rec.autos.simulators

by **Antoine Renau** » Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:00:00

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 22:49:16 -0500, "George Buhr II"

>I hear what you are saying, but I don't agree 100%. I can see how speed
>would make a steering wheel harder to turn, but I don't see how this effects
>steering input, especially from a sim point of view. The steering
>components are flexible to a point, yes, but come on! These parts might
>flex very small fractions of an inch at best, and would hardly make a
>significant difference in turning ratios. Did anyone watch the Argentine
>Grand Prix this weekend? I noticed many of the cars including Schumacher
>and Villeneuve looking awful twitchy at the end of the straights. It didn't
>look to me like they were having to fight to get the car to turn.

Ok maybe it only affects slightly turning ratios, but when combined to
the understeer you get when you're at full speed, plus the huge
downforces that press the tires ***to the pavement and cause the
steering wheel to be even harder to turn (I know they have power
steering now in F1, but did they have it in the 60's? I don't know
for sure...) all this combined makes the car less responsive to your
steering inputs. And when you're talking about twitchy cars at the
end of straights in F1 don't forget that most of the twitchy behavior
you're referring to happened under heavy acceleration or braking.
They also feel the bumpy surface (argentina is one of the worst tracks
in terms of bumpiness) and they have to hold thight to the wheel to
stay in control. That's a different matter. Remember when Schumi let
go of his steering wheel as he touched a curb in Monza, I think it was
in 1996... Scary!

So all I'm saying is that many factors contribute to making the car
less responsive at high speeds. This should be refelcted somehow in
the sim.

Thanks for your comments,

A. Renault

by **Stev** » Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Finally someone replies to something Charles says without poking fun :). I
can see that adding a reduce with speed option (perhaps just an increase
non linearity with speed?) would make it eaasier for close racing at high
speeds and therefore could well be a good thing (Shock horror two people
agree with him!!!)

Steve

by **Andy Thil** » Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Didn't say they have got bald tyres, but performance wise, there really
hasn't been much of a change when they reduced the track and changed to
grooved tyres.

by **Byron Forbe** » Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:00:00

> Finally someone replies to something Charles says without poking fun :). I
> can see that adding a reduce with speed option (perhaps just an increase
> non linearity with speed?) would make it eaasier for close racing at high
> speeds and therefore could well be a good thing (Shock horror two people
> agree with him!!!)

It's hard not to poke fun at someone who rubbishes the best piece of
software that has ever been seen IMO. Mr Mak has not just made
criticisms of GPL but has basically given the impression that the whole
thing stinks and is for the arcade orientated only which, in my book,
makes him a complete dodo who obviously has not much experience with
sims. He also has admitted that he uses his beloved and very realistic
GP2 with opposite lock help. What can I say?
Anyway, after a few hours with GPL I am most definantly ready for
traffic. Papy, if your here, change nothing! It seems most of these guys
are not accustomed to body roll/weight transfer.

by **Byron Forbe** » Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:00:00

> > The problem is you pal. The fact the GP2 has a reduce with speed
> >adjustment makes it more arcade than sim. This effectively allows you to
> >change the inertia feedback and IS NOT realistic ay all. The reduce with
> >speed is built into Papy sims as it should be and is done perfectly. Now
> >let me guess! You have the slider for linearity not all the way to the
> >right in GPL and in other Papy sims had the steering set to non-linear
> >rather than linear didn't you? Set the slider to the right and shut up!

> Er, I'm not quite sure how having reduce with speed is any more
> unrealistic than offering the option to have non-linear steering. Both
> are blatently unrealistic so why be so religiously against one but not
> denounce Papy for including the other?

> In previous sims Papy have included specific programming to help joystick
> and even keyboard drivers. 'Reduce with speed' is simply another aspect
> of this and I really don't see any strong argument for not having it
> without campaining against all the others.

> Even though I like very linear steering I do feel that reduce with speed
> is a good idea. I don't need it at the Glen but it would certainly make
> for better racing at somewhere like Monza. And until we get the sort of
> force feedback that can accurately represent the forces involved with
> turning a wheel at speed it seems a sensible compromise - indeed rather
> more sensible than allowing non-linear steering IMHO.

> Just because something has been picked up on by a troll doesn't
> automatically mean it's a bad idea ;-)

> And whilst on the subject I would like to see sensitivity settings for
> throttle and brake. I could achieve the same effect by physically messing
> about with my pedals (just as the RL drivers would) but it would be a
> heck of a lot simpler if implemented in the software <g>

You seem to have hit the nail on the head here Richard. Mostly at
least.

As you say, both are unrealistic so the fewer the better. All Papy
sims I use I have used the linear option and with GPL I set the slider
all the way to the right which is the same thing. I would be happy
obviously if all Papy sims just had the steering set to Linear and had
no option.

And I believe this would be correct too. Reason being that you then
have a situation where sim wheel deflection is proportional to the
torque a drivers hands would be applying to a real steering wheel which
for my money is the best solution in these days of non FF wheels. The
funny thing is that in all Papy manuals they recomend linear for
joysticks and non-linear for wheels, something I have always thought to
be wrong and all the good ICR2 drivers I know agree.

Perhaps also different wheels using pots with different ratings
(ohmage) have varying inbuilt linearity so the inclusion of a linearity
slider is perhaps excusable :) But I definantly believe that these
reduce with speed options should be killed off. Apart from anything
else, they're just a pain to fiddle about with. Just give me steering
lock and linear steering when FF is done right.

by **Byron Forbe** » Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Man it must have been late! Please read this fixed version. I
confused "linear" with "non - linear" at just about every opportunity in
that last dribble :)

> You seem to have hit the nail on the head here Richard. Mostly at
> least.

> As you say, both are unrealistic so the fewer the better. All Papy
> sims I use I have used the non - linear option and with GPL I set the slider
> all the way to the right which is the same thing. I would be happy
> obviously if all Papy sims just had the steering set to non - Linear and had
> no option.

> And I believe this would be correct too. Reason being that you then
> have a situation where sim wheel deflection is proportional to the
> torque a drivers hands would be applying to a real steering wheel which
> for my money is the best solution in these days of non FF wheels. The
> funny thing is that in all Papy manuals they recomend non - linear for
> joysticks and linear for wheels, something I have always thought to
> be wrong and all the good ICR2 drivers I know agree.

> Perhaps also different wheels using pots with different ratings
> (ohmage) have varying inbuilt linearity so the inclusion of a linearity
> slider is perhaps excusable :) But I definantly believe that these
> reduce with speed options should be killed off. Apart from anything
> else, they're just a pain to fiddle about with. Just give me steering
> lock and linear steering when FF is done right.

by **Richard Walk** » Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:00:00

> As you say, both are unrealistic so the fewer the better. All Papy
>sims I use I have used the linear option and with GPL I set the slider
>all the way to the right which is the same thing. I would be happy
>obviously if all Papy sims just had the steering set to Linear and had
>no option.

The *right*? That is the full NON linear setting with a huge unrealistic
null zone - I hope you're just getting your left and right confused :-))

btw - I find that the full linear setting (you know, the one over on the
left <g>) is actually more linear than previous Papy sims.

I disagree with you here - with linear steering the sim is accurately
reflecting the *deflection* of the wheel. IRL the torque is dependent on
car speed and cannot be portrayed in a non-FF wheel where the torque is
constant for a given deflection irrespective of the car's speed.

No wonder I never read the manuals ;-)

Linear pots should all be pretty linear and if not they probably won't be
symmetrically non-linear around the centre point but progressively
non-linear from left to right (or right to left <g>). That might be good
for oval racing but would be a disaster for road racing.

I think people with joysticks would find linear settings impossible to
drive with. It is usually very difficult to move a joystick precisely
close to it's centre point. Effectively excluding joystick users would
likely make the product unprofitable.

Anyway, having done some experimentation with the linearity settings I'm
now running with it fully linear and driving around by myself at least
don't find any need at all for a reduce with speed option. The car is
easy to turn in and very easy to correct with just small, natural
movements required.

About the only point where I might want some form of steering help is
that if I experiment with the glance left/right options I start drifiting
all over the track <vbg>

Cheers,
Richard

by **Stev** » Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Well, yes there is all that I suppose :-)

I was just surprised he made a point someone agreed with :-)

Steve

by **Jim Sokolof** » Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:00:00

> > The problem is you pal. The fact the GP2 has a reduce with speed
> >adjustment makes it more arcade than sim. This effectively allows you to
> >change the inertia feedback and IS NOT realistic ay all. The reduce with
> >speed is built into Papy sims as it should be and is done perfectly. Now
> >let me guess! You have the slider for linearity not all the way to the
> >right in GPL and in other Papy sims had the steering set to non-linear
> >rather than linear didn't you? Set the slider to the right and shut up!

> Er, I'm not quite sure how having reduce with speed is any more
> unrealistic than offering the option to have non-linear steering. Both
> are blatently unrealistic so why be so religiously against one but not
> denounce Papy for including the other?

No, a steering linkage is essentially a four-bar linkage. I can design
a four bar linkage that exhibits non-linear properties. In fact, your
road car has some non-linearity to it (unless the Ackerman is exactly
zero).

I can assure you that it does not have any "reduce angular
relationship with speed" feature to it.

---Jim

by **Jim Sokolof** » Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:00:00

> The funny thing is that in all Papy manuals they recomend linear for
> joysticks and non-linear for wheels, something I have always thought
> to be wrong and all the good ICR2 drivers I know agree.

That [the manual text] is wrong, but I thought that only went out in
the manual for NASCAR2, not "all Papy manuals."

---Jim

by **Richard Walk** » Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:00:00

I'll bow to your superior knowledge - does that extend to being able to
state that 1967 F1 race cars had non-linear steering though? <g> And if
they did, did any of them have the very high degree of non-linearity
possible to select in GPL? (I shudder to think of any driver that would
*want* that sort of non-linearity!)

What I'm trying to get at is that compromises have to be made in order to
transfer the mechanical motion of wheel / pedals / joystick into digital
inputs to the game engine. None of the currently available control
combinations are exactly like that used in any race car, let alone a
Lotus 49 ;-) None of them offer the correct feedback that *does* vary
with speed - and FF will not be capable of doing so for some time.

So if one particular compromise is deemed acceptable then why not others?
Where should the line be sensibly drawn? If an, admittedly unrealistic,
'reduce with speed' option allows the *simulation* of the different
torque required to turn the front wheels at different speeds then is this
necessarily so evil?

Just my 2 pence worth.

Cheers,
Richard

by **Wolfgang Prei** » Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:00:00

>No, a steering linkage is essentially a four-bar linkage. I can design
>a four bar linkage that exhibits non-linear properties. In fact, your
>road car has some non-linearity to it (unless the Ackerman is exactly
>zero).

Could you explain in a few words what the "Ackerman" is? (and don't
just say "no". :)

--
Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.

Uni des Saarlands \ and U.S. law. You have been warned.

by **Matthew Knutse** » Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:00:00

> >No, a steering linkage is essentially a four-bar linkage. I can
> design
> >a four bar linkage that exhibits non-linear properties. In fact, your

> >road car has some non-linearity to it (unless the Ackerman is exactly

> >zero).

> Could you explain in a few words what the "Ackerman" is? (and don't
> just say "no". :)

The Ackerman angle is the difference in steering lock/yaw angle between
the inner and outer front wheels in a turn. Some Ackerman is built-in to
help reduce understeer, especially on Front wheel drive cars, and for
tight circuits.

Cheers,
Matt

by **Byron Forbe** » Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:00:00

> > As you say, both are unrealistic so the fewer the better. All Papy
> >sims I use I have used the linear option and with GPL I set the slider
> >all the way to the right which is the same thing. I would be happy
> >obviously if all Papy sims just had the steering set to Linear and had
> >no option.

Damn it. In this post of mine I confused linear with non linear just
about everywhere :(((((

Let me try again :)

As you say, both are unrealistic so the fewer the better. All Papy
sims I use I have used the non linear option and with GPL I set the
slider
all the way to the right which is the same thing. I would be happy
obviously if all Papy sims just had the steering set to non linear and
had
no option.

This is the reason I find non linear more accurate/real. Because the
torque/deflection you apply to your sim wheel seems to me to feel more
realistic. Of course it does not look realistic ie I may use quite a
large wheel deflection at high speed, but this deflection is indicative
of how hard your trying to turn the wheel rather than how much it is
actually turning. In other words, with non linear you have sim wheel
defection is proportional to (or there abouts) the torque applied to the
actual wheel of a real car. On the other hand, with linear you have sim
wheel deflection is proportional to real wheel deflection. I suppose you
can argue as to which is more realistic but I think the non linear way
is since torque is the factor which dictates real wheel deflections and
NL just feels so much better/natural/realistic to me. Of course, with
the introduction of proper FF the linear way will most definantly be the
way of the future and will signal the end of the days of non linear
steering options. Once again, sorry for my original screwups :)

And again :( let me try again, hehehehe.

The funny thing is that in all Papy manuals they recomend non linear
for joysticks (correct IMO) and linear for wheels, something I have
always thought to be wrong and all the good ICR2 drivers I know agree.

Oh no, not again! Make that

"Just give me steering lock and linear steering when FF is done right.

See corrections above.

As you seem suprised at the way I use GPL ie full non linear (yes,
this is right, heheheheh), I am very suprised you can control the car in
a straight line with full linearity. What you refer to as the "huge dead
zone" is not as "dead as you think and makes for very accurate input and
clean driving. Once again, it's a feel thing.

- Show quoted text -

by **Byron Forbe** » Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:00:00

> > The funny thing is that in all Papy manuals they recomend linear for
> > joysticks and non-linear for wheels, something I have always thought
> > to be wrong and all the good ICR2 drivers I know agree.

> That [the manual text] is wrong, but I thought that only went out in
> the manual for NASCAR2, not "all Papy manuals."

My mistake. Sorry Papy and everyone else. Had a huge L/NL mixup in
that post. The reverse is what is written in Papy manuals. My point was
that I disagree with Papy suggesting linear for wheels. Everyone I know,
some of them the best in the biz, use non - linear with both their
wheels and joysticks. The thought of using linear steering frightens me
greatly :)

rec.autos.simulators

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.

GPL - I'm not trashing it.