Most of you may have heard of or read about the SAE950311 paper which
deals with low speed slip angles and ratios. The idea is to not
calculate the ratio/angle from the current velocities, but instead
make it into a differential equation which you integrate per step to
get the latest ratio/angle with the added benefit that you get
relaxation lengths for free.
I tried this method, and found I had big problems with the damping.
Needed coefficients that weren't near the 0.7 critical damping, but
required something like 35 for example, and even then it could go
horribly wrong at some points.
I then threw out the slip angle approach, as I couldn't get it right,
but left in the slip ratio diff equation, with a different damping
method, namely by scaling the slipRatio directly with 0.7 for example
when it changes sign. This works ok.
Yesterday I read in a thesis by Erik McKenzie Lowndes declaring the
above method to be used, explaining it a little, and casually
remarking that the damping is used as suggested (from SAE950311) and
that the damping force changes sign at each integration step.
This last thing, changing the damping force's sign each step, I
couldn't find this noted anywhere in the original SAE950311 document.
Still, when I think about it, this may either nullify the damping
(every 2nd step), or indeed work like expected.
Can anybody confirm, after implementing the SAE950311 method of
Bernard & Clover, that indeed this damping works if you reverse the
damping force each step? Or perhaps that it DOES need to have the same
sign after all.
Would be nice to be able to use it like that, since it uses lateral
force building because of the relaxation coefficient, something which
GPL supposedly didn't have. ;-)
Thanks, and I hope this all makes some sense to you all,
Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25
Pencil art : http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Free car sim : http://www.racesimcentral.net/