the pain of thinking about combined full 3D rotations is too hard for
myself to get into right now during these hot summer days :). That's why
everything I've written is a linear approximation, where rotations can
be done interchangeably. In all seriousness, when angles involved are
lower than 0.1 radians (that's about 6 degrees), if taking 1 instead of
cos(x) and x instead of sin(x), you are making an error of about 0.5
percent, which is insignificant. Of course, all the formulas can be
given in an exact way and are numercially relativelty easy to do, but
would bring very little in accuracy and a lot in headaches to get them
absolutely right ;).
-Gregor
> Ah, so that would be cos(casterAngle)*tireRadius. No approximation
> needed probably, since this can be precalculated. Unless ofcourse you
> build in steering compliance. Skip that, I'll just precompute it and
> keep it static. ;-)
> >Indeed, it's mostly about the feedback, and the camber behaviour in
> >steering inputs. Definitely a secondary thing to consider in a car sim.
> >If you want to see the effects in a sim, Nascar 4 does this extremely
> >well. It makes a huge difference in FF and control of the vehicle, but I
> >couldn't notice any performance differences due to additional camber, at
> >least not with my untidy driving style ;).
> Sounds good, I don't want too many primary driving behavior anymore!
> Still, it seems nice to build in, since I noticed that the force
> feedback is very important to feel your limits, especially now that my
> skid volume code is in bad need of repairs! ;-)
> BTW I think that:
> additionalCamber=caster*wheelRotation should be
> additionalCamber*sin(wheelRotation), not sin(caster). But I may be
> wrong here. :) And besides, perhaps it's so close to linear for normal
> steering that the sin() isn't worth the calculation. Getting some
> optimization vibes up my spines.