I got one just two days ago and I like it quite a lot in flight sims
but I'm finding it is making my driving sims a bit harder because the
cars now feel too alive in games like GTR2, Race07 and rFactor. My
view is moving around more than I want. I've disable look to apex and
Gforce movement as much as possible in the game interface but the cars
bouncing seems to be hardcoded, or is there a way to lessen that too
in the ISI based games?
"Poky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
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 hardcore realism to
this 'sport'.
Quoted text (7 lines)
>I got one just two days ago and I like it quite a lot in flight sims > but I'm finding it is making my driving sims a bit harder because the > cars now feel too alive in games like GTR2, Race07 and rFactor. My > view is moving around more than I want. I've disable look to apex and > Gforce movement as much as possible in the game interface but the cars > bouncing seems to be hardcoded, or is there a way to lessen that too > in the ISI based games?
"Poky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
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
Quoted text (8 lines)
>I got one just two days ago and I like it quite a lot in flight sims > but I'm finding it is making my driving sims a bit harder because the > cars now feel too alive in games like GTR2, Race07 and rFactor. My > view is moving around more than I want. I've disable look to apex and > Gforce movement as much as possible in the game interface but the cars > bouncing seems to be hardcoded, or is there a way to lessen that too > in the ISI based games? >"DavErb" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:
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.
Quoted text (10 lines)
> > 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 > >"Roger Longcock" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:tTvYj.95981$[email hidden]:
> 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.
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.
Gumby wrote:
> "DavErb" <[email hidden]> wrote in
> news:[email hidden]:
>
>> For driving stuff I use a TIR profile that has a significant dead zone
>> for yaw, pitch and the X axis....
I do just the opposite. I have no dead zone so there is alway movement.
It is much more predictive than moving out of the dead zone and all of a
suddenly having movement. On the other hand I have the values on the
curve set extremely low so the movement of head to screen is as close to
1 to 1 as is possible. Just another approach.
"rqk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
1 to 1 is best in flight sims too.
Quoted text (11 lines)
> Gumby wrote: >> "DavErb" <[email hidden]> wrote in >> news:[email hidden]: >>> For driving stuff I use a TIR profile that has a significant dead zone >>> for yaw, pitch and the X axis.... > > I do just the opposite. I have no dead zone so there is alway movement. It > is much more predictive than moving out of the dead zone and all of a > suddenly having movement. On the other hand I have the values on the curve > set extremely low so the movement of head to screen is as close to 1 to 1 > as is possible. Just another approach.rqk <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
> I do just the opposite. I have no dead zone so there is alway movement.
> It is much more predictive than moving out of the dead zone and all of a
> suddenly having movement. On the other hand I have the values on the
> curve set extremely low so the movement of head to screen is as close to
> 1 to 1 as is possible. Just another approach.
>
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.
"rqk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Just goes to show that there is no "one true way" in setting up your TIR
profiles :)
I hate to think of the amount of time I've spent futzing around trying to
get it so it feels right to me. I suspect that my settings would seem very
odd to some and quite natural to others.
Dave
Quoted text (11 lines)
> Gumby wrote: >> "DavErb" <[email hidden]> wrote in >> news:[email hidden]: >>> For driving stuff I use a TIR profile that has a significant dead zone >>> for yaw, pitch and the X axis.... > > I do just the opposite. I have no dead zone so there is alway movement. It > is much more predictive than moving out of the dead zone and all of a > suddenly having movement. On the other hand I have the values on the curve > set extremely low so the movement of head to screen is as close to 1 to 1 > as is possible. Just another approach.Hi Gumby
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 hard on 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 :) ***
--
"Gumby" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:dWGYj.153614$Cj7.103254@pd7urf2no...
> "Roger Longcock" <[email hidden]> wrote in
> news:tTvYj.95981$[email hidden]:
>
>> I use TrackIR in flight sims but never really liked it in racing sims
>> due to the problems you describe. Wider or multiple monitors are a
>> much better solution. As for the bouncing, that is very realistic in
>> rFactor.
>
> But in a real car you bounce with the car. In rFactor you are not actually
> in the car so you feel like you are fighting against the bouncing. A
> little
> bouncing is good but in rFactor there is a bit too much for my liking.
>
> I found out I needed more deadzone for TrackIR to work well in racing
> games. F1 Challenge works real well with it as that doesn't have too much
> bouncing, just a little. I've got most of my racing sims working with it
> well now, just need to do a bit more tweaking on the roll rate and
> deadzone. I found I needed to adjust default FOV too because with TRackIR
> on my default view was bit too far back in the car. TrackIR is expensive
> considering for not much more I could get a Wii that uses basically the
> same technology and offers you lot more than just motion sensing. Still, I
> like TrackIR so am glad I bought it.
This post is spot on! I think the original poster has fallen into the trap
of wanting to be too comfortable with using a sim. It's this attitude that
has dumded down this hobby.
The point about being able to focus and concentrate while being thrown
around, is a very salient one. This hobby will not be seen a feeder route
into real life racing unless it introduced some of the inconvenient and
uncomfortable realities of the real thing to racer wanting to cross over.
But what we have is a user base that is steering sim racing from a position
of ignorance, toward a perceived reality that doesn't exist.
"==--==" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:HdzZj.159256$rd2.114940@pd7urf3no...
Quoted text (78 lines)
> Hi Gumby > > 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 > hard on 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 :) *** > -- > > > "Gumby" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:dWGYj.153614$Cj7.103254@pd7urf2no... >> "Roger Longcock" <[email hidden]> wrote in >> news:tTvYj.95981$[email hidden]: >> >>> 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. >> >> 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. > >"Roger Longcock" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:MozZj.25$[email hidden]:
No, dumbass, my point is that in a real car you are moving with the G-
Forces and raod bumps and can feel them and not stationary like when on
your PC. Surely, even a 10 year old can understand the difference? Why not
you? And just so you know, I've been playing racing sims since the days of
Papyrus IndyCar Racing so am not new to this game at all.
Quoted text (12 lines)
> This post is spot on! I think the original poster has fallen into the > trap of wanting to be too comfortable with using a sim. It's this > attitude that has dumded down this hobby. > > The point about being able to focus and concentrate while being thrown > around, is a very salient one. This hobby will not be seen a feeder > route into real life racing unless it introduced some of the > inconvenient and uncomfortable realities of the real thing to racer > wanting to cross over. > > But what we have is a user base that is steering sim racing from a > position of ignorance, toward a perceived reality that doesn't exist."==--==" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:HdzZj.159256$rd2.114940@pd7urf3no:
> I have my "head vibration" and "look to apex" turned on in rFactor and
> I think it adds to my immersion and thus pleasure. :)
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.
> *** Of course this is all IMPO - so you can ignore if you like :)
> *** --
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 butt crack.
Yup - you're right.
My message was a waste of time --- you're too stupid to get it.
Thank You
==--==
"Gumby" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hQEZj.289590$pM4.184024@pd7urf1no...
