rec.autos.simulators

I use TrackIR in flight sims but never really liked it in racing sims due to
the problems you describe. Wider or multiple monitors are a much better
solution. As for the bouncing, that is very realistic in rFactor.

The problem with sim racing is that people always seem to want to sanitize
the experience in their pursuit of speed and winning. We could have had FFB
gear shifters and peddles by now, if people weren't so girlie in their
attitudes!

Remember all the crying when Papyrus took out the AI strength slider in GPL?
Going back further, I remember being laughed in my local computer store
because I was buying a CH Flight Yoke for use with racing sims (ICR2, back
then). 'Just use a gamepad' they advised me!

Then we had all the unrealistic GPL setups. And let's not forget you had to
put three wheels off at Spa to be competitive - total bull!

Hopefully, iRacing will bring some much needed order and *** realism to
this 'sport'.

For driving stuff I use a TIR profile that has a significant dead zone for
yaw, pitch and the X axis. I disable roll and the Y axis in the TIR
application. I can look side to side, up and down and focus in on guages
only with a deliberate effort. Roll and Y add to much movement so they're
out

Dave

Yea, that's what the issue was. Just needed more deadzone for roll. I like
the roll for driving sims because you actually tilt your head when looking
into the corners. The default racing setup is pretty good but the roll is
too sensitve and needed more deadzone. I've found the viewpoint was too low
usingn the TrackIR Pro that clips to headphones but the vector module that
you put on the brim of a cap or visor is about the right height. I lower my
seat when racing so needed a higher sensor than I would use in flight sims.

But in a real car you bounce with the car. In rFactor you are not actually
in the car so you feel like you are fighting against the bouncing. A little
bouncing is good but in rFactor there is a bit too much for my liking.

I found out I needed more deadzone for TrackIR to work well in racing
games. F1 Challenge works real well with it as that doesn't have too much
bouncing, just a little. I've got most of my racing sims working with it
well now, just need to do a bit more tweaking on the roll rate and
deadzone. I found I needed to adjust default FOV too because with TRackIR
on my default view was bit too far back in the car. TrackIR is expensive
considering for not much more I could get a Wii that uses basically the
same technology and offers you lot more than just motion sensing. Still, I
like TrackIR so am glad I bought it.

That won't work for me as I tried it and I'm one of these people that tend
to naturally tilt their head to one side. I need the deadzone.

Dave

This is not meant in an attacking way at all but have you ever been in a car
going over 160 mph?  (Um, just in case that is like 240 kph)

I wonder because I have more than once and I can tell you that my head/eyes
were NOT moving "with the car".  Assuming (as we should in the case of a
race car) a stiff suspensioned car.... you would not beleive the physical
impacts of track imperfections.  Your eyes and your car are NOT attached.  I
haven't driven on a race track that was smooth enough (no ovals here) to
make my vision "move with the car" at speeds over 150 mph.

Your body is getting rattled.... the sealbelts (5 point) save you in a crash
but they "HOLD YOU IN THE CAR" when you aren't crashing too!  Ever notice an
F1 drivers head popping up and down as he accellerated and braked??  Ya
think he wants that to be happening - 'cause I'm sure he doesn't.

HANS device --- Head and Neck Support
-- an attempt to more substantially connect the "head"/eyes to the car.
Prior to the hans device drivers were killed because the car stopped
suddenly, their body -restrained by the 5 point- stopped suddenly.... but
the HEAD (and eyes) not being restrained, did not stop as suddenly and was
stretched "beyond comfort" for the body and spine.  (verbage used to
minimize graphic detail)

The car is "tight" "stiff" and "lively" --- your head and eyes are somewhat
(within limits of a human) in freespace.

Racers tend to dislike CLOCKWISE rotation tracks.  Why?
The reason is that their bodies have been "conditioned" to manage all the
bumps, lumps, g-forces, et al of racing on a COUNTER-CLOCKWISE track (which
is much more prevalent)  Racing on a counter-clockwise track is *** the
neck and shoulders.  I personally think it affects your "track line vision"
in the same way.

Personally speaking... I think eyesight and being able to manage the
"vibrations/ up / down/ sudden surface impact/ changes/ etc." and having the
ability to focus quickly and accurately on multiple moving as well as
stationary objects all at the same time is a bit a special skill (or
requirement) for a successful race driver.

I have my "head vibration" and "look to apex" turned on in rFactor and I
think it adds to my immersion and thus pleasure.  :)

***  Of course this is all IMPO - so you can ignore if you like  :)   ***
--

The point about being able to focus and concentrate while being thrown
around, is a very salient one. This hobby will not be seen a feeder route
into real life racing unless it introduced some of the inconvenient and
uncomfortable realities of the real thing to racer wanting to cross over.

But what we have is a user base that is steering sim racing from a position
of ignorance, toward a perceived reality that doesn't exist.

No, dumbass, my point is that in a real car you are moving with the G-
Forces and raod bumps and can feel them and not stationary like when on
your PC. Surely, even a 10 year old can understand the difference? Why not
you? And just so you know, I've been playing racing sims since the days of
Papyrus IndyCar Racing so am not new to this game at all.

I only turned that off because I am using TrackIR. Are you using TrackIR?
Why would I have the game artificially move the view to look into the apex
when with TrackIR I am already doing that myself? I can only assume you
don't have TRackIR and your post was a complete waste because you don't
even understand what I was talking about.

I ignored 90% of it because you don't seem to understand the difference
between moving with G-Forces and bumps in the road and sitting stationary
in a computer chair with no forces to be felt at all. You seem to have the
same issue of understanding basic laws of physics as that dumbass Longcock.
Don't play "know it all" with me when it is obviuous you are talking out of
your ***crack.

My message was a waste of time --- you're too stupid to get it.

Thank You

==--==