Good point. The 0 works well in all situations on my machine, but it may be
fast enough that it doesn't matter. On a system that is closer to the
lot more subtle) vs. the simple spring compression over a curb (kerb).
> Bumping into things is not a very good way of calibrating latency IMO.
> I don't even believe it exercises the same part of the physics model as
> the parameter that you do want to get synchronized, which is the front
> wheel alignment torque. The way to calibrate it is in the readme file -
> gradually increase latency until the forces that you get when swerving
> back and forth at speed are in synch with your steering motions. If you
> don't do it this way then the first time you make a mistake at speed you
> will find it very difficult to recover due to the delay in the forces.
> That is, you will make a correction, get it straight, and then the
> steering force will hit and send you off in the other direction. For me
> at least, the cars feel a lot more stable when I set the latency this
> way. And setting it in this manner resulted in a much higher latency
> correction than the bump method, on my system.
> Regards,
> Hal
> Who makes a lot of mistakes at speed ;o)
> > Jan,
> > It is highly dependant on the speed of your system (CPU, memory,
> graphics,
> > etc.) and the speed of your wheel connection (gameport vs. serial vs.
> USB).
> > That is, even the same wheel on the same system would require a
> different
> > core.ini setting if you were using the serial connection vs. the USB
> (for
> > those few wheels that come with more than one connecter).
> > I spent months crafting the GPL settings and with a fast system I can
> find
> > nothing that works better than 0. I don't want any software
> predicting
> > (which by definition is imperfect) if I don't need it. But you have
> to
> > experiment to see what works for you. Just pick a track with big
> curbing or
> > something that you can feel very well and try driving into it at
> fairly slow
> > speeds. You'll know if the reaction in your hands is not matching
> what you
> > are seeing on the screen. Unless you have a fairly slow machine, the
> feel
> > in your hands should be a natural extension of what you are seeing on
> the
> > screen--not delayed, or, exaggerated because it is being predicted.
> > Marc.
> message
> > > Hi,
> > > Ever since I got an FF wheel to use with GPL, I've been using 4ms
> Force
> > > Feedback latency in core.ini as, IIRC, this was about what someone
> at
> > > Papyrus suggested we use.
> > > With my old model LWFF this worked like a charm. When I bought the
> MOMO
> > > though, I got spikes in the FF using the same settings. After a lot
> of
> > > tinkering I struck a compromise, but the wheel would start
> oscillating
> > when
> > > I let go, so I upped the damping quite a bit which in turn killed
> the
> > feel,
> > > so in the end I reached a 2nd and what I thought was a final
> compromise.
> > > Then Mario Petrinovic suggested 21ms. Tried that eventhough it
> sounded
> > like
> > > a long time in comparison. No real spiking, but there was a sense of
> > > disjointed FF, so I rejected the idea.
> > > However, tonight, fellow MOMO owner Bart Westra suggested 35ms...
> even
> > > longer!! Bart is not someone who'd pull your leg in such matters,
> though,
> > so
> > > I tried it and whattaya know... perfect. Slight tendency to
> oscillate on
> > > compressions with hands off, but otherwise perfect.
> > > Right, now I'm confused.
> > > If I was smart I'd just shrug and start using 35ms, of course, but
> I'm
> > not.
> > > I've got to know now. What is a typical response time for a force
> feedback
> > > wheel (in your opinion)? What are your experiences using low vs high
> FF
> > > latency settings?
> > > Jan.
> > > =---
> > > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.
