FFB (new development)

Well, this is what I did. First I set Damper how I like it (to not feel friction, and to not feel wheel too thin). This is at 96% on my system. Then I tested Centering Spring with Spring being 0% (Damper at 96%). And it turned out that the best Centering Spring is also 96%. So, I would say that Centering Spring should be the same as Damper. If it is bigger than Damper, it develops snap-loose condition, if it is smaller it tries to spin car. So, it looks like the trick is in setting up Spring. I didn't have time to do this, but on my system it is somewhere around 120-130%. This I will set some other day. I'll try with Damper and Centering Spring at 0% to see how it behaves. I just went to Lime Rock with Legends, and saw a lot of people spinning. The difference between Damper and Centering Spring induces those spins, so I would suggest to make those two the same. Mario

>On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:24:35 +0200, "Mario Petrinovic" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I just went to Lime Rock with Legends, and saw a lot of people >spinning. The difference between Damper and Centering Spring induces those >spins, so I would suggest to make those two the same. > > Mario And here I have been thinking a spin is caused by too much speed, bad use of throttle, or wrong steering inputs!

GaryR:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >Mario Petrinovic: >> I just went to Lime Rock with Legends, and saw a lot of people >>spinning. The difference between Damper and Centering Spring induces those >>spins, so I would suggest to make those two the same. > > And here I have been thinking a spin is caused by too much speed, bad > use of throttle, or wrong steering inputs!

You can spin like that, or you can spin just turning into a corner at normal speed, because wrong FFB fools your senses into doing wrong things. BTW, I still didn't find time to test (I am too tired now, coming back from work), but from little test of Spring the previous day, it could very well be that the right setting for Spring on my system is 128%. If this is the case, then this would mean that iRacing locked Spring also at 75%, because 128 x 0.75 = 96. We know that Damper was also locked at 75%, but iRacing reverted it back to 100%. This 75% lock only confused things, because with this lock the right settings for my system should be 128/128/96 (because Centering Spring wasn't locked at 75%), and this is far from the default 100/100/100. I am looking forward in a few days to find out if this is so. Mario

Mario Petrinovic:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> GaryR: >> >Mario Petrinovic: >>> I just went to Lime Rock with Legends, and saw a lot of people >>>spinning. The difference between Damper and Centering Spring induces >>>those >>>spins, so I would suggest to make those two the same. >> >> And here I have been thinking a spin is caused by too much speed, bad >> use of throttle, or wrong steering inputs! > > You can spin like that, or you can spin just turning into a corner > at normal speed, because wrong FFB fools your senses into doing wrong > things. > BTW, I still didn't find time to test (I am too tired now, coming > back from work), but from little test of Spring the previous day, it could > very well be that the right setting for Spring on my system is 128%. If > this is the case, then this would mean that iRacing locked Spring also at > 75%, because 128 x 0.75 = 96. We know that Damper was also locked at 75%, > but iRacing reverted it back to 100%. > This 75% lock only confused things, because with this lock the > right settings for my system should be 128/128/96 (because Centering > Spring wasn't locked at 75%), and this is far from the default > 100/100/100. I am looking forward in a few days to find out if this is so.

Ok, here it is what happened. It looks like Spring isn't locked at 75%. It looks like, for the most "realistic" feel Spring and Damper should be both at 100%. Centering Spring, while it worked well at 96% when Spring and Damper were 0/96, it doesn't work well at 96% when Spring and Damper are both at 96%. It does work well though at the setting I determined with Damper and Spring both at 0%, and this is 22% on my system. So, now I am using 100/100/22. I also matched the Overall with what I like, so now I have 118/100/100/22 (Centering Spring unchecked, and everything else unchecked). Well, this is it, I tried everything, and I cannot do better than this. Now I will start to race, I hope it will be "truetful" to me when I start to work on car setups (which I will not do right now, first a little bit rookie racing, : )), which is the main reason why I tried to find the most "true" FFB settings in the first place, so that I can feel the best what is happening within the car. Mario

Mario Petrinovic:

Quoted text (41 lines)

> Mario Petrinovic: >> GaryR: >>> >Mario Petrinovic: >>>> I just went to Lime Rock with Legends, and saw a lot of people >>>>spinning. The difference between Damper and Centering Spring induces >>>>those spins, so I would suggest to make those two the same. >>> >>> And here I have been thinking a spin is caused by too much speed, bad >>> use of throttle, or wrong steering inputs! >> >> You can spin like that, or you can spin just turning into a corner >> at normal speed, because wrong FFB fools your senses into doing wrong >> things. >> BTW, I still didn't find time to test (I am too tired now, coming >> back from work), but from little test of Spring the previous day, it >> could >> very well be that the right setting for Spring on my system is 128%. If >> this is the case, then this would mean that iRacing locked Spring also at >> 75%, because 128 x 0.75 = 96. We know that Damper was also locked at 75%, >> but iRacing reverted it back to 100%. >> This 75% lock only confused things, because with this lock the >> right settings for my system should be 128/128/96 (because Centering >> Spring wasn't locked at 75%), and this is far from the default >> 100/100/100. I am looking forward in a few days to find out if this is >> so. > > Ok, here it is what happened. > It looks like Spring isn't locked at 75%. It looks like, for the > most "realistic" feel Spring and Damper should be both at 100%. Centering > Spring, while it worked well at 96% when Spring and Damper were 0/96, it > doesn't work well at 96% when Spring and Damper are both at 96%. It does > work well though at the setting I determined with Damper and Spring both > at 0%, and this is 22% on my system. So, now I am using 100/100/22. I also > matched the Overall with what I like, so now I have 118/100/100/22 > (Centering Spring unchecked, and everything else unchecked). > Well, this is it, I tried everything, and I cannot do better than > this. Now I will start to race, I hope it will be "truetful" to me when I > start to work on car setups (which I will not do right now, first a little > bit rookie racing, : )), which is the main reason why I tried to find the > most "true" FFB settings in the first place, so that I can feel the best > what is happening within the car.

Actually, I still have something to do. I'll try different Spring with 100/22 of Damper and Centering Spring. Mario

Mario Petrinovic:

Quoted text (48 lines)

> Mario Petrinovic: >> Mario Petrinovic: >>> GaryR: >>>> >Mario Petrinovic: >>>>> I just went to Lime Rock with Legends, and saw a lot of people >>>>>spinning. The difference between Damper and Centering Spring induces >>>>>those spins, so I would suggest to make those two the same. >>>> >>>> And here I have been thinking a spin is caused by too much speed, bad >>>> use of throttle, or wrong steering inputs! >>> >>> You can spin like that, or you can spin just turning into a >>> corner >>> at normal speed, because wrong FFB fools your senses into doing wrong >>> things. >>> BTW, I still didn't find time to test (I am too tired now, coming >>> back from work), but from little test of Spring the previous day, it >>> could >>> very well be that the right setting for Spring on my system is 128%. If >>> this is the case, then this would mean that iRacing locked Spring also >>> at >>> 75%, because 128 x 0.75 = 96. We know that Damper was also locked at >>> 75%, but iRacing reverted it back to 100%. >>> This 75% lock only confused things, because with this lock the >>> right settings for my system should be 128/128/96 (because Centering >>> Spring wasn't locked at 75%), and this is far from the default >>> 100/100/100. I am looking forward in a few days to find out if this is >>> so. >> >> Ok, here it is what happened. >> It looks like Spring isn't locked at 75%. It looks like, for the >> most "realistic" feel Spring and Damper should be both at 100%. Centering >> Spring, while it worked well at 96% when Spring and Damper were 0/96, it >> doesn't work well at 96% when Spring and Damper are both at 96%. It does >> work well though at the setting I determined with Damper and Spring both >> at 0%, and this is 22% on my system. So, now I am using 100/100/22. I >> also matched the Overall with what I like, so now I have 118/100/100/22 >> (Centering Spring unchecked, and everything else unchecked). >> Well, this is it, I tried everything, and I cannot do better than >> this. Now I will start to race, I hope it will be "truetful" to me when I >> start to work on car setups (which I will not do right now, first a >> little >> bit rookie racing, : )), which is the main reason why I tried to find the >> most "true" FFB settings in the first place, so that I can feel the best >> what is happening within the car. > > Actually, I still have something to do. I'll try different Spring > with 100/22 of Damper and Centering Spring.

Ok, I did some testing. It turned out that Spring and Cenetring Spring should be the same. But, on my system it isn't 22%. I went lower, and now I am at 14% (it is too late over here, so I have enough for today), but it probably is 13%. It looks like Damper doesn't have to be at 100%. For now I am testing with 100%, but probably I will go back to 96% with it. Mario

Mario Petrinovic:

Quoted text (61 lines)

> Mario Petrinovic: >> Mario Petrinovic: >>> Mario Petrinovic: >>>> GaryR: >>>>> >Mario Petrinovic: >>>>>> I just went to Lime Rock with Legends, and saw a lot of people >>>>>>spinning. The difference between Damper and Centering Spring induces >>>>>>those spins, so I would suggest to make those two the same. >>>>> >>>>> And here I have been thinking a spin is caused by too much speed, bad >>>>> use of throttle, or wrong steering inputs! >>>> >>>> You can spin like that, or you can spin just turning into a >>>> corner >>>> at normal speed, because wrong FFB fools your senses into doing wrong >>>> things. >>>> BTW, I still didn't find time to test (I am too tired now, >>>> coming >>>> back from work), but from little test of Spring the previous day, it >>>> could >>>> very well be that the right setting for Spring on my system is 128%. If >>>> this is the case, then this would mean that iRacing locked Spring also >>>> at >>>> 75%, because 128 x 0.75 = 96. We know that Damper was also locked at >>>> 75%, but iRacing reverted it back to 100%. >>>> This 75% lock only confused things, because with this lock the >>>> right settings for my system should be 128/128/96 (because Centering >>>> Spring wasn't locked at 75%), and this is far from the default >>>> 100/100/100. I am looking forward in a few days to find out if this is >>>> so. >>> >>> Ok, here it is what happened. >>> It looks like Spring isn't locked at 75%. It looks like, for the >>> most "realistic" feel Spring and Damper should be both at 100%. >>> Centering >>> Spring, while it worked well at 96% when Spring and Damper were 0/96, it >>> doesn't work well at 96% when Spring and Damper are both at 96%. It does >>> work well though at the setting I determined with Damper and Spring both >>> at 0%, and this is 22% on my system. So, now I am using 100/100/22. I >>> also matched the Overall with what I like, so now I have 118/100/100/22 >>> (Centering Spring unchecked, and everything else unchecked). >>> Well, this is it, I tried everything, and I cannot do better than >>> this. Now I will start to race, I hope it will be "truetful" to me when >>> I >>> start to work on car setups (which I will not do right now, first a >>> little >>> bit rookie racing, : )), which is the main reason why I tried to find >>> the >>> most "true" FFB settings in the first place, so that I can feel the best >>> what is happening within the car. >> >> Actually, I still have something to do. I'll try different Spring >> with 100/22 of Damper and Centering Spring. > > Ok, I did some testing. It turned out that Spring and Cenetring > Spring should be the same. But, on my system it isn't 22%. I went lower, > and > now I am at 14% (it is too late over here, so I have enough for today), > but it probably is 13%. > It looks like Damper doesn't have to be at 100%. For now I am > testing with 100%, but probably I will go back to 96% with it.

Ok, I am abandoning the idea of low Spring setting. I am back with Spring and Damper at 100%. I tested all the low settings, and Centering Spring is 15% (on my system) with Spring and Damper at 100%. I'll test higher numbers as well (for now I tested Centering Spring 0-22%). I am using Overall at 118%. Mario

Mario Petrinovic: > Ok, I am abandoning the idea of low Spring setting. I am back with > Spring and Damper at 100%. I tested all the low settings, and Centering > Spring is 15% (on my system) with Spring and Damper at 100%. I'll test > higher numbers as well (for now I tested Centering Spring 0-22%). I am > using Overall at 118%. Ok, having low Centering Spring is also wrong. It looks like the tension between Spring (S) and Centering Spring (CS) balances forces (because of lag, I presume). With Spring and Damper at 100% I have balanced forces with CS at something like 125% and something like 80%. With 125% CS is 25% higher than S. With 80% S is 25% higher than CS. I still have a lot to test (I am a working man, so don't have enough time), but I would really like to see what effect would be if I replace the CS value with S value. Also, the difference of Damper and Spring also creates tension, so locking Damper to 75% dfinitely wasn't a good idea (this only created even more confusion). Also, some other values create quazi balance (like CS at 15%, which I mentioned in previous post). But at the end it will be CS either at 125%, or 80% (peobably 125%, but first I must test thoroughly all combinations, just to be sure what is right). Mario

Mario Petrinovic:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Mario Petrinovic: >> Ok, I am abandoning the idea of low Spring setting. I am back with >> Spring and Damper at 100%. I tested all the low settings, and Centering >> Spring is 15% (on my system) with Spring and Damper at 100%. I'll test >> higher numbers as well (for now I tested Centering Spring 0-22%). I am >> using Overall at 118%. > > Ok, having low Centering Spring is also wrong. It looks like the > tension between Spring (S) and Centering Spring (CS) balances forces > (because of lag, I presume). With Spring and Damper at 100% I have > balanced > forces with CS at something like 125% and something like 80%. With 125% CS > is 25% higher than S. With 80% S is 25% higher than CS. I still have a lot > to test (I am a working man, so don't have enough time), but I would > really > like to see what effect would be if I replace the CS value with S value. > Also, the difference of Damper and Spring also creates tension, so > locking Damper to 75% dfinitely wasn't a good idea (this only created even > more confusion). Also, some other values create quazi balance (like CS at > 15%, which I mentioned in previous post). But at the end it will be CS > either at 125%, or 80% (peobably 125%, but first I must test thoroughly > all combinations, just to be sure what is right).

Ok, it looks very much like Spring and Centering Spring should be the same. I tested them from 100% to 138%, and it looks like they have to be even higher on my system (later I will also test how things behave below 100%). It very much looks like Damper and Overall can be per how pople like. I like Damper at 96%, and Overall at 118%. I am not yet finished, and I am looking forward to see how this will end (it WILL end soon, : )). Mario

Mario Petrinovic:

Quoted text (37 lines)

> Mario Petrinovic: >> Mario Petrinovic: >>> Ok, I am abandoning the idea of low Spring setting. I am back >>> with >>> Spring and Damper at 100%. I tested all the low settings, and Centering >>> Spring is 15% (on my system) with Spring and Damper at 100%. I'll test >>> higher numbers as well (for now I tested Centering Spring 0-22%). I am >>> using Overall at 118%. >> >> Ok, having low Centering Spring is also wrong. It looks like the >> tension between Spring (S) and Centering Spring (CS) balances forces >> (because of lag, I presume). With Spring and Damper at 100% I have >> balanced >> forces with CS at something like 125% and something like 80%. With 125% >> CS >> is 25% higher than S. With 80% S is 25% higher than CS. I still have a >> lot >> to test (I am a working man, so don't have enough time), but I would >> really >> like to see what effect would be if I replace the CS value with S value. >> Also, the difference of Damper and Spring also creates tension, so >> locking Damper to 75% dfinitely wasn't a good idea (this only created >> even >> more confusion). Also, some other values create quazi balance (like CS at >> 15%, which I mentioned in previous post). But at the end it will be CS >> either at 125%, or 80% (peobably 125%, but first I must test thoroughly >> all combinations, just to be sure what is right). > > Ok, it looks very much like Spring and Centering Spring should be > the same. I tested them from 100% to 138%, and it looks like they have to > be > even higher on my system (later I will also test how things behave below > 100%). > It very much looks like Damper and Overall can be per how pople > like. I like Damper at 96%, and Overall at 118%. I am not yet finished, > and > I am looking forward to see how this will end (it WILL end soon, : )).

Hm, it looks like Centering Spring and Spring are locked at 75%. I am getting fed up with this. Somebody who comes from some other world (other simulation), comes into iRacing, stays one month, and goes away, seeing that he isn't compatible with iRacing's world. I mean, there is simply no sense in all this. In other simulations guy is using one FFB setting, and iRacing has something completly different. Why? To have "better resolution"? Resolution of what? Mario

On 11/7/2011 7:20 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

Quoted text (49 lines)

> Mario Petrinovic: >> Mario Petrinovic: >>> Mario Petrinovic: >>>> Ok, I am abandoning the idea of low Spring setting. I am back >>>> with >>>> Spring and Damper at 100%. I tested all the low settings, and Centering >>>> Spring is 15% (on my system) with Spring and Damper at 100%. I'll test >>>> higher numbers as well (for now I tested Centering Spring 0-22%). I am >>>> using Overall at 118%. >>> >>> Ok, having low Centering Spring is also wrong. It looks like the >>> tension between Spring (S) and Centering Spring (CS) balances forces >>> (because of lag, I presume). With Spring and Damper at 100% I have >>> balanced >>> forces with CS at something like 125% and something like 80%. With 125% >>> CS >>> is 25% higher than S. With 80% S is 25% higher than CS. I still have a >>> lot >>> to test (I am a working man, so don't have enough time), but I would >>> really >>> like to see what effect would be if I replace the CS value with S value. >>> Also, the difference of Damper and Spring also creates tension, so >>> locking Damper to 75% dfinitely wasn't a good idea (this only created >>> even >>> more confusion). Also, some other values create quazi balance (like >>> CS at >>> 15%, which I mentioned in previous post). But at the end it will be CS >>> either at 125%, or 80% (peobably 125%, but first I must test thoroughly >>> all combinations, just to be sure what is right). >> >> Ok, it looks very much like Spring and Centering Spring should be >> the same. I tested them from 100% to 138%, and it looks like they have to >> be >> even higher on my system (later I will also test how things behave below >> 100%). >> It very much looks like Damper and Overall can be per how pople >> like. I like Damper at 96%, and Overall at 118%. I am not yet finished, >> and >> I am looking forward to see how this will end (it WILL end soon, : )). > > Hm, it looks like Centering Spring and Spring are locked at 75%. I > am getting fed up with this. Somebody who comes from some other world > (other simulation), comes into iRacing, stays one month, and goes away, > seeing that he isn't compatible with iRacing's world. I mean, there is > simply no sense in all this. In other simulations guy is using one FFB > setting, and iRacing has something completly different. Why? To have > "better resolution"? Resolution of what? > > Mario

Your wallet?

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:20:24 +0100, "Mario Petrinovic" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I am getting fed up with this. Somebody who comes from some other world (other >simulation), comes into iRacing, stays one month, and goes away, seeing that >he isn't compatible with iRacing's world. I mean, there is simply no sense >in all this. In other simulations guy is using one FFB setting, and iRacing >has something completly different. Why? To have "better resolution"? >Resolution of what? Every software developer is going to have a different implementation of FFB, based on *their* physics engine, *their* tyre model, etc. You should *expect* every simulation to be different because of that. If software developer "X" invents an awesome new way to express physics or tyre model, then those new developments will show up in their simulation as new options not seen in other programs. What developer "X" requires of "100%" FFB strength might be a completely different requirement/implementation for developer "Y". IOW, an expectation that all implementation of FFB will be the same isn't realistic.

FolkGT:

Quoted text (22 lines)

>Mario Petrinovic: >> I am getting fed up with this. Somebody who comes from some other world >> (other >>simulation), comes into iRacing, stays one month, and goes away, seeing >>that >>he isn't compatible with iRacing's world. I mean, there is simply no sense >>in all this. In other simulations guy is using one FFB setting, and >>iRacing >>has something completly different. Why? To have "better resolution"? >>Resolution of what? > > Every software developer is going to have a different implementation of > FFB, based on *their* physics engine, *their* tyre model, etc. You should > *expect* every simulation to be different because of that. If software > developer "X" invents an awesome new way to express physics or tyre model, > then those new developments will show up in their simulation as new > options not seen in other programs. What developer "X" requires of "100%" > FFB strength might be a completely different requirement/implementation > for developer "Y". > > IOW, an expectation that all implementation of FFB will be the same isn't > realistic.

I am always amazed how people have rich imagination. Believe me, I explore FFB for the last 10 years (I did have a pause for some 5-6 years), and believe me, there is no much difference in FFB of Papyrus 10 years ago from this new one. When I fiddle with iRacing's FFB around 133.33% it is just the same feel like 10 years ago when I fiddled with some other simulations around 100%. Besides, did you read what I wrote. The difference is, YES, iRacing SHIFTED values for 25% (or 33,33%, however you like it), this is your big difference. You are all into some "new" development, and this excites your imagination. Well fine. The movement of a car left is the same in all simulations, this goes for the movement of a car right, as well. There is no point in changing the FFB if you change how car responds to your input by the way of better and more realistic physics. What is the difference between iRacing and N4S? Car goes through corners in both situations. If you use standardized FFB you can see what is the real difference. If you use alchemy, the difference is much bigger, whatever you put into this alchemy. I repeat, this is a road to nowhere. A LOT of people are using some other racing games. Kids are using N4S. When they change to iRacing they are lost. Besides, there is very informastive FAQ section in iRacing. Well, if you ask me, shifting FFB for 25% is THE MOST important thing you have to now about this simulation, and yet, I don't see a single word about it in this vast FAQ section. Why? I need to know this very much, but the thing I have to know very much is not there. Mario

Mario Petrinovic:

Quoted text (57 lines)

> FolkGT: >>Mario Petrinovic: >>> I am getting fed up with this. Somebody who comes from some other world >>> (other >>>simulation), comes into iRacing, stays one month, and goes away, seeing >>>that >>>he isn't compatible with iRacing's world. I mean, there is simply no >>>sense >>>in all this. In other simulations guy is using one FFB setting, and >>>iRacing >>>has something completly different. Why? To have "better resolution"? >>>Resolution of what? >> >> Every software developer is going to have a different implementation of >> FFB, based on *their* physics engine, *their* tyre model, etc. You >> should >> *expect* every simulation to be different because of that. If software >> developer "X" invents an awesome new way to express physics or tyre >> model, >> then those new developments will show up in their simulation as new >> options not seen in other programs. What developer "X" requires of >> "100%" >> FFB strength might be a completely different requirement/implementation >> for developer "Y". >> >> IOW, an expectation that all implementation of FFB will be the same isn't >> realistic. > > I am always amazed how people have rich imagination. > Believe me, I explore FFB for the last 10 years (I did have a pause > for some 5-6 years), and believe me, there is no much difference in FFB of > Papyrus 10 years ago from this new one. When I fiddle with iRacing's FFB > around 133.33% it is just the same feel like 10 years ago when I fiddled > with some other simulations around 100%. > Besides, did you read what I wrote. The difference is, YES, iRacing > SHIFTED values for 25% (or 33,33%, however you like it), this is your big > difference. You are all into some "new" development, and this excites your > imagination. Well fine. > The movement of a car left is the same in all simulations, this > goes > for the movement of a car right, as well. There is no point in changing > the > FFB if you change how car responds to your input by the way of better and > more realistic physics. What is the difference between iRacing and N4S? > Car goes through corners in both situations. > If you use standardized FFB you can see what is the real > difference. > If you use alchemy, the difference is much bigger, whatever you put into > this alchemy. > I repeat, this is a road to nowhere. A LOT of people are using some > other racing games. Kids are using N4S. When they change to iRacing they > are lost. > Besides, there is very informastive FAQ section in iRacing. Well, > if you ask me, shifting FFB for 25% is THE MOST important thing you have > to now about this simulation, and yet, I don't see a single word about it > in this vast FAQ section. Why? I need to know this very much, but the > thing I have to know very much is not there.

Actually now, after additional testing, I am not sure what is really going on. It turned out that the most balanced setting if Spring and Centering Spring are at the same value, is at 139%. This is very interesting, because before when I had Spring at 100%, the balanced Centering Spring was at 119%, which is exactly half of 100% and 139%. I had thorough testing, and those values are absolutely correct. I'll test some more, to see how this all behaves through the range. I just wanted to say that it doesn't have to be that those are locked to 75%, it just could be that at my system it works like that (somewhere around 133.33%). Anyway, it is drivable from 135% to 139%. Just for additional inormation, this was with Damper at 100%. Later I checked with Damper at 96%, and the sensation repeated (again the most balanced S and CS was at 139%), the only correction of the feel was because of shifted Damper by 4%. Mario

[email hidden] (Mario Petrinovic) wrote: > Actually now, after additional testing, I am not sure what is really > going on. You are a martyr to the FFB cause, mario! I just fiddle with in-sim settings for a minute or two, then get on with driving. But then I am nearly 50. Sometimes life really *is* too short. :-) Andrew McP

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:10 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), [email hidden] (Andrew MacPherson) wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>[email hidden] (Mario Petrinovic) wrote: >> >> I am not sure what is really going on. > >You are a martyr to the FFB cause, mario! I just fiddle with in-sim settings for a >minute or two, then get on with driving. But then I am nearly 50. Sometimes life >really *is* too short. :-) > >Andrew McP

Martyr? He's the friggin Mad Hatter! I did a search on the word "drivel" and ended up here...

GaryR:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>Andrew MacPherson: >>>Mario Petrinovic: >>> I am not sure what is really going on. >> >>You are a martyr to the FFB cause, mario! I just fiddle with in-sim >>settings for a >>minute or two, then get on with driving. But then I am nearly 50. >>Sometimes life really *is* too short. :-) > > Martyr? He's the friggin Mad Hatter! > > I did a search on the word "drivel" and ended up here...

Lol. For some reason my server didn't show your post Andrew, but now I see it. Well, in my eyes world has sense. Those people at the Immersion company didn't built FFB just like a random thing, they built it per some rules. I have to know them if I am to use FFB. Too bad nobody did this before. I remember (long time ago) first I started to research FFB on a small monitor (21") and with the Solstice. This was wrong car for that. After some time I decided to buy other cars, and with larger monitor (32"). Monitor still wasn't big enough, but one of my first good settings (and the one I was pretty sure that it works) was 139/139/139/139. At that time Damper was locked at 75%, so it would be like today's 139/139/104.25/139. Now I am using 118/139/100/139, which is pretty close. The drawback of that all 139 setting was that it was too heavy (obviously because of too large Overall). Also, I was very suspicios because of too large numbers, being so far form the default all at 100, and everybody told me that those MUST be wrong. Later I went some other ways, and it turned out that iRacing locked Damper at 75%, so those numbers (well, at least for Damper), aren't too big, in fact lower numbers are too small. Interestingly, in some later testings, when I had numbers around 100, I liked to use Overall 139. Spring and Centering Spring definitely are 139 (or very close to it, not more, maybe 135 to 139). It is very hard (I could say, impossible) to find them if Damper isn't exactly 100, and you will never find them if Damper is locked to 75%, because Damper that isn't 100 brings aditional disturbance to FFB. While with Damper at 100 I could find them easily, with Damper at 96, and with all my experience, it was very hard for me to distinguish 139. Only because I knew EXACTLY what diminishing the Damper means to FFB I was able to distinguish this disturbance from what I am searching for, otherwise this disturbance would ruin my search. If iRacing didn't unlock Damper, I could never find that setting (when before I had all 139, it was just because it worked, but I didn't know why exactly, so I continued to search at other places). Mario

Mario Petrinovic:

Quoted text (38 lines)

> Well, in my eyes world has sense. Those people at the Immersion > company didn't built FFB just like a random thing, they built it per some > rules. I have to know them if I am to use FFB. Too bad nobody did this > before. > I remember (long time ago) first I started to research FFB on a > small monitor (21") and with the Solstice. This was wrong car for that. > After some time I decided to buy other cars, and with larger monitor > (32"). > Monitor still wasn't big enough, but one of my first good settings (and > the > one I was pretty sure that it works) was 139/139/139/139. At that time > Damper was locked at 75%, so it would be like today's 139/139/104.25/139. > Now I am using 118/139/100/139, which is pretty close. > The drawback of that all 139 setting was that it was too heavy > (obviously because of too large Overall). Also, I was very suspicios > because > of too large numbers, being so far form the default all at 100, and > everybody told me that those MUST be wrong. Later I went some other ways, > and it turned out that iRacing locked Damper at 75%, so those numbers > (well, > at least for Damper), aren't too big, in fact lower numbers are too small. > Interestingly, in some later testings, when I had numbers around 100, I > liked to use Overall 139. Spring and Centering Spring definitely are 139 > (or > very close to it, not more, maybe 135 to 139). It is very hard (I could > say, > impossible) to find them if Damper isn't exactly 100, and you will never > find them if Damper is locked to 75%, because Damper that isn't 100 brings > aditional disturbance to FFB. While with Damper at 100 I could find them > easily, with Damper at 96, and with all my experience, it was very hard > for > me to distinguish 139. Only because I knew EXACTLY what diminishing the > Damper means to FFB I was able to distinguish this disturbance from what I > am searching for, otherwise this disturbance would ruin my search. If > iRacing didn't unlock Damper, I could never find that setting (when before > I > had all 139, it was just because it worked, but I didn't know why exactly, > so I continued to search at other places).

Ok, it looks like damper likes to be the same as Spring and Centering Spring. Just the way I like it, : ). The only problem is, now I have bunch of good settings (there are better ones than the 139 setting), and I have to choose one. Mario

Mario Petrinovic: > Ok, it looks like damper likes to be the same as Spring and > Centering Spring. Just the way I like it, : ). The only problem is, now I > have bunch of good settings (there are better ones than the 139 setting), > and I have to choose one. Oh, I forgot to say that this, of course, means that Spring and Centering Spring aren't locked to 75%, : ). Mario

Quoted text (11 lines)

>On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:45:33 +0100, "Mario Petrinovic" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Mario Petrinovic: >> Ok, it looks like damper likes to be the same as Spring and >> Centering Spring. Just the way I like it, : ). The only problem is, now I >> have bunch of good settings (there are better ones than the 139 setting), >> and I have to choose one. > > Oh, I forgot to say that this, of course, means that Spring and >Centering Spring aren't locked to 75%, : ). > > Mario

All I can say is OH......... MY........... GOD

[email hidden] (GaryR) wrote: > All I can say is OH......... MY........... GOD I think it's important to remember that many of the major breakthroughs in life come from people who most would consider to be obsessive maniacs. :-) And, at the very least, he's keeping the group alive. I don't see any of us discussing the merits of iRacing's new-new tyre models, the fact they've finally talked about introducing (eventually!) a Lotus 49, or about CARS, or the building anxiety as rFactor approaches some kind of (slightly worrying) beta release. At least Mario's posts make me feel guilty about not posting here more often, so he's serving a valuable purpose. :-) Andrew McP

GaryR:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>Mario Petrinovic: >>Mario Petrinovic: >>> Ok, it looks like damper likes to be the same as Spring and >>> Centering Spring. Just the way I like it, : ). The only problem is, now >>> I >>> have bunch of good settings (there are better ones than the 139 >>> setting), and I have to choose one. >> >> Oh, I forgot to say that this, of course, means that Spring and >>Centering Spring aren't locked to 75%, : ). > > All I can say is OH......... MY........... GOD

Ok, I'll leave Damper and Spring at 100%, and Centering Spring is more like 139% than 119%, I believe. Mario

I actually am now addicted to World of Tanks! We should discuss that... 8-) GR

Quoted text (19 lines)

>On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 02:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), [email hidden] (Andrew MacPherson) wrote: >[email hidden] (GaryR) wrote: > >> All I can say is OH......... MY........... GOD > >I think it's important to remember that many of the major breakthroughs in life >come from people who most would consider to be obsessive maniacs. :-) > >And, at the very least, he's keeping the group alive. I don't see any of us >discussing the merits of iRacing's new-new tyre models, the fact they've finally >talked about introducing (eventually!) a Lotus 49, or about CARS, or the building >anxiety as rFactor approaches some kind of (slightly worrying) beta release. > >At least Mario's posts make me feel guilty about not posting here more often, so >he's serving a valuable purpose. :-) > >Andrew McP > >

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 02:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), [email hidden] (Andrew MacPherson) wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>[email hidden] (GaryR) wrote: > >> All I can say is OH......... MY........... GOD > >I think it's important to remember that many of the major breakthroughs in life >come from people who most would consider to be obsessive maniacs. :-) > >And, at the very least, he's keeping the group alive. I don't see any of us >discussing the merits of iRacing's new-new tyre models, the fact they've finally >talked about introducing (eventually!) a Lotus 49, or about CARS, or the building >anxiety as rFactor approaches some kind of (slightly worrying) beta release.

I'd be happy to talk about CARS. It's the brightest star on the horizon! VVV Automotive put up a nice vid the other day. http://www.wmdportal.com/projectnews/vvv-automotive-tries-project-cars/ I would love to have that D-Box setup. :)

On 11/11/2011 02:00, Andrew MacPherson wrote: > I think it's important to remember that many of the major breakthroughs in life > come from people who most would consider to be obsessive maniacs. :-) Are you going to tell him or shall I that iRacing introduced a new app.ini variable SteeringFFBSmooth. This mixes the current FFB settings with the average to apply some filtering. So if like me you like some steering weight but don't want your desk shaken over the bumps at Lime Rock or hitting the ABS in an MX5 then this option can smooth things out. This will give Mario another 6 decimal places to play with - think of the combinations of filter+spring+damper+centre spring!

Tony R:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Andrew MacPherson: >> I think it's important to remember that many of the major breakthroughs >> in life >> come from people who most would consider to be obsessive maniacs. :-) > > Are you going to tell him or shall I that iRacing introduced a new app.ini > variable SteeringFFBSmooth. This mixes the current FFB settings with the > average to apply some filtering. So if like me you like some steering > weight but don't want your desk shaken over the bumps at Lime Rock or > hitting the ABS in an MX5 then this option can smooth things out. > > This will give Mario another 6 decimal places to play with - think of the > combinations of filter+spring+damper+centre spring!

I know about that, but I didn't try it yet. Supposedly this is for Fanatec wheels, which didn't surprise me (although I didn't try those wheels). Mario

Mario Petrinovic:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> GaryR: >>Mario Petrinovic: >>>Mario Petrinovic: >>>> Ok, it looks like damper likes to be the same as Spring and >>>> Centering Spring. Just the way I like it, : ). The only problem is, now >>>> I >>>> have bunch of good settings (there are better ones than the 139 >>>> setting), and I have to choose one. >>> >>> Oh, I forgot to say that this, of course, means that Spring and >>>Centering Spring aren't locked to 75%, : ). >> >> All I can say is OH......... MY........... GOD > > Ok, I'll leave Damper and Spring at 100%, and Centering Spring is > more like 139% than 119%, I believe.

Ok, interesting development. Regarding Centering Spring (CS), I figured out that all CS settings that worked well are related. These are those settings: 139, 119, 22. 139 is 39 above 100 119 is 19 (39/2) above 100 22 is 78 (39*2) below 100 So I figured out that 61 would also work well, as it does. But, if I put CS, Spring (S) and Damper (D) at 61, car drives and centers well, only D is clearly too low, it doesn't tame forces enough. OTOH, if I put D to 100 I have problems with controlling car. So, it looks like to set D correctly is critical, since wrongly set D can disturb forces and ruin your testing. Thankfully I understand D rightly, now. From previuos testings it looks like D should be 80-85 (it could be related to the Overall strength, which is 118, I don't know, I am not sure). So, everything goes well, I am on the right track, it shouldn't be hard to set D correctly, and CS also correctly, and I believe S should be the same of close to CS. So, hopefully within a week I'll get my settings rightly, only I have to test all those possibilities, and that's it, : ). Mario

Well well:-) [email hidden] "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> [email hidden] (Mario Petrinovic) wrote: > >> Actually now, after additional testing, I am not sure what is really >> going on. > > You are a martyr to the FFB cause, mario! I just fiddle with in-sim > settings for a > minute or two, then get on with driving. But then I am nearly 50. > Sometimes life > really *is* too short. :-) > > Andrew McP