusion. The high FOV in-game never introduced me to this illusion, and therefore spoiled me, and then when I raced in real-life I really had troubles with trying to convince myself that I was still far away from the corner and could still brake later.

    When I would walk the track the brake boards looked far away from the corner, and I would convince myself how much road I had left in front of me before the corner. Then when I would get into the car and approach the corner at full speed it would all seem to change and the 50m board would like it it was almost in-line with the corners apex, rather than 50m closer to me, lol. The illusion/phenomenon you are describing is extremely realistic.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2014
  13. Adrianstealth

    Adrianstealth Registered

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,543
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    I find the BIGGEST trouble I have I'm real world experiences ( track days ) that there's not enough time to tune in fully to the race car & it's someone else's ( I'm really maybe overly careful with other peoples property )

    though about buying something for about £1k & take it to Donnington or Silverstone ( my 2 local tracks ) & "testing" it to destruction
     
  14. Spinelli

    Spinelli Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    31
    Hey Paul. Do you experience, at lower speeds, that with the 2014 FR3.5 that mid corner you can completely take your hands off the wheel and the wheel will not move for a couple seconds? I did it a few times on the first 2 corners at Lime Rock (stock setup except 30 L fuel, High Downforce package). It's like the FFB just goes wayyyyyy overly light and just shuts off. I am not massively understeering or anything..... I am using your exact FFB settings.....

    It reminds me of when I would edit the rF1 FFB and I would go wayyy too far in editing the following 2 lines:

    - FFB steer force grip function="0.55000" // Range 0.0 to 1.0 (previous hardcoded value was 1.0) - lower values will make steering force decrease LATER as front tire grip is lost - try 0.3
    - FFB steer force grip weight="0.90000" // Range 0.0 to 1.0, recommended: 0.4 to 0.9. How much weight is given to tire grip when calculating steering force.

    Completely screwing those lines in rF1 based sims would give the same effect as the rF2 2014 FR3.5 currently does at lower speeds. The FFB gets totally light way too suddenly and also too early relative to the amount of front tyre slip. So much that it seems as if the physical wheel itself has had the FFB motors almost turned off.

    P.S. Ignore the values of "0.55000" and "0.90000". They have nothing to do with this convo, they're just my current rF1 settings.
     
  15. Spinelli

    Spinelli Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    31
    Ive driven multiple different F2000s (over 700 laps in 1 of them over a year), an F1600, and an open-cockpit prototype style car (450-ish hp BMW engine). All steering wheel forces, resistance, vibrations, feedback, etc etc don't just magically turn off as if your car is floating in the air.

    I understand the low caster gives less resistance, but all feedback/vibrations/forces etc. don't just all completely shut off all together. Even when the rear steps out in the '14 FR3.5, sonetimes the wheel doesn't follow in the opposite direction like in just about every other car, you have to literally do it yourself, it's like the FFB turns off in every sense (not just resistance).
     
  16. Spinelli

    Spinelli Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    31
    Is there a way I can edit the rF2 FFB to give me more dynamic and variable low speed forces, even if it comes to the expense of not experiencing the whole "car resists more and more the faster you go due to downforce" feeling?

    I couldn't care less about my wheel resisting more and more because of downforce. Yes it feels cool and all, but when we already aren't sitting in a real-life car and we therefore loose all the feelings you'd get in a real car (when using a steering-column forces only FFB philosophy), then I need to tune my FFB to give me as much information about different tyre slip/grip states. Feeling steering resistance getting stronger as the downforce builds does't do anything, for me, in terms of lap-time and consistency. I couldn't care less about that effect when my main concern is to feel what the 4 corners of the car are doing regardless of speed and downforce.
     
  17. Spinelli

    Spinelli Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    31
    Ok, so just to clarify, you're recommending to up the car specific ffb multi from 1.2 to 2.5 when using the either of the FR3.5's with your exact ffb/wheel settings?

    Paul you should hop in the F3 fanatics server. There are about 12 or 13 of us in there at the moment :)
     
  18. Rony1984

    Rony1984 Registered

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    26
    Thanks for all your feedback here Paul, it's very much appreciated. Talking about caster, with the new 3.5 it is set to 7.6" in the default setup, just as with the old model. That's why I find it so strange that the wheel gets so extremely light in those slow speed corners, where the old one didn't. This might be because of changes to the suspension design, but I can't remember to have ever driven a sim-car that steers so light with that amount of caster. For me, it's even worse than the F2 in most situations. Furthermore, in high speed corners the steering nowhere gets that heavy as with the old model. To me it feels like they at least scaled the ffb wrongly. Of course one can bump up the multiplyer, fiddle with the .ini file etc., and I have done that(used your one, but it wasn't to my liking), but still this car feels so strange and undrivable to me, unlike 90% of other rf2 cars.
     
  19. SPASKIS

    SPASKIS Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,155
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Sorry to say. But with so many parameters, touching for touching is the worst scientific procedure that can be used. FFB is a reaction force that is transmitted from the wheels to the rig. It is not something that should depend on so many specific FFB parameters IMO. Only ISI that is working with real competition teams and drivers can help in fine tuning this IMO. They should try to monitor the torsion torque in the column by means of some type of sensor and ask experienced drivers to try the sim and help them in this task.

    This thread has turned into a trial and error thread which, as a mechanical engineer dedicated to simulation in professional life, has made me lose all the interest in it.

    enviado mediante tapatalk
     
  20. MystaMagoo

    MystaMagoo Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    4
    I know what the FOV is,what I'm saying is that with a low FOV a track gets scrunched up.
    Eau rouge instead of being near to flatout you have to slow down maybe even change down.
    I know it does not change the physics but it will 'report' the physics at a quicker rate because of the shortening of the track.

    I've tested this effect with my 32" monitor.
    Low 20's is supposed to be the corrrect FOV for my setup.
    yes it 'looks' great and 'correct' but to actual drive round a track with that low a FOV is just wrong and even horrible.

    Visual braking points change,they are closer to the corner.
    Our brains will adapt to any FOV,we will choose correct brake points in the end etc

    I want a visual realistic representation of the track.
    If eau rouge is almost flat out in real life in the 3.5 then that's how I want it to be in rF2.
    Lowering FOV does not give me that reality.

    This 'shortening' of the track has the knock on effect of bringing all it's 'outputs' closer together.
    Let's say at Monaco there was 2 manhole covers 3 seconds apart in real life speed.
    Lowering the FOV/shortening the track these 2 covers become maybe 2 seconds apart.

    This is starting to sound like a FOV arguement but it's not,FOV is realism v immersion and I get it.

    I understand this yes but it also changes the dynamics of the track as I say above.

    In the end it's down to personal preference but it is true that ALL 'ouputs' from any track (physics,FFB etc) will be reported back to you at a quicker rate.
    Not changed but 'reported'.
     

Share This Page