[UI] Wheel lock vs steering ratio (instead of steering lock)

[Marek Lesniak]

[UI and Physics] Wheel lock vs steering ratio (instead of steering lock)

Even though I like very much the general idea of having per-car wheel lock and by that, finally the possibility to set steering setup correctly, I see there are some issues with current way of setting up those things.

Wheel lock based on hdv "TurnsLockToLock" parameter - great. It locks our wheel (if possible) to defined value or, if it's bigger than what's possible to setup for our device, the maximum possible value is set.

An example: I have a car with 1260deg steering wheel lock, so TurnsLockToLock is set to "3.5".
The car has steering ratio of 17.0:1, so I set steering lock to 37.1 ((1260/17) /2). Everything seems to be fine, right? Well, not exactly.

On T500RS such wheel lock is impossible. Maximum available for that device is 1080 deg. and that's the range, rF 2 will set. That means, steering ratio for my car will change (tighten up) because (1080/37.1)/2 = 14.6:1. Noticable change, compared do what should be (17.0:1).
For Fanatec and newer Logitech wheels with 900 deg. range, the steering ratio change will be even more noticable. (900/37.1)/2 = 12.1:1... no doubt that would be very sensitive.

The solution? Obvious choice, would be to provide upgrades for typical device lock values, like 1080, 900 plus additional one, for guys with 180-270 wheels, with adjustable steering lock between 8 and 14, so they won't have trouble going through tight corners.


But it would be more simple if instead of using steering lock values, we could define steering ratios.
For my example, there would be no need of providing any upgrades (apart from one, for 180-270 deg. wheels). Just set desired steering ratio and rFactor 2 will calculate nominal steering lock based on device's maximum available lock.
For guys with 1080 deg. wheels, rF would automatically calculate steering lock of ~31.8. For guys with 900 deg. wheels, that'd be ~26.5... and all that with just one defined steering ratio.

Of course, if someone wants to provide wider range of adjustable locks/ratios (like for F1 car for example), then it doesn't matter wheter that'd be range of steering ratios or range of steering locks - in the end we will get the same.
What is better when defining steering ratios, is that flexibility for fixed ratio vs current wheel lock, that can be adjusted by rFactor without need of having any additional settings/upgrades.

Defining steering ratios instead of steering locks will also work better for wheels that can't be "locked" by rFactor itself or user want's to alter original wheel lock (and set it by hand in the game) - rFactor will recalculate proper steering lock based on user's choice for wheel lock and steering ratio value from HDV (again, no need to define multiple steering ratios to cover various wheel locks!).

 

[lordpantsington]

Why are you arbitrarily dividing by 2?

 

[Marek Lesniak]

Because wheel lock is expressed as "lock-to-lock" while steering lock for ISI is expressed as half "lock-to-lock" (in other words, from straight to lock to one side).

 

[lordpantsington]

Do you have evidence of this?

 

[Marek Lesniak]

What kind of evidence do you need for that? You ask me to prove, that tomato's color is red (and not blue) ;-)

If what I said is not true, then you would feel that by the way how sensitive a car would be to steering input. I mean, just calculate steering ratio for any rFactor 1 car you have driven.

If I'm not right and steering lock should be provided not "per side" but "lock-to-lock", then for 900 deg. and steering ratio of 15:1, you should set steering lock of 60 deg. Go ahead, set that and see how it drives ;-) I bet if the mod itself is ok (I mean, tyres are ok), you will feel the car is about twice as much sensitive as should be.
Or... if that is still not enough, then do another test: pick any OW, set swingman cam for top view, turn wheels to the max and measure the angle in relation to Y axis (so longitudinal axis of the car). If I am wrong, then you should measure half of what angle you set in garage.

If you need to talk about more about that, I suggest to do that via PM... because this thread is about something else - not about how steering lock is set in rFactor

 

[Dave Millard]

 

[lordpantsington]

This is the perfect place to add information and discussion about the inner workings of steering. I certainly don't need information about tomatoes. Conclusive evidence is requested, although I will accept some second hand knowledge. The test you've mentioned was performed weeks ago without conclusion. The cameras in rf render perspective, enough of which to cast doubt on any result gained from such testing. Don't think of it so much as me questioning what/how it is, but rather why (with a purpose).

Isn't it more likely to find Lock to Lock Rotations and Steering Ratio data instead of an arbitrary term Steering Lock as defined by (wheel lock/2)? Both Wheel Lock and Steering Ratio are easily grasped concepts. Steering Lock mixes the two and only serves to cause confusion as to which it is (although in rf it is both and neither) ;P



In rf2, I don't see what the problem is. If a wheel doesn't have the range of motion to match Mfg, it is getting the best option available. I would rather have the ability to turn the wheels the amount the competitors have then have a ratio that matches.

In rf the ratio is determined from the lock, I agree this is a bit backwards, but angles are easier to relate to then ratios. Would be nice to show them both in the UI, and let the user pick which option prefer to change. Although I don't really see the rack as a part I would want to swap in and out in a race weekend garage. Why is it available to us? In that respect, upgrades seem to be a fitting place for options.

If what you want is for the ratio to be the garage option and the lock angle to be compensated with a ratio of Mfg to Hardware rotation so everything matches Mfg spec, I can fully support that. Aside from steering ratio being the adjustment, isn't that what we have already? For certain rf2 will adjust hardware to lower Mfg rotations, why wouldn't it also compensate for higher? What purpose is there in defining Mfg rotation if it only gets used half the time?

No longer does rf2 determine the range of wheel angle movement from the maximum steering lock value, as rf does. Could it be that the sole use of the LtL rotation? *Gasp*

 

[Marek Lesniak]

This is the perfect place to add information and discussion about the inner workings of steering.

Well, no... this is "wish list" section. For what you want, there is another, dedicated section named "car modding" and there we can talk about that all night long.

I certainly don't need information about tomatoes. Conclusive evidence is requested, although I will accept some second hand knowledge. The test you've mentioned was performed weeks ago without conclusion.

I'm not ISI coder, so I can't provide you the piece of code responsible for steering in rFactor as a proof. Sorry.

The cameras in rf render perspective, enough of which to cast doubt on any result gained from such testing. Don't think of it so much as me questioning what/how it is, but rather why (with a purpose).

Use very low fov (and locate the cam further away from the car, to compensate).
And for what you want to test, it doesn't matter if you measure 25 or 35 degrees.... you want to know, will it be ~30 or ~60 (for my example from previous post). Simple as that.

Isn't it more likely to find Lock to Lock Rotations and Steering Ratio data instead of an arbitrary term Steering Lock as defined by (wheel lock/2)? Both Wheel Lock and Steering Ratio are easily grasped concepts. Steering Lock mixes the two and only serves to cause confusion as to which it is (although in rf it is both and neither) ;P

Now I'm confused... to know steering lock (no matter if half of l-t-l or not), you have to know wheel lock and steering ratio. This is a 3 piece riddle, where you need at least 2 pieces to solve it. You know wheel lock and steering lock? Then you can calculate ratio. You know ratio and steering lock? You can calculate wheel lock.

In rf2, I don't see what the problem is. If a wheel doesn't have the range of motion to match Mfg, it is getting the best option available.

Steering lock of 16 or 18 per se- doesn't mater much. 12deg in one side is enough to turn into La Source at Spa but no real car use such low lock anyway, so in all cars you will have no trouble going through tight corners.
Having even 20 deg of steering lock won't make you go through corners faster or better than with 16 deg.

What matters though, is the relation between wheel lock and steering lock - that is steering ratio. And for 540 wheel lock with 16 deg. steering lock, you get 16.875:1 vs 15.0:1 for 540/18 deg. respectively. And that is already noticable difference in car handling (or so called car "dynamics").

I would rather have the ability to turn the wheels the amount the competitors have then have a ratio that matches.

O'rly?
OK, here's an example: two different cars. One with 720 deg wheel and second with 540 deg. Both have ratio of 15.0:1. So, first one has steering lock (for rFactor) 24 deg and the second car has 18.
Your car is with 540 wheel lock. Now, you want to have competitor's lock in your car. Ok, setup it to 24 deg. You end up with ratio of 11.25:1 I would like to see, how comfortable and confident you are with your "competitor's lock" I mean, test that for yourself and see how it feels.

In rf the ratio is determined from the lock, I agree this is a bit backwards, but angles are easier to relate to then ratios. Would be nice to show them both in the UI, and let the user pick which option prefer to change. Although I don't really see the rack as a part I would want to swap in and out in a race weekend garage. Why is it available to us? In that respect, upgrades seem to be a fitting place for options.

Exactly! Then why we should change steering lock WITHOUT changing wheel lock. That's where steering ratio option comes handy. Steering ratio ties wheel lock to steering lock. If in real car you change steering lock, the wheel lock also change, because steering rack's ratio stays the same.
But you can't "force" G25 to have more than 900 deg, so because of that, you may hit some limitations when you'd like to change steering lock while having fixed steering ratio.

If what you want is for the ratio to be the garage option and the lock angle to be compensated with a ratio of Mfg to Hardware rotation so everything matches Mfg spec, I can fully support that. Aside from steering ratio being the adjustment, isn't that what we have already? For certain rf2 will adjust hardware to lower Mfg rotations, why wouldn't it also compensate for higher? What purpose is there in defining Mfg rotation if it only gets used half the time?

No, and I explained that already in my first post. Should I explain that again?

No longer does rf2 determine the range of wheel angle movement from the maximum steering lock value, as rf does. Could it be that the sole use of the LtL rotation? *Gasp*

rF 1 never could do that... rF 1 has no possibility to control wheel lock. You can only set steering lock, nothing more.

 

[lordpantsington]

Some people are offended by multi-quoting, I see it as the perfect way to apply comment to the appropriate section.

...this is "wish list" section.

We can wish for things to be done by ISI until we're blue in the face, the only way they are going to get implemented is if the person in charge sees enough justification behind it to make the effort to do the legwork.

If all they wanted was a list, there would be one thread. The form of a section, with subtopics broken out, better fits the function of discussion/debate. Because it exists as such, the intent was discussion.

I'm not ISI coder, so I can't provide you the piece of code responsible for steering in rFactor as a proof. Sorry.

Code snippet would do it, but logical arguments can also be used as proof. Don't think it up to you, personally. If, anyone has come across conclusive evidence it should be posted here. Other than "Because I said so, or because some other random said so" type support I've seen nothing to support how it is the way you say it is. My intent is not to put on a trial, but to list the facts with support so it may be referred to later.

Use very low fov...

When I get a chance I will re-run the test with either duplicate wheels, or planes turned at angles. Any FOV is going to throw things off. I believe caster and camber will also. The value I measured previously was smack dab in the middle of Wheel lock and Steering Lock.

to know steering lock...

While they are in there fixing the "issue" you addressed, why not link our HDV input to something more tangible, to data more attainable. The 3 piece riddle is actually 4 pieces with the 4th variable defined in terminology proprietary to ISI's HDV. The theory is that SteeringLock=WheelLock/2. That is the unstated equation necessary to solve for all variables. This is why I was requesting evidence. Largely the definition of SteeringLock is not stated anywhere with sufficient proof, which is also why dividing by 2 appears to be arbitrary.



In order to catch a slide, you are going to need the full range of angle available. This is compensated by the ratio changing so that wheels of lesser rotation have the same ability as the their brethren. The behavior currently in rf2 is correct.

Then why we should change steering lock WITHOUT changing wheel lock.

I don't see your point in this question. Where was it stated steering lock should change in relation to wheel lock? We should get rid of SteeringLock all together.

Should I explain that again?

Yes

rF 1 never could do that... rF 1 has no possibility to control wheel lock. You can only set steering lock, nothing more.

Rf controls wheel lock by the maximum value as calculated by the
"SteerLockRange=" parameter. (Not trying to throw words back at you here) Do a test and increase the max value, go into the garage and set the value low. You'll see. The steering ratio changes but the full range of motion is not limited. This was fixed in rf2.

If

SteerLockRange=(5.0, 0.5, 39)

The wheel lock is 48º.

The "Ratio" is calculated from your hardware and what is selected in the garage.

I have 543º selected, my Steering Ratio is ~~11.3:1 with 24 selected in the garage.

 

[Marek Lesniak]

What HDV input you want to have here?
Steering lock is exactly what it says. How much you can turn your wheels. Now, you have only 2 ways do describe:
- angle, which is between full left to full right of how wheels can turn,
- angle between wheels set "straight" and when in full turn to either side.
You have to decide, do you measure mean angle for left and right wheels (due to ackerman/non-zero toes) or pick outside wheels or inside, but as long as you are consistent, it doesn't matter because you either provide value for one side lock or for full lock.
And for rFactor 1 and rFactor 2, that is for "straight to side" lock.
If you somehow believe there are other possibilities, I would like to read about them.

The theory is that SteeringLock=WheelLock/2. That is the unstated equation necessary to solve for all variables.

No, I have never said that anywhere. What I said, is this:
Steering Lock = (wheel_lock /2 ) / steering_ratio OR steering lock = wheel_lock / (steering ratio * 2)

If you don't fully understand what I'm saying then ask for explanation, but don't put words I have never said in my mouth.

I'm explaining thing to you in a logical way. You instead, seem to not want to even thing about that for a moment but automatically just asking for a proof.... Why "arbitrary 2"? Just think. Stop asking and just think. Do some tests and check for your self. Again, I'm not going to proving anything just for you, because you simply disagree with me (without even checking, if I really can be wrong about that).

As for the last part... you were clearly refering to rF 1, not rF 2... and again - now you are telling me how it works in rF 2. But I know how it works in rF 2. But again - it is you who said wheel lock is controlled by rF 1, not me.

If what you want is for the ratio to be the garage option and the lock angle to be compensated with a ratio of Mfg to Hardware rotation so everything matches Mfg spec, I can fully support that. Aside from steering ratio being the adjustment, isn't that what we have already? For certain rf2 will adjust hardware to lower Mfg rotations, why wouldn't it also compensate for higher? What purpose is there in defining Mfg rotation if it only gets used half the time?

Right now, you can set wheel lock (steering wheel) to what is defined in hdv or what you choose from in-game menu. So effectively, you can fix wheel lock (steering wheel) to a particular value (but you can also change it, if you want - that's important thing in the story).
In garage, you set steering lock. When keeping wheel lock (steering wheel lock) value and changing steering lock, you change steering ratio... and you know what that means to handling characteristics, do you?
If I set steering lock to a one fixed value in HDV (because I want to recreate characteristics of a real car) and define wheel lock in hdv, that wheel lock can still be changed in-game. That means, with fixed steering lock, you can change steering ratio.
Right now then, there is no way to lock steering ratio (so all drivers will use the same).
That's why I asked for ability to define steering ratio in HDV, so there could be possibility to lock it.
With locked steering ratio, when you change in-game wheel lock, rF will recalculate new steering lock for a given ratio. And that's exactly what happens when you for example take road BMW M3 and homologate it to GT4. Guys reduce steering lock to lower values (for a reason). They don't change steering rack! Steering ratio is the same. They limit steering lock and by that, also wheel lock is smaller. Again - steering ratio (steering rack) remains constant.

If you want to allow people to change steering lock, you can do that! Set more than one steering ratio to choose and you have it. So for that matter, having ability to define steering ratio won't limit anything you have right now. But it has one advantage compared to setting steering lock - it allows you to lock steering ratio. You can't do that right now.

If

SteerLockRange=(5.0, 0.5, 39)

The wheel lock is 48º.

The "Ratio" is calculated from your hardware and what is selected in the garage.

I have 543º selected, my Steering Ratio is ~~11.3:1 with 24 selected in the garage.

No, your wheel lock in this case is 543 deg. Your steering lock (by rF definition) is 24 deg. Steering ratio is calculated properly.

 

[lordpantsington]

No, I have never said that anywhere. What I said, is this:
Steering Lock = (wheel_lock /2 ) / steering_ratio OR steering lock = wheel_lock / (steering ratio * 2)

If you don't fully understand what I'm saying then ask for explanation, but don't put words I have never said in my mouth.

I suggest you reread post #3, for your convenience I have quoted it.

Because wheel lock is expressed as "lock-to-lock" while steering lock for ISI is expressed as half "lock-to-lock" (in other words, from straight to lock to one side).

It was in post #8 where you started referring to Steering wheel rotational limits as Wheel Lock. Post #10 repeats the error.

I propose we define/unify our terminology.
Wheel Lock=Used specifically to describe the total swept angle by the tire motion.
Steering Lock=WL/2
(Wheel)Rotation=The angle or number of turns from the hardware steering wheel.

 

[Marek Lesniak]

I suggest you reread post #3, for your convenience I have quoted it.

I wasn't reffering to naming scheme but to how you said it is calculated... reread your post.

It was in post #8 where you started referring to Steering wheel rotational limits as Wheel Lock.

Nope. I refer to steering wheel rotational limits as "wheel lock" from the first post.
I thought that was clear for you, but because in your last post you said, that for your example wheel lock is 48 deg... so I correct you on that but you seem to not see that at all (and just carry on picking on whatever I say).


And here we are, 10 posts later ... do you still remember, what this discussion is all about?
So, are you going to do the tests any time soon?

 

[lordpantsington]

What HDV input you want to have here?
Steering lock is exactly what it says. How much you can turn your wheels. Now, you have only 2 ways do describe:
- angle, which is between full left to full right of how wheels can turn,
- angle between wheels set "straight" and when in full turn to either side.
You have to decide, do you measure mean angle for left and right wheels (due to ackerman/non-zero toes) or pick outside wheels or inside, but as long as you are consistent, it doesn't matter because you either provide value for one side lock or for full lock.
And for rFactor 1 and rFactor 2, that is for "straight to side" lock.
If you somehow believe there are other possibilities, I would like to read about them.

IF there was a comment embedded in an HDV, would that should be sufficient? Don't know. :/ With comments like "// suspension travel upwards" that don't clearly define what is required for input, not even sure how much you can trust comments. But it would be a good posting to have here.

Technically steering lock would be half what the wheels can turn, but I think you are speaking in general.

Why are you wasting your time explaining to me? I understand what is asked of the parameter.
I asked if you had evidence of such. "No" would have sufficed.

As many times as you state the angle is half because it is half, you've yet to actually state much else. Why is half used?

Could it be that the equation for turn radius doesn't use the Wheel Lock but rather the Steering Lock? (sounds reasonable). Could be instead of adding another bit of math to the code, the input data is halved to save a cycle? Don't know. Maybe both valid reasons to do so.

I'm referring to both rf and 2 back and forth. 2, mostly as it relates to your OP, and rf as it relates to the basic understanding of the parameters in the HDV.


You cannot lock ratio because doing so changes the scope of the game for different players according to their hardware. When slip ratio and "tire engineery stuff" determines how the car reacts, the potential for tire angle must be kept uniform among all players. If someone wants to change it to use a different ratio, it is their choice.

I was under the assumption that there is no device to limit the range of motion (other then the rack itself) of the tires. This is definitely incorrect. Not only, but the stops can be adjustable.
What gets adjusted? The angle the tires can move. Has more to do with the upright then the rack itself. Which is why if you go looking for adjustable rate racks, you'll find none. In that respect you are correct, the ratios don't change. But unless everyone in the world has the same wheel, it is going to disadvantage some.

At least I understand what you are trying to accomplish now. Instead of number of turns being fixed in the HDV you want Ratio defined (& Fixed), because that is how it is. If someone wants a different Ratio, they put in a different part (upgrades). But at the track the Steering Lock is adjusted which ultimately limits the number of turns available.

That is good info about rack and homologation, if that is how it works. Makes it easy to apply data. 996 GT3 has a Ratio of 16.9, normally this is 2.98 turns. Because the steering is only turning 1.5 turns, the Steering Lock should be set to 16º

Do you have any support for this?

GT3 Rack parts number=996.347.110.01 or 996.347.110.02
GT3 Cup Rack part number=996.347.005.90 and is an R part therefore Motorsports only
This data would suggest otherwise.

 

[lordpantsington]

I wasn't referring to naming scheme but to how you said it is calculated... reread your post.


Nope. I refer to steering wheel rotational limits as "wheel lock" from the first post.
I thought that was clear for you, but because in your last post you said, that for your example wheel lock is 48 deg... so I correct you on that but you seem to not see that at all (and just carry on picking on whatever I say).


And here we are, 10 posts later ... do you still remember, what this discussion is all about?
So, are you going to do the tests any time soon?

I've been referring to WL as 2SL from the get go.

YES, it was about how steering lock is a horrible term without a clear definition, and aught be binned for something more intuitive and standardized. As you can see Wheel Lock is much the same. Inner and Outer Maximum Steering Angle I think is industry standard.

Tests were already done. Inconclusive. What have you got?

 

[Marek Lesniak]

OK, now we finally start talking

Want to corect you with one thing - about being fair to guys with different wheels... that's why I want set steering ratios in rF2 and not steering angles.

What steering wheels we have? I'd say, 2 groups:
1. 900 deg and more
2. 180-270 deg.
Obviously, you can't force people with 270deg wheel to drive with 15.0 ratio. I understand that and I covered that point in my first post (how to deal with that group of steering wheels). They will get alternative settings, via upgrades (and those settings will be useless for group 1, which is what I expect).

I will cover again the whole point of having steering ratio locked, rather than steering lock. Because you still seem to don't fully understand my point. I will reuse the example from the first post:
I have a car with 1260deg steering wheel lock (so, TurnsLockToLock is set to "3.5").
The car has steering ratio of 17.0:1, so I set fixed steering lock to 37.1. No possibility to change that. One steering lock set in hdv. That's all.
With such car and my HDV settings, in rFactor 2 the only way to have it working as I want (preserve steering ratio), is to have steering wheel range of 1260 deg or more. Well, I don't have one, so....
I have T500RS with 1080 deg lock. For my wheel, rFactor will lock it at 1080 deg (max possible) and nothing more. Steering lock remaings at 37.1 (as I set it like that in HDV). You see the problem here? I have different wheel and my ratio will be ~14.6:1 instead of desired 17.0:1.
With G25 (beeing a wheel with 900 deg lock) it will get even more tight, as with G25 I will be having ratio 12.1:1.
Keep in mind, that rF 2 allows you to alter wheel lock (untick "Vehicle set"). That means, you can set it to your preference and by that, alter steering ratio even more.

In order to allow all users to use proper ratio with their wheel, I should provide selectable steering lock or leave it fixed in HDV but add additional values as an upgrade.
But it would be easier to set one ratio in HDV and rF will just calculate steering lock for each wheel option. No need to use upgrades, no need to set additional values in HDV.
For what I want (having a one fixed ratio), that's the best possible solution.

I mentioned, we could give some more steering locks to choose in garage or upgrades. That means, you can pick not only steering lock for your wheel (to maintain original ratio), but alter it drastically. And right now I can't force users to NOT do this.
With steering ratio forced in hdv, I can. Because then, I don't have to provide alternative steering locks and even when user change its wheel lock (untick "Vehicle set"), he still won't be able to alter steering ratio.


Earlier, you said that you need high steering lock when counter steering (well, and drifting). With my mod (having locked steering ratio) you will want to use maximum wheel lock, as that will give you maximum steering lock possible.

You cannot lock ratio because doing so changes the scope of the game for different players according to their hardware. When slip ratio and "tire engineery stuff" determines how the car reacts, the potential for tire angle must be kept uniform among all players. If someone wants to change it to use a different ratio, it is their choice.

No! It won't change anything! I mean, we are talking about my car, with fixed ratio (because if you would want to have more ratios available - you could set it to your taste in your mods). Why? Simply, because we are talking about set up for wheels of 900 deg and more. Race cars use 540 deg with reasonable ratios (like 12:1-15:1) so you will always be able to use every bit of tyres (until you change your wheel lock to 180 deg on purpose and end up having steering lock 5 deg.... but then, you do that on your own wish, so don't blame me for that ).

But if you are making a car to rF 2, then you can allow users to alter steering ratios (by providing more option to choose in garage). Your possibilities will be the same as they are right now.
In fact, I don't mind if beside steering ratio, steering lock could also be available to set in hdv/garage. Maybe as an aternative to steering ratio (and you choose with one to set in a way like you set your anti-roll bar stiffness in hdv - spring or diameter). Or, if steering lock is set to "0", then you use steering ratio (and vice versa)? That's not that important. Is a just a matter of implementation.

Again - I don't want ISI to lock steering ratios to all of us... I want to have that possibility, for my cars I work on. And I am sure, there are more people who also would like to have such an option.


As for older wheels, with 180-270 hard wheel lock. rF 2 can't control wheel lock for such wheels. There is no other option, than to give them an alternative setting (as an upgrade). Right now, it doesn't matter will that be as alternative ratios or alternative steering locks... That still will be values not usable for 900 or 1080 deg wheels, so owners of such wheels (900, 1080 etc.) won't get any benefits for those upgrades. Those will be used only by 2nd group (180-270 deg wheels).


As for 996 ratio and lock, sorry but I don't have any data about it.


EDIT:

Tests were already done. Inconclusive. What have you got?

So, with 60 deg steering lock set in HDV, you were not able to tell on track, do you have "per side" lock more like ~30 or more like ~60 deg? That's something you could tell just by looking at it, without need to do any measurements... But if you weren't able then sorry, but I can't help you.

 

[lordpantsington]

With 64.5º lock max in the HDV, the angle of the front wheel at full lock was close to 48º from straight ahead (it's been a couple weeks I believe I was averaging inside and outside). I was disappointed with the result being smack dab in the middle of half and full. I look at the camera setup, caster and toe values as well as SAI/Ackermann as contributors to the lack of conclusion. If those things could influence measured angle enough from 64.5 then, it seems reasonable it could also influence from 32.25.


Kudos for explaining it again, seems to clarify your intent.

I wondered why you said it was impossible for the lesser LTL wheels to attain the proper ratio. I understand now.

By locking the steering lock to only one value, you've caused your own problem. Rf and rf2 already address this by allowing for adjustable steering lock. Drop the lock, gain back the ratio desired. If the lesser rotation hardware wants the full range of tire movement, the trade off is lower ratio. Having both available suits the needs of all. The ratio is there if you want it, the angle is too if you need it. I don't think it gets any easier then using the tools provided.


You've narrowed the scope to exclude wheels with 271-899º of rotation. Shouldn't there be a 3rd group?

So you get what you want, what is stopping the 1260 guys from using an upgrade not designed for them? You are back at the same issue you would have had if you would just open the Steering Lock range.

So the wheels higher than 1260 untick to alter the ratio. Still nothing to prevent that.

Ultimately the angle you are cranking the steering wheel in linked to grip/slip, if you want to be that hardcore about simulation your tire is going to have to be 100% accurate. I doubt that is possible without theft of trade secrets.

Taking an extreme example:
1440 and 20 of steering wheel rotation LTL, 17:1 ratio. Say the ratio is defined in the HDV, and rf shows Maximum Steering angle as 85 and 1. Your system only works within a certain range.

If you give garage options or upgrades, How is that any different then what we already have? You are still back to giving people the option to select what they see fit, which may or may not be proper for the car.

 

[Marek Lesniak]

You've narrowed the scope to exclude wheels with 271-899º of rotation. Shouldn't there be a 3rd group?

No, I didn't. 270 deg is what is max for wheels with hard lock value (EDIT: I mean, you have 270 and then wheels with adjustable max 900). All the rest is 900 deg or more.
And with locked ratio, you will always want to use full range of wheel rotation. I mean - what for you would want to reduce rotation of your wheel? By doing that, you will only reduce wheel rotation and steering lock (because ratio is fixed).

So you get what you want, what is stopping the 1260 guys from using an upgrade not designed for them? You are back at the same issue you would have had if you would just open the Steering Lock range.

You are right and I wasn't clear about that. Upgrades for 180-270 deg would be as steering locks, not ratios. With alternative ratios, those could be used in a way I didn't want them to.
With adjustable steering lock range (like 10-14deg) for 180-270 deg wheels, they won't be usable for wheels with bigger rotation range (like 900, 1080).
Of course, someone with 900 deg wheel could set wheel to 180 deg and select the upgrade for 14 deg steering lock. Yes, in theory, that's possible in my example but will anyone do that? Why limiting wheel lock to very low range, just to change steering ratio?

So the wheels higher than 1260 untick to alter the ratio. Still nothing to prevent that.

No, the idea is - when you untick "Vehicle set" and change wheel lock, rF will recalculate steering lock for your selected value. So no matter what you set, you will have the same steering ratio.
That of course will only work with wheels which can be controlled by rFactor.
If there are wheels (like T500RS before build 60) with high rotation which can't be controlled by rFactor, you won't have control over them. They could be set to different wheel lock in their drivers settings and to different value in rFactor and by that - altering ratio.

Ultimately the angle you are cranking the steering wheel in linked to grip/slip, if you want to be that hardcore about simulation your tire is going to have to be 100% accurate. I doubt that is possible without theft of trade secrets.

Every normal car have steering lock higher than range of where tyre works best. So that's not an issue at all.

Taking an extreme example:
1440 and 20 of steering wheel rotation LTL, 17:1 ratio. Say the ratio is defined in the HDV, and rf shows Maximum Steering angle as 85 and 1. Your system only works within a certain range.

OK, but if you select 20 deg of wheel lock - that is your choice. It's you then, who wants Maximum steering angle of 1 deg. In that case - as yourself, why you'd want to do so... because I see no benefits of it.

If you give garage options or upgrades, How is that any different then what we already have? You are still back to giving people the option to select what they see fit, which may or may not be proper for the car.

For my example, the only option/upgrade is for 180-270 deg. wheels and that would be steering lock selectable probably between 10 and 14 deg. You have G25 with 900 deg wheel lock. Why would you want to use upgrade with steering lock 14 deg.? I see no real reason to do so.

EDIT

With 64.5º lock max in the HDV, the angle of the front wheel at full lock was close to 48º from straight ahead (it's been a couple weeks I believe I was averaging inside and outside). I was disappointed with the result being smack dab in the middle of half and full. I look at the camera setup, caster and toe values as well as SAI/Ackermann as contributors to the lack of conclusion. If those things could influence measured angle enough from 64.5 then, it seems reasonable it could also influence from 32.25.

Well, that's why you were supposed to do this test with 0 ackerman and 0 toe (caster and camber too, so they won't alter wheel angles at full lock). Otherwise - you are right, such test is useless.
But still, measure inside wheel at lock (left wheel when turning left) with two very different toe settings

 

[DenisCx]

Hi! Hope this can help you guys

View attachment 5842
http://steeringlockratiocalculator.com/

Thanks

 

[Diablo]

I want realistic setup options as well, like the OP. That setting of steering lock in the garage is just wrong, because in most cases that´s defined by the steering geometry of the car at hand. At some point you cannot make the wheel (tyre) turn any further, because it would scrub in the wheel arches, or the construction is simply at the end of its movements.

I think the proper solution would be:
- The steering lock, that degree value which determines how far the tyre can be turn left and right, is a property of the car, should not be a simple constant, instead it would just be the result of a properly modelled steering construction.
- There should be a setup option in the garage for steer ratio, if the car allows for changable steering racks.
- Also the Wheel lock-to-lock range of my controller needs to change with different steer ratios, for a smaller steer ratio makes me hit the mechanical limits of the steering construction with less controller wheel lock.
- If my controller wheel is mechanically limited to say 900 degrees lock-to-lock and the car has more than that, the cars wheel lock-to-lock range should be clipped/capped at my 900 degrees, so there would be no non-linearity if not explicitly configured and no artificial gain factor of say 1080/900, which would make my simulated steering more sensitive, than the real car.

 

[CdnRacer]

I want realistic setup options as well, like the OP. That setting of steering lock in the garage is just wrong, because in most cases that´s defined by the steering geometry of the car at hand. At some point you cannot make the wheel (tyre) turn any further, because it would scrub in the wheel arches, or the construction is simply at the end of its movements..

Sounds to me like a bunch of work for ISI when people will cheat this system anyway. I'm not sure how long you've been sim racing but if the software won't allow it, sim racers will just lower the degrees of rotation on their wheel to get unrealistic settings. Here is an example of this around here. http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.php/7429-rFactor-2-Car-Setups/page5


Things are just fine the way they are. No need for ISI to waste their time on this.