momo thoughts

Well I have had my momo wheel a couple of months now and for sure it a nice bit if kit but they are some problems that maybe somebody here might know ways round. I first started using it with F1 2002 as my last wheel ( Thrustmaster Ferrari FF) broke. My initial problem was that the amount of lock on the wheel was huge and I was having to nearly cross my arms over to get round some turns. After a couple of weeks I managed to get it going by turning the x sensitivity slider in the game up to 88%, now the wheel movement copies the movement of the wheel on screen in the game and things are sweet. So next was Nascar 2002 and again I fixed the same problem by adjusting the wheel linearity setting up to 100% and all is good. But here where the problems begin that I have not been able to fix, some games dont have sensitivity or linearity settings for example SBK 2001 so basically I am left with an unresponsive wheel which leaves the sim undriveable.SO I am a bit gutted to say the least, also the same prob with Moto GP (which is pure shit arcade) so this could be a problem. Anyway the wheel is good but my old thrustmaster for instance on f1 2001 didnt even need any adjustment and this one is at 88%, big difference and big problem. I hope new games coming out are going to be driveable and have the neccesary in game setup options to allow me the use the wheel as it sure cost enough money. Adrian.

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:09:50 +0100, "Adrian" <[email hidden]> wrote: >some >games dont have sensitivity or linearity settings This will help: http://home.att.net/~stickworks/swdownld.html#CTFJV320 http://home.att.net/~stickworks/ctfjv320.zip Have fun! CTFJV320.ZIP contains version 3.20 of the CTFJ Joystick Utility for W95 and W98. CTFJ features improved scaling and deadzone routines and expanded scaling methods over those provided with Windows as well as providing Gain and Range adjustments that allow you tailor your joystick reponse for optimum results with any game or simulation.

> I first started using it with F1 2002 as my last wheel ( Thrustmaster > Ferrari FF) broke. My initial problem was that the amount of lock on the > wheel was huge and I was having to nearly cross my arms over to get round > some turns. After a couple of weeks I managed to get it going by turningthe > x sensitivity slider in the game up to 88%, now the wheel movement copies > the movement of the wheel on screen in the game and things are sweet. WTF? I would recommend turning the speed sensitivity down to 0% and then change the X-axis sensitivity down to about 10% or lower with a steering lock of 20 degrees or so. This will give a dramatically more realistic handling experience. > So next was Nascar 2002 and again I fixed the same problem by adjustingthe > wheel linearity setting up to 100% and all is good. I still can't believe that people feel the need to have a wheel so sensitive. At 100% linearity, you'd be using about 1/2 inch of travel on your wheel on the ovals. Needless to say, this won't give you maximum control. > But here where the problems begin that I have not been able to fix, some > games dont have sensitivity or linearity settings for example SBK 2001 so > basically I am left with an unresponsive wheel which leaves the sim > undriveable.SO I am a bit gutted to say the least, also the same prob with > Moto GP (which is pure shit arcade) so this could be a problem. Hmm, now I'm thinking there must be something wrong with your wheel (or config) > Anyway the wheel is good but my old thrustmaster for instance on f1 2001 > didnt even need any adjustment and this one is at 88%, big difference and > big problem.

Most people with wheels in N2002 use 100% linearity and have way more than a 1/2 travel. "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ali857$1qgddk$[email hidden]... > > I first started using it with F1 2002 as my last wheel ( Thrustmaster > > Ferrari FF) broke. My initial problem was that the amount of lock on the > > wheel was huge and I was having to nearly cross my arms over to getround > > some turns. After a couple of weeks I managed to get it going by turning > the > > x sensitivity slider in the game up to 88%, now the wheel movementcopies

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > the movement of the wheel on screen in the game and things are sweet. > > WTF? I would recommend turning the speed sensitivity down to 0% and then > change the X-axis sensitivity down to about 10% or lower with a steering > lock of 20 degrees or so. This will give a dramatically more realistic > handling experience. > > > So next was Nascar 2002 and again I fixed the same problem by adjusting > the > > wheel linearity setting up to 100% and all is good. > > I still can't believe that people feel the need to have a wheel so > sensitive. At 100% linearity, you'd be using about 1/2 inch of travel on > your wheel on the ovals. Needless to say, this won't give you maximum > control. > > > But here where the problems begin that I have not been able to fix, some > > games dont have sensitivity or linearity settings for example SBK 2001

so > > basically I am left with an unresponsive wheel which leaves the sim > > undriveable.SO I am a bit gutted to say the least, also the same probwith

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Moto GP (which is pure shit arcade) so this could be a problem. > > Hmm, now I'm thinking there must be something wrong with your wheel (or > config) > > > Anyway the wheel is good but my old thrustmaster for instance on f1 2001 > > didnt even need any adjustment and this one is at 88%, big difference

and > > big problem. > > >

two ways you can do this. 1) adjust your in game setups to have less wheel lock. Which may have a draw back on some really tight turns. 2) Use the wingman software to make a profile for each game and adjust the wheel axis settings there. I use this method myself. Just an FYI you can adjust the brake and accelerator pedals as well if needed. MadDAWG

"MadDAWG" wrote > 1) adjust your in game setups to have less wheel lock. MadDAWG, I think he might want more wheel lock so a smaller input on his MOMO will make the car wheels turn more ;-) I agree with Adrian that, ergonomically, a 270� wheel sweep is just too much. It's good for marketing, but not for driving. 180 to 190� seems about right for *most* drivers. This is how the Ferrari and old LWFF were set up. I know that real cars have much more sweep than this, but they are set up with hyper-linear (the opposite of non-linear) steering. So, most of the turning is done in the first 120� of rotation (from top center). A few games have a setting for this on the wheel and pedal axes, but most don't. The settings would look like this: non-linear to linear to hyper-linear A large steering arc also spreads out the points of resolution for the wheel, effectively making it less precise. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

The linearity setting in Papy games does not effect range of motion. A full liner setting means the first 10 degrees of steering wheel rotation equals the 10 degrees of rotation. On a nonlinear setting gives more of a deadzone effect. Its more of a slow zone than a true dead zone however. On a wheel like a MOMO that has a large range of motion you need to have it at 100% otherwise you really have to crank the wheel off to get the thing to even start turning. MadDAWG

> MadDAWG, I think he might want more wheel lock so a smaller input on his > MOMO will make the car wheels turn more ;-) Yep your right. I always get lock and ratio back asswards. :). MadDAWG

> I agree with Adrian that, ergonomically, a 270� wheel sweep is just too > much. It's good for marketing, but not for driving. 180 to 190� seemsabout > right for *most* drivers. This is how the Ferrari and old LWFF were setup. > I know that real cars have much more sweep than this, but they are set up > with hyper-linear (the opposite of non-linear) steering. So, most of the > turning is done in the first 120� of rotation (from top center). A fewgames > have a setting for this on the wheel and pedal axes, but most don't. The > settings would look like this: > non-linear to linear to hyper-linear > A large steering arc also spreads out the points of resolution for the > wheel, effectively making it less precise. F1 2002 has a "hyper-sensitivity" setting. You simply increase X-axis sens above 50%. I can assure you that it's completely undrivable though - even with a MOMO (unless you're using some speed sensitivity.) F1RC also has this type of setting...

Thanks for this advice because the wingman software is something I rarely use. I have just checked and can see the wheel axis settings there, I have not had time to try yet but it does look promising so I will see if that does the trick. Many thanks hopefully this will make life much easier for me now. Adrian. "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > two ways you can do this. > > 1) adjust your in game setups to have less wheel lock. Which may have adraw

Quoted text (11 lines)

> back on some really tight turns. > > 2) Use the wingman software to make a profile for each game and adjust the > wheel axis settings there. I use this method myself. Just an FYI you can > adjust the brake and accelerator pedals as well if needed. > > MadDAWG > > > >

"GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> writes: > I agree with Adrian that, ergonomically, a 270� wheel sweep is just too > much. It's good for marketing, but not for driving. 180 to 190� seems about > right for *most* drivers. This is how the Ferrari and old LWFF were set up. I would rather have it more than 270 degrees :-) I've always used 100% linear steering with no sensitivity reduction with speed for the (imo) most realistic feeling and even with the momo's 270 degrees I still have to make the steering 'faster' than I would like e.g. at monaco to get around the hairpins. I.e. a large sweep allows you to use more linear steering with exactly the same amounts of steering input at 'normal' turns. That you have to cross your arms in the few cases where full steering lock is required (hairpins and in the pits) isn't much of an disadvantage imho, especially when considering that this is just the same as with many (most?) real race cars. [snip] > A large steering arc also spreads out the points of resolution for the > wheel, effectively making it less precise. This is true at least for low quality wheels and controllers, but for me it is just a reason to avoid the low resolution stuff. (E.g. the PDPI's 8-bit resolution was a major disappointment to me for this reason). _ Mats Lofkvist [email hidden]

GTX, can you explain why a large steering arc makes a wheel less precise. I am not an engineer, nor am I arguing (I am just trying to learn something) but intuitively it seems to me that a shorter arc would translate into a shorter potentiometer rotation, thus, small movements of the wheel would translate into big movement on the track -- wouldn't this make it more difficult to place and keep the car exactly where one needs it to be? I would think that the ideal set up would be a fairly large steering arc on the wheel and if the car needs to turn quicker, adjusting the wheel lock? > A large steering arc also spreads out the points of resolution for the > wheel, effectively making it less precise.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> GTX, can you explain why a large steering arc makes a wheel less > precise. I am not an engineer, nor am I arguing (I am just trying to > learn something) but intuitively it seems to me that a shorter arc > would translate into a shorter potentiometer rotation, thus, small > movements of the wheel would translate into big movement on the track > -- wouldn't this make it more difficult to place and keep the car > exactly where one needs it to be?

That's certainly been my experience with my LWFF. Yet, I often see other people with LWFFs using 100% linear in GPL and then driving by barely even twitching. These small, jolting movements (due to the low resolution) certainly don't complement my driving style....HFC

Yes, I can explain it. Do you want the long, complete answer involving the relationship of the 3 components involved, ergonomics, wheel diameter and mechanical/electronic limitations; or the short mechanical answer? -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com "Bruce Millar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > GTX, can you explain why a large steering arc makes a wheel less > precise. I am not an engineer, nor am I arguing (I am just trying to > learn something) but intuitively it seems to me that a shorter arc > would translate into a shorter potentiometer rotation, thus, small > movements of the wheel would translate into big movement on the track > -- wouldn't this make it more difficult to place and keep the car > exactly where one needs it to be? I would think that the ideal set up > would be a fairly large steering arc on the wheel and if the car needs > to turn quicker, adjusting the wheel lock? > > > A large steering arc also spreads out the points of resolution for the > > wheel, effectively making it less precise.

[email hidden] (Bruce Millar) writes: > GTX, can you explain why a large steering arc makes a wheel less > precise. maybe that's not what he meant. maybe he meant that it's harder to _be_ precise, since it's harder to rotate the wheel exactly 60 degress than to rotate it exactly 8 degrees. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 "Det er nok ingen ovn, men fartsm�leren v�r."

"Damien Smith" < > That's certainly been my experience with my LWFF. Yet, I often see other > people with LWFFs using 100% linear in GPL and then driving by barelyeven > twitching. These small, jolting movements (due to the low resolution) > certainly don't complement my driving style....HFC > I think 100% linerity can be handled by the common(non-alien) sim racer IF they turn down the steering lock{By INCREASING the steering lock setting}[in the individual setups]<ha! EVERY BRACKET USED!!> Go full linear, but slow down the steering box...the two work together. dave henrie

I'll take the long answer. I'm stuck at work all day, and its got to be better than reading a bunch of flame wars. :) MadDAWG

Slot, any answer you have will be appreciated. A detailed answer would be even better. I really am trying to learn something. Thanks.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Yes, I can explain it. Do you want the long, complete answer involving the > relationship of the 3 components involved, ergonomics, wheel diameter and > mechanical/electronic limitations; or the short mechanical answer? > > -- > Slot > > Tweaks & Reviews > www.slottweak.com >

"GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<allv2e$1rj2nr$[email hidden]>... > Yes, I can explain it. Do you want the long, complete answer involving the > relationship of the 3 components involved, ergonomics, wheel diameter and > mechanical/electronic limitations; or the short mechanical answer? Dude, I want BOTH! ;-) I am of the opinion (i.e. thinking about logistics rather than hard, mechanical facts) that more lock = finer control. As to 270 degrees lock, I had 2 wheels that had 270, then a 180 which felt dreadful, then back to 270. I think it's what you get used to. Looking at in-car footage, 270 degrees seem to be about same as F1 and CART have - hands crossed at the tightest of hairpins... I'll keep my 270 degree MOMO wheel thankyouverymuch, but I'd throw the pedals in a skip if I could wire a bypass for the power... Cheers, Mark Reading, UK

OK guys. I ran out of time today so I'm going to give a short answer. This topic comes up often, sometimes on ras and a lot on my site and email. I started an in depth article about it and just never took the time to finish it, so I'll make that a priority and let you know when it's done. Here's the quick and dirty answer. First, this has little to do with the numbers you see in a game as you calibrate your wheel. For example, the old 1.23 drivers for the original Ferrari wheel showed 0 to 1024 on the wheel axis in N2002 and GPL. The new drivers show 0 to 4096 on the same wheel. These numbers are software extrapolations of the real hardware numbers. Whether or not there is any merit to the higher numbers is questionable, but my guess is that it may help a tiny bit. The wheel is probably capable of 128 points of resolution, which if I recall, is as much as Windows can read in controller panel. I don't have XP. I suppose it's possible it could read 256 points, but I doubt it does. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. The mouse drivers are capable of more precision. You have to believe that smoother laps are generally faster laps. The more precisely you can control your car, the better your lap times will be. The smoother the wheels steer, the better your lap times will be. What's hard about this is that you can't really feel the difference between a wheel that has good resolution and one that doesn't. The differences are too small. But, I assure you it will show up in your lap times. I've tested this with several wheels, and the ones with better resolution always give the best lap times. You can't measure resolution using Windows Controller panel and counting the number of steps the cross hair makes as it moves from side to side. It wasn't designed for this and is not an accurate indicator. I'm going to take a couple liberties here to try to make this easier to understand. Ok, your steering input isn't picked up as a smooth, continuous motion. It's read in steps, or at different points along the axis. The 1st liberty I'm going to take is to pretend that we only have 15 points of resolution (forget about the 128). From lock to lock on your wheel, you have only 15 points of resolution. Now, let's assume that your steering wheel has a 9.75" diameter (it's a pretty good average of the current FF wheels). And, let's assume that it has a sweep of 180�, lock to lock. So, the full travel of your wheel, lock to lock, is about 15" (Pi X 9.75=30.6 X .5=15.3). Since this distance is just a measurement, it doesn't matter whether it's an arc or a straight line, so the 2nd liberty is to call it a straight line. Now, imagine a straight line 15" long drawn horizontally across your monitor (I hope you have at least a 20" monitor ;) and there is one point at each inch on the line. (15 points of resolution on a 15" line). As you're driving, these are the only points you can steer to (or aim at). Your points of resolution are spaced 1" apart. Ok, now let's take the same scenario, but this time the wheel has a sweep of 270�, lock to lock. Now your wheel travels 22" lock to lock. (270/360=.75) (Pi X 9.75=30.6 X .75=22.5). Your points of resolution are now spaced at 1 1/2". Try to imagine this spacing on your imaginary line.You've just increased your point of resolution spacing by 50%, or in other words, decreased your precision by 33%. (2:3 ratio). It doesn't matter what figures we put in for the original resolution. Whether it's 15 or 128 or 256, the result is still a 33% reduction in accuracy. What you really want is to have the points as close together as possible. The only thing we changed here is the sweep of the wheel. 180� verses 270�. A 270� steering arc is a great marketing tool, but it's not great for sim racing. It's late (after 2AM) so I won't get into the other factors, like wheel size, etc., but next time you race try to see how many times, if ever, you actually turn your wheel more than 90� to either side of top center. I bet it will be never, unless you've gotten into trouble in a corner, but you've lost it by then anyway. Oh, one more thing. You can get a feel for what it's like driving with very few points of resolution. It's not exactly what we just talked about, but it will give you an exaggerated *feel* of what it's like. Get into GPL, Options, Controls. Click on Calibrate Joystick. Move your pedals back and forth fully, but only move your wheel about 3" on both sides from top center. Click OK then try to race. Like I said, it's not the same as what we just talked about as most of your steering arc will be unusable, but our input will only pick up a few points of resolution and you'll get a grossly overstated idea of how important steering precision is. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com "Bruce Millar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Slot, any answer you have will be appreciated. A detailed answer > would be even better. I really am trying to learn something. Thanks. > > > Yes, I can explain it. Do you want the long, complete answer involving the > > relationship of the 3 components involved, ergonomics, wheel diameter and > > mechanical/electronic limitations; or the short mechanical answer? > > > > -- > > Slot > > > > Tweaks & Reviews > > www.slottweak.com > >

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 02:22:19 -0400, "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote somtehing like this:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Ok, now let's take the same scenario, but this time the wheel has a sweep of >270�, lock to lock. Now your wheel travels 22" lock to lock. (270/360=.75) >(Pi X 9.75=30.6 X .75=22.5). >Your points of resolution are now spaced at 1 1/2". Try to imagine this >spacing on your imaginary line.You've just increased your point of >resolution spacing by 50%, or in other words, decreased your precision by >33%. (2:3 ratio).

Ok, I have a wheel with 270 degrees lock to lock, but physically reducing it to 180 degrees isn't really feasible... does reducing the linearity help? Using your example, does it make the points of resolution closer together near the center (and wider apart near full lock)? -- - Igor -

"Jussi 'Igor' Koukku"

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Ok, I have a wheel with 270 degrees lock to lock, but physically > reducing it to 180 degrees isn't really feasible... does reducing the > linearity help? Using your example, does it make the points of > resolution closer together near the center (and wider apart near full > lock)? > -- > - Igor -

In that same vein, would reducing the amount of travel in the wheels software(profiler) increase the smoothness?(not of the physical wheel but of shortening the distance between steps) dave henrie

Well, yes and no. It won't change the reading of the points of resolution. It will probably help for several other reasons. I want to clear up something. There are a lot of other factors that will effect steering precision. If, for example, you have a high quality wheel like a TSW, Redline or a few others, you won't notice the 33% reduction in precision as much even though they have a 270� sweep. This is because they use very high quality pots. As the pot sweeps rapidly from side to side, it's not breaking electrical contact so it's picking up all the available points. In the simple example I gave in my last post, I discussed only the electrical (or mechanical) aspects of how steering resolution effects driving, figuring I would cover the rest in an article. The high end, non FF wheels also have no motor, so there is no cogging motion in the wheel. If you have the FF turned up high (on a FF wheel) the motion is not really smooth. It's actually a series of small jumps as the stacks (or poles) on the motor's armature pass by the magnets. Since the wheel is actually producing a series of small, jerky motions, you could miss, to either side, the point of resolution you are trying to hit. In other words, by chance, that point could be lined up with a cog in the motion and the wheel doesn't like to rest on a cog. That's why it's important to set your FF strength just high enough to get some road feel (some helpful feedback), but not so high that it cogs very hard. Some people refer to the cogging as notchiness. Concerning points of resolution, there is a point of diminishing returns. I doubt anyone's lap times would improve if the resolution went from 100,000 to 200,000 points. Because I test and drive with several wheels, I've never had the problem of getting comfortable with only 180� or 270�. If you have only raced with 270, it'll take some time to get comfortable with 180. People are analog, not digital. We see and expect relationships with things we experience. For example, if we look at a digital clock that says 12:30 PM, we see the time. If we look at an analog clock that says the same time, we see several relationships. We see that lunch time is 1/2 over. We see that we have 1/3 of our work day left. We see that it's been a very short time since we looked at the clock the last time ;) We see these things immediately. With a digital clock it takes us a while to process just exactly what 12:30 means. We're the same when steering. We expect a certain output or result from a given input, and *most* people are amazingly similar when it comes to this type of ergonomics. As such, a linear setting is the least upsetting for us. You don't want your steering to be twitchy, but in most games you should be able to drive with the steering set to fully linear. If it's twitchy, set it a couple notches over to the non-linear side. When you set it to non-linear, the wheels turn faster as they get closer to full left or right. It might help to consider that the only time you are apt to have them turned this far is if you're in trouble, and this is probably the worst possible time to have them steer faster. In fact, you'd probably want just the opposite to happen. So, changing from non-linear to linear won't change the points of resolution and make the wheel more accurate, it just changes how the steering behaves. But, it may help because of other reasons. Sometimes we have to be taught a proper technique. For example, when I was in high school I could run the high hurdles well enough to make the track team and even win a couple races, but no matter how hard I tried, I didn't get better. Then I was taught the proper technique. It felt awkward at first and I was even slower than before. But, eventually I was able to beat my previous best times. It's kind of like learning to go into a corner slow so you can come out fast. Technique is important. I'm sure there are some people who are such good racers, the top 1/4%, that they could maintain their lap times even if you lowered their steering resolution. Conversely, there are probably people that are so bad that increasing the resolution won't help. At one time, when all wheels were analog, there was a game port (add on card you could buy) that actually helped steering resolution. I can't think of the name of it right now, but I'm sure someone out there remembers it. Act Labs used to package it with their non FF, RS wheel. I used to get about the same lap times with my Force RS as I did with the LWFF, just a little less than with the Ferrari wheel. When I limited the arc on the RS to 180� (easy to do), my lap times were as good as with the Ferrari. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com "Jussi 'Igor' Koukku" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 02:22:19 -0400, "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> > wrote somtehing like this: > > >Ok, now let's take the same scenario, but this time the wheel has a sweep of > >270�, lock to lock. Now your wheel travels 22" lock to lock. (270/360=.75) > >(Pi X 9.75=30.6 X .75=22.5). > >Your points of resolution are now spaced at 1 1/2". Try to imagine this > >spacing on your imaginary line.You've just increased your point of > >resolution spacing by 50%, or in other words, decreased your precision by > >33%. (2:3 ratio). > > Ok, I have a wheel with 270 degrees lock to lock, but physically > reducing it to 180 degrees isn't really feasible... does reducing the > linearity help? Using your example, does it make the points of > resolution closer together near the center (and wider apart near full > lock)? > -- > - Igor -

While I follow your logic I'm not sure I agree with it 100%. Here are some random thoughts I had while reading your post 1) Following your line theory changing wheel diameter would have a similar effect as increasing the range of motion on a smaller wheel. 2) When I calibrate my Momo wheel I hit the max of 1023 before the wheel reaches its end of travel. So IMO the game can only see so much travel no matter what the wheel is doing. If that's true that may explain why some games drive different than others. Maybe they have different input maximums. 3) I would think that if you had a larger range to hit (so to speak) wouldn't that make it easier to repeat and therefore be more consistent and smother lap after lap? When it comes down to it for me personally the greater travel has helped instead of hurting me. I have had to make some changes to my game settings. Most notably would be the liner setting. I now use 100% with my older wheel I would run around 70 % to keep it from being to quick right of center. MadDAWG

GTX_SlotCar wrote <snip>

Quoted text (29 lines)

> The 1st liberty I'm going to take is to pretend that we only have 15 points of >resolution (forget about the 128). From lock to lock on your wheel, you have >only 15 points of resolution. Now, let's assume that your steering wheel >has a 9.75" diameter (it's a pretty good average of the current FF wheels). >And, let's assume that it has a sweep of 180°, lock to lock. So, the full >travel of your wheel, lock to lock, is about 15" (Pi X 9.75=30.6 X >.5=15.3). Since this distance is just a measurement, it doesn't matter >whether it's an arc or a straight line, so the 2nd liberty is to call it a >straight line. >Now, imagine a straight line 15" long drawn horizontally across your monitor >(I hope you have at least a 20" monitor ;) and there is one point at each >inch on the line. (15 points of resolution on a 15" line). As you're >driving, these are the only points you can steer to (or aim at). Your points >of resolution are spaced 1" apart. >Ok, now let's take the same scenario, but this time the wheel has a sweep of >270°, lock to lock. Now your wheel travels 22" lock to lock. (270/360=.75) >(Pi X 9.75=30.6 X .75=22.5). >Your points of resolution are now spaced at 1 1/2". Try to imagine this >spacing on your imaginary line.You've just increased your point of >resolution spacing by 50%, or in other words, decreased your precision by >33%. (2:3 ratio). >It doesn't matter what figures we put in for the original resolution. >Whether it's 15 or 128 or 256, the result is still a 33% reduction in >accuracy. What you really want is to have the points as close together as >possible. The only thing we changed here is the sweep of the wheel. 180° >verses 270°. >A 270° steering arc is a great marketing tool, but it's not great for sim >racing. >

While I agree that more precision makes for smoother driving, there is something not quite right about this explanation of sweep angles affecting precision. The game does not know how much distance you have to move the wheel along an arc, it merely knows number of number of points coming out of the controller and spreads that over the available lock of the virtual car. Let's say that for your 15 points of resolution the front wheels of the virtual car change direction by 15°, 1° per point. With the 180° sweep you would have to move the wheel 1 inch along the arc (or straight line) to turn the virtual car's wheels 1 degree. With the 270° sweep, 1.5 inches of movement would be required for the same 1° direction change. Increase it to 360° with 15 points and you would still have 1° per point, no change in smothness, although you'd have to saw madly at the wheel while driving. ;-) So while the larger sweep requires more movement of your hands, the precision (ie 1° steps in direction) in the game remains the same with no change in smoothness. Saying the spacing of the points you are aiming at on screen change with wheel sweep, while keeping the same number of points, is incorrect as the precision does not change, you'll still be aiming at the same points, just needing more whell movement to get to each one. You could say that the larger sweep changes the effective steering ratio (between controller wheel and front wheels of virtual car) and that may not be preferable to some as you'd have to move the wheel more to change the direction of the front wheels, however it does not change precision, you can still can only change the direction of the front wheels in steps of 1°. Now if you increased the number of points over the same wheel sweep, say to 150, the precision would be better as there'd be 0.1° per point (ie the front wheels can change direction in steps of 0.1°), however you'd still have 1° direction change for the 1 inch (180° sweep) or 1.5 inches (270° sweep) of movement, it'd just be a lot smoother due to the smaller steps. Now if going from 180° to 270° sweep changed the number of points used, then sweep could have an influence on precision. In the end you'd want the largest number of points over the range of wheel sweep that you'd normally use while driving. But maybe our definitions of precision and smoothness are different. Or maybe one of us was up too late when we posted. :-) Great site BTW, looking forward to the next update. Ken

Quoted text (58 lines)

>It's late (after 2AM) so I won't get into the other factors, like wheel >size, etc., but next time you race try to see how many times, if ever, you >actually turn your wheel more than 90° to either side of top center. I bet >it will be never, unless you've gotten into trouble in a corner, but you've >lost it by then anyway. > >Oh, one more thing. You can get a feel for what it's like driving with very >few points of resolution. It's not exactly what we just talked about, but it >will give you an exaggerated *feel* of what it's like. >Get into GPL, Options, Controls. Click on Calibrate Joystick. Move your >pedals back and forth fully, but only move your wheel about 3" on both sides >from top center. Click OK then try to race. Like I said, it's not the same >as what we just talked about as most of your steering arc will be unusable, >but our input will only pick up a few points of resolution and you'll get a >grossly overstated idea of how important steering precision is. > >-- >Slot > >Tweaks & Reviews >www.slottweak.com > > >"Bruce Millar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... > > >>Slot, any answer you have will be appreciated. A detailed answer >>would be even better. I really am trying to learn something. Thanks. >> >> >> >>>Yes, I can explain it. Do you want the long, complete answer involving >>> >>> >the > > >>>relationship of the 3 components involved, ergonomics, wheel diameter >>> >>> >and > > >>>mechanical/electronic limitations; or the short mechanical answer? >>> >>>-- >>>Slot >>> >>>Tweaks & Reviews >>>www.slottweak.com >>> >>> >>> > > > >

I should have known better than to try to post one part of a complex relationship of total parts. Some posts are getting into the ergonomics part of this and some into the wheel size (which I kept constant in my oversimplified example). Dave's question about limiting wheel travel in software is pertinent. I'd have to assume that in the right software it would work, but it might not be linear. As for other comments about wheel size affecting the steering; yes it does, in a couple ways. That's why I gasp when people suggest using a larger wheel. But, I purposely didn't cover this, yet. You're getting ahead of the post. It also involves ergonomics and physical relationships of what we are, by nature, comfortable with. Why do all family cars have similar (13 to 15") size steering wheels? But for precision, take a look at the history of F1 steering wheel sizes from the days of GPL to the present. Then ask why larger wheels are used in Nascar. You may come up with some answers yourself. When considering the family sedan, think of ergonomics (and remember that most people are amazingly similar in what they expect in terms of an input vs. output relationship). For Nascar, consider weight; and for F1 consider only precision. The example I gave of drawing an imaginary line on your monitor was to help you visualize what is happening. Yes, the game only knows the total number of points of resolution. What we want to do is put as many of these points as possible into the wheel movement we use most often. That's probably 45� to either side of top center. (Setting the physics and science aside) Over the past 3 years, thanks to hundreds of emails, I think I've compiled a pretty good profile of what is working well for *most* people. There are a couple things that still don't fit. Two people that each own both TSW and Redline wheels and pedals have told me that they do faster lap times with the Redline equipment (although one still prefers to use his TSW wheel for a reason he can't explain). Both are high quality wheels and have similar characteristics, so I can't figure out why driving with one should be faster than the other. I simply dismiss it as too small a sample to be an accurate representation. In other words, it's interesting, but the information has no real value. Numbers and relationships can be confusing and if we start on the wrong track, it's often hard to see where we went astray. Here's an old, popular example: 3 men go into a hotel to rent a room. The clerk tells them it'll be $30 so they each give him $10. The manager comes in and, seeing the room is rented, tells the clerk the most they ever charge for a room is $25. He then gives the clerk $5 and tells him to give it to the men. The clerk is disgrunteled and figures he can't divide $5 evenly for 3 guys, so he keeps a couple bucks for himself. Each guy gets a dollar back, so now they've each paid $9 for the room, or a total of $27. The clerk has kept $2. So we have $27 plus $2 = $29. But we started out with $30. Where did the other dollar go? (Gentlemen, please don't bother to answer this. It's only an example.) -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

MadDAWG wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > While I follow your logic I'm not sure I agree with it 100%. Here are some > random thoughts I had while reading your post > > 1) Following your line theory changing wheel diameter would have a similar > effect as increasing the range of motion on a smaller wheel. > > 2) When I calibrate my Momo wheel I hit the max of 1023 before the wheel > reaches its end of travel. So IMO the game can only see so much travel no > matter what the wheel is doing. If that's true that may explain why some > games drive different than others. Maybe they have different input maximums. > > 3) I would think that if you had a larger range to hit (so to speak) > wouldn't that make it easier to repeat and therefore be more consistent and > smother lap after lap? > > When it comes down to it for me personally the greater travel has helped > instead of hurting me. I have had to make some changes to my game settings. > Most notably would be the liner setting. I now use 100% with my older wheel > I would run around 70 % to keep it from being to quick right of center. > > MadDAWG

Totally agree with you. Slot has got it it all horribly wrong.

GTX_SlotCar wrote: <lots> Slot, in a word, bollocks! :) With 270 degrees, and the resolution point spread out more, this has the effect of makes these points bigger and easier to hit consistently. That's in theory, but in practice it's just 'cigarette papers' you are talking about there. You say you did tests, but all that proves is what system works best for you. And that will not be optimum for all. Take your pet theory to the nearest vet and have it put to sleep. :) Gerry

"MadDAWG" wrote >2) When I calibrate my Momo wheel I hit the max of 1023 before the wheel >reaches its end of travel. > 3) I would think that if you had a larger range to hit (so to speak) > wouldn't that make it easier to repeat and therefore be more consistentand > smother lap after lap? MadDAWG, I'm trying to see if I understand what you're saying. When you asked if you had a larger "range" to hit, do you mean a larger number of points of resolution? -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

Ken, I read through your post twice late last night and was just too tired to understand where our differences were. It was busy today at work and I took a quick, late 15 minute lunch break and wrote another post. As it turns out, it was a waste of time. I just read your post again and there really are no differences in our understanding (that I can see), just the way I explained it. I used a simple example and totally underestimated the readers' grasp of the concept. It's my fault as I was the one communicating, but damn, with such a large number of people on here it's hard to know which group to target with the response. >saying the spacing of the points you are aiming at on >screen change with wheel sweep, while keeping the same number of points, >is incorrect as the precision does not change, you'll still be aiming at >the same points, just needing more whell movement to get to each one. That's right. I was trying to show, visually on the screen, how the points are spaced further apart 'in the normal driving sweep' of 45� to either side of top center, and I was using the screen boundaries to imitate that sweep. It was either a bad example or I just didn't make it clear enough. >In the end you'd want the largest number of points over the range of >wheel sweep that you'd normally use while driving. Yes, exactly! The sweep on the Ferrari wheel, for example, is about 220� but only 180 actually register (there is dead space at the end of travel). However, I never hit the wheel locks. The only time I even come close to using 180� is when I'm racing on dirt. >But maybe our definitions of precision and smoothness are different. I'm not sure. I don't think so. I do consider wheel precision and driving (or steering) precision as somewhat different, but related. Wheel precision is the actual points the wheel can send to Windows. Of course, if the wheel has cheap pots it may miss a point here and there and not perform as it should. Wheel precision effects steering precision, but it isn't steering precision. I hope I've never inferred wheel precision when I meant steering precision. What do you think, are we on the same track? 2 or 3 years ago I got a few emails that went something like this: "I've been racing GPL with a TM wheel for about a year. I got so I could race online and do ok, but then just leveled off. I didn't get any better than mid 1:29's at Monza. 2 weeks ago I ordered a new pot from TM because someone on ras told me they wear out. I put it in and guess what. I just broke into the high 1:28's :-) " ... then they'd usually ask me something like 'are FF wheels really any good?' This type of thing says a lot. It's not just that you should keep your wheel maintained, but that wheel precision is very important for good lap times. Some wheels will give you better lap times than others. And, high quality pots are always better than cheap ones. Even in digital wheels. Of course, in digital wheels the DAC is also important. The Ferrari is quite precise and uses a 10bit DAC. As far as I know, the Force RS and both current Logitech wheels also use a 10bit DAC (what I've been told, but they don't publish the spec). I believe the LWFF used an 8bit DAC. What's almost sad is that the cost would be insignificant to go to a 24bit DAC like that used on a good AV receiver, but most manufacturers don't think we're sophisticated enough to appreciate the small gain in precision. I guess they're not hard core racers. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

> > With 270 degrees, and the resolution point spread out more, this has the > effect of makes these points bigger and easier to hit consistently. > > Gerry Well, I would tend to agree with Gerry. Imagine that the steering arc was reduced to, say 30 degrees in each direction. Then it would take superhuman reflexes to put the car precisely where you want to be on the track because you would almost always turn the wheel a bit too far. One would always be oversteering and over-correcting. So, it makes sense that a larger steering arc gives more control not less. The ideal solution would be a large steering arc and a very high quality potentiometer, thus giving an accurate reading with a greater margin for error and far more ease in hitting the "point" in question. The issue is not solely how many points of resolution there are (clearly more is better because of added precision) the point is whether you can physically turn the wheel to get as close as possible to the place on the track you want your car to be.

"Gerry Aitken" wrote > With 270 degrees, and the resolution point spread out more, this has the > effect of makes these points bigger and easier to hit consistently. You'd be turning the steering wheel but the car would stay were it's going until it hits the next spot. You'd have less precision. >You say you did tests, but all that proves is what >system works best for you. I said I've tested several wheels and the ones with better resolution always produced better lap times. There may be a few people that are just such bad drivers that it won't make any difference, but for everyone else it will. Capon. :) -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

GTX_SlotCar wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "Gerry Aitken" wrote > > With 270 degrees, and the resolution point spread out more, this has the > > effect of makes these points bigger and easier to hit consistently. > > You'd be turning the steering wheel but the car would stay were it's going > until it hits the next spot. You'd have less precision.

The above would be true if applied to your example of 15 point, but in reality I move my Momo and the virtual wheel moves *smoothly* the same amount. > >You say you did tests, but all that proves is what > >system works best for you. > I said I've tested several wheels and the ones with better resolution always > produced better lap times. There may be a few people that are just such bad > drivers that it won't make any difference, but for everyone else it will. > Capon. :) You assume you are right by making that statement, which I don't think you are. Gerry

> The above would be true if applied to your example of 15 point, but in > reality I move my Momo and the virtual wheel moves *smoothly* the same > amount.Gerry, it dosn't matter how many points there are in the example. There are a specific number of points. You don't get more with a larger steering wheel sweep. It's true always. I'm certainly not saying all wheels with a 270� sweep are bad. The difference is small between points. Wheel size, the DAC, how much of the pot is used in the sweep, and other things also effect steering precision. Our definition of 'smooth' may be different. If you have the LFS demo, get into the controls setup and check out the wheel arc motion indicator. Watch the indicator move with your wheel. Now set the control to mouse and watch the indicator. To me, the motion using the mouse is 'smooth'. If your wheel is as smooth as the mouse, I'll run out and buy a MOMO right away. > >[what] I said [is] I've tested several wheels and the ones with betterresolution always > > produced better lap times. > You assume you are right by making that statement, which I don't think > you are.Well, maybe you'll never be convinced of this. PDPI was when they came out with their port as was Act Labs when they sold it in combination with their RS wheel. TSW, BRD and ECCI are and that's the primary reason they use higher quality pots. I feel that I'm in good company with the belief. However, you are as entitled to your opinion as they are to theirs. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

Quoted text (7 lines)

> MadDAWG, I'm trying to see if I understand what you're saying. When you > asked if you had a larger "range" to hit, do you mean a larger number of > points of resolution? > > > -- > Slot

Sorry not to get back to you sooner, but lately the weekends mean not much time online. Any way back to your question. What I was getting at is a larger range in between the same number of pints. Using your example above the 180 degree sweep had 1" between points, and the 270 degree sweep wheel had 1.5" between points. I would think that it would be easier to repeatedly hit that 1.5" window than the 1" window. MadDWAWG

Hi Slot, I think we're on the same track, it is just exactly what this precision refers too is what was mixed up. In your example when you were saying that the driver was pointing at the points on the screen I thought you were talking about the car (ie front wheels) pointing to those points. After rereading your earlier post and your reply to mine, I think you were just trying to explain how the amount of wheel (controller) movement to change the input by one point increased when the sweep of the wheel increased. Your definition of an precise wheel is probably one that gives a large number of points over the *normally used* sweep of the wheel (which may or may not be different that the total sweep available depending on the design of the wheel and the user). The precision I was thinking of was probably what you would call driving/steering precision (ie what is the smallest change in direction of the front wheel of the virtual car). Of course these things are related as they will be affected by how many points the wheel gives, the sweep of wheel, and how much sweep the driver actually uses, axis sensitivity settings, steering ratio, amount of lock, etc. Looking forward to the article, but maybe include a few definitions for the terms that you use. ;-) BTW a 24 bit DAC is probably overkill, 12 bit would probably be good enough if it's not noisy. For a 270° sweep, 12 bit gives less than 0.066° per point, about 0.01 inch of movement per point for a 9.75 inch diameter wheel. Ken GTX_SlotCar wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Ken, I read through your post twice late last night and was just too tired >to understand where our differences were. It was busy today at work and I >took a quick, late 15 minute lunch break and wrote another post. As it turns >out, it was a waste of time. I just read your post again and there really >are no differences in our understanding (that I can see), just the way I >explained it. I used a simple example and totally underestimated the >readers' grasp of the concept. It's my fault as I was the one communicating, >but damn, with such a large number of people on here it's hard to know which >group to target with the response. > >

<snip>

MadDAWG, did you used to race MTM2? > Any way back to your question. What I was getting at is a larger range in > between the same number of pints. Using your example above the 180 degree > sweep had 1" between points, and the 270 degree sweep wheel had 1.5"between > points. I would think that it would be easier to repeatedly hit that 1.5" > window than the 1" window. You're right, it's easier to hit........but it's not what you want to do. Keeping with the example, as you turn your steering wheel, the wheels on your car turn. They pick up the beginning of each point and stay pointed in that direction until you hit the next point. Then they turn again. You turn your steering wheel smoothly, but your car wheels actually turn in steps (small jumps). They jump from the beginning of one point to the beginning of the next. So, let's say you're at the beginning of one of these points and turning right. Your wheels won't turn again until you hit the next point, 1 1/2" to your right. What happens if your target (the apex of a corner or something) is only 3/4" away, or at a point on the screen somewhere before the wheels actually turn again? If your points were 1" apart, you'd be closer to hitting the target you want. As you're driving down your virtual road, there is an infinite number of points you could want to steer at, but your wheel only lets you target a few of them (whether the wheel has 180 or 270� sweep). The more points your wheel gives you, the easier it will be to go exactly where you want. Both sweeps give you the same number of points, but 180� keeps them closer together so more of them will be in the range where you 'usually steer (how often do you have the steering wheel all the way to the left or right?). Because the wheel limits the number of points you can aim at, generally you'll miss the exact apex (or whatever target you're steering at) by a little bit, or you have to make some little zig-zags (small, almost unnoticeable corrections) to get to the exact point. Of course, since we act ually have about 128 points, not 15 as in my example, it's not as bad as my example makes it seem. There could be reasons why someone might prefer a 270� sweep, but they have more to do with ergonomics than mechanical/electrical steering precision. In LFS demo, you can see the wheel sweep and points in the controller setup page. You can also see how smooth it is when you select 'mouse' to steer with. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

GTX_SlotCar wrote: <snip> >The more points your wheel gives you, the easier it will be to go exactly where you want. Both >sweeps give you the same number of points, but 180° keeps them closer >together so more of them will be in the range where you 'usually steer (how >often do you have the steering wheel all the way to the left or right?). >It's the "range where you 'usually steer" part that is confusing the issue. If everyone used the same amount of sweep then saying that a 270° sweep is less precise than a wheel with 180° sweep would be correct, however it depends on the amount of sweep the user actually uses as to whether or not the wheel is precise or not. But now a quick question for you Slot: Does increasing the wheel size make the wheel less precise? Say for example you have a 10" wheel with 128 points over a sweep of 180° (and the user uses all of this sweep). Now the 10" is replaced with 13" wheel and everything stays the same (180° sweep used by the driver, 128 points). Obviously with the larger wheel the user has to move their hands more to get the same input (ie less sensitive) but the "window" for each point are now bigger and easier to hit (ie better repeatability). But has the precision changed? Ken

> You're right, it's easier to hit........but it's not what you want to do. I disagree with this part 100%. The first thing you want to do is be consistent. After you are repeatable then you can adjust your setups for the weak areas. If your not consistent you'll never know if you just got lucky or if your setup change did any good. > more of them will be in the range where you 'usually steer' 'usually steer' if that is not something a lawyer would love to get his hands on. :) However this catch phase does help explain your argument. If you had a 180 degree wheel with say 180 points that's one point per degree. Now if you "usually" only use 90 degrees you would then be using 90 of these points. With that same 90 degrees of usage on a 270 degree wheel (1.5 degrees per point) would have you only using 60 points. In this case I would agree that a smaller overall angle would provide you with a smoother motion. >(how often do you have the steering wheel all the way to the left orright?). About 4 times a lap or each corner. They don't call it Slideways for nothing. :) > There could be reasons why someone might prefer a > 270� sweep, but they have more to do with ergonomics than > mechanical/electrical steering precision. I would suggest that 'usually steer' is as well a ergonomic issue. If not an ergonomic issue than an environmental one relating back to what type of wheel a person first learned on. If you began with a 270 degree wheel your 'usually steer' angle would be greater than someone that was brought up with a 180 degree wheel. If you were to take your theory to the extreme then a wheel with only 1 degree of travel would be better yet. Of course you would need a wheel about 3 foot in diameter so that you could actually tell the difference between each of those 180 points. It could even get down to something as basic as what precise means to each person. To some people it could mean small movements of wheel providing meaningful changes in game, or it could have more of a total meaning of being able to hit a given vehicle steering angle REGARDLESS how much you have to move the game controller. My guess is you are of the first definition while myself and others are of the second. Who is right and who is wrong all depends on your point of view. Hey doesn't GPL have an editor for that? :) MadDAWG

> If everyone used the same amount of sweep then saying that a >270� sweep is less precise than a wheel with 180� sweep would be >correct, OK, we're together so far. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel ;-) And you're agreeing with this because everyone using this 'same' sweep would have more points of resolution compacted within the sweep and therefore has a better chance of one of these points lining up with the target he's steering at, right? >however it depends on the amount of sweep the user actually >uses as to whether or not the wheel is precise or not. If everyone is using the same sweep and it's X� or if everyone is using the same sweep and it's (X+5)�, it wouldn't make any difference. As long as they're using the same sweep, the principle is the same. So, if one group uses X� and another group uses (X+5)�, the principle is also still the same. >But now a quick question for you Slot: Does increasing the wheel size >make the wheel less precise? <snipe> But has the precision changed? Electrically, no. It still has the same number of points of resolution within a given amount of rotation. The tangent limits haven't changed. [side notes...] I think what's happening is that it wasn't a good idea to break this whole subject into parts, or at least I should have started with another part first, but, that's not the way the topic got started. It would have gone smoother to cover the ergonomics first (covering expected input vs. result relationships), going to options and limitations in different game controller setups and then the restricted limits of points of resolution. You guys are making points about wheel size having a factor, and this is true. MadDAWG's example of 1� of travel and a 3 foot wheel, while extreme, is absolutely valid. But, I would like to keep it separate from compressing points of resolution and keep the wheel size the same for the moment. Then, discuss the effects of wheel size later. Again, it would probably have been better to start with wheel size, but ...... The point about controller setups has also been made. They are valid. Most games only have a linear to non-linear setting, so you can only slow down the steering ratio. Wheel lock helps to increase the ratio, but unfortunately also increases the wheel lock. Then some games, like NFS:PU, let you set the controls to the opposite extreme as non-linear, which for lack of a better word, I've called hyper-linear. In NFS:PU, you can have your wheel or pedals set at each end, so they come on slow (non-linear) go to a gradual climb (linear), and then come on fast (hyper-linear). Basically, you can be at full acceleration at 3/4 throttle movement. This kind of control is ideal, but most games don't have this setting and most of us only have one steering wheel. We're usually left only with the option of slowing down the steering ratio. This is one reason why the physical steering wheel sweep is relevant. For steering, the in-game hyper-linear setting isn't as linear as a mechanical setting, but it certainly helps. I stress linear settings for the wheel because we are driving with certain input/output rules. The rule says if I turn the wheel so much, my car will turn so much, always. Nice and easy to understand while driving. In a non-linear setting, the rule says if I turn the wheel so much from here to there, the car will turn so much, but if I turn the wheel further, the rule changes and the car will turn even faster. It makes it harder to judge where you'll end up. Now, about not everyone have the same 'usual' driving sweep. I think the track determines what the sweep will be, mostly. But, if you are driving 1:34.5s in LFS and I'm driving 1:35s, and we looked at each others replays, the amount that the wheels turn would be remarkably similar. The braking points would be a bit different and you'd be hitting the apex in the corners a little better, but both of our steering sweeps would be very similar. For MadDAWG's point about either sweep being good depending on what you're used to, I'd have to say technique is important. You might be faster now with one or the other, but if you learned the other you might be even better. In GPL the cars drive much easier if the weight is forward while braking. But, if you can learn to drive with the weight closer to 50%, you'll be faster. You certainly won't be comfortable with it at first, though. You have to learn to drive this way. Anyway, if possible, I'd like to keep this narrowed to the current subject. MadDAWG, what 180� wheel were you using before the MOMO? I started out racing with a CH exl500 (analog) with 180� sweep. After a year and a half, I got an Andretti (digital) wheel with 270. My lap times improved over 1 sec on some MTM2 tracks. (the andretti wheel has excellent resolution btw) I thought it was the increased sweep that did it. Then I got the original Ferrari wheel (180�) and my lap times were just as good. Then a LWFF (180,+-) and my lap times weren't as good again. Then the Force RS (270) and my lap times were about the same as with the LWFF. I started driving with all 3 wheels and the issue of comfort never became an issue as far as 180 or 270 degrees goes. Then, when changing the wheel characteristics in NFS:PU, I noticed that I could match my Ferrari lap times with the Force RS. Later, I physically limited the RS's sweep and could match the Ferrari lap times on all tracks. What happened here is that the Andretti had much better resolution than the exl500. Also, the Force RS and Ferrari had very good resolution, but the LWFF (as much as I loved the smooth operation of the wheel) didn't have quite as good resolution. So, I'm wondering what you were driving before. The MOMO is really up there for resolution, so it's possible that you're better and more consistent laps are simply due to the fact that you're driving with a better wheel. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

> So, I'm wondering what you were driving before. I actually started out with the good old T2. Which I think was around 240 degrees. Then I went to the LWFF which after being use to the larger sweep of the T2 I was always hitting the stops on the LWFF. With the LWFF I was always afraid of turning the wheel too much and breaking the ass end loose and backing it into the wall. After going to the MOMO that problem go better. After thinking about this I'm thinking that the ideal setup would be a smaller sweep with a larger wheel. I know I hate these little as wheels they put on game controllers. For me I'm thinking at least 13" diameter probably bigger. Maybe then my elbows wouldn't be jabbing me in the sides all the time. MadDAWG

GTX_SlotCar wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>If everyone used the same amount of sweep then saying that a >>270° sweep is less precise than a wheel with 180° sweep would be >>correct, >> >> > >OK, we're together so far. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel ;-) >And you're agreeing with this because everyone using this 'same' sweep would >have more points of resolution compacted within the sweep and therefore has >a better chance of one of these points lining up with the target he's >steering at, right? > >

Right.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>however it depends on the amount of sweep the user actually >>uses as to whether or not the wheel is precise or not. >> >> > >If everyone is using the same sweep and it's X° or if everyone is using the >same sweep and it's (X+5)°, it wouldn't make any difference. As long as >they're using the same sweep, the principle is the same. So, if one group >uses X° and another group uses (X+5)°, the principle is also still the same. > >

This is actually what I was trying to get you to think about, X may vary within a group. For you (and me btw) the ideal sweep is around 180° but for others it may be larger or smaller, as the other posts would suggest. Whether or not the wheel is "precise" will depend on the user and the ergonomics of their setup. In your opinion, based on your experience, the ideal sweep is 180°, but you may want to consider that this may not be ideal for everyone.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>But now a quick question for you Slot: Does increasing the wheel size >>make the wheel less precise? <snipe> But has the precision changed? >> >> > >Electrically, no. It still has the same number of points of resolution >within a given amount of rotation. The tangent limits haven't changed. > >

Again, it's down to definitions and opinions. You distinguish between wheel precision and electrical precision, to me they are the same thing. Also you like a wheel that changes input with small movement, but this may not be ideal for everyone. So while better resolution will help everyone, a larger wheel or a wheel with a larger sweep may not be a bad thing for some people. In the end we're in agrreement on the mechanics and the math behind the subject, but some of it comes down to opinion. The Williams F1 team once said that one of the design limits they had to contend with was that Senna liked a large steering wheel so they had to design the tub to make sure there was enough room for it. Just an example of how opinions/preferences can vary. :-) Maybe in the article, discuss the theory first (ie how all the various parameters influence each other) and then say what works best for you and why you think so. That way others have the infomation to figure out how to tweak things to suit their situation. But that's just my opinion, it's your article, right it anyway you want. :-) Ken

> That way others have the infomation to figure out >how to tweak things to suit their situation. >Ken Right on. I have enjoyed this thread abunch even if it has made my brain hurt a few times. :) MadDAWG

I did. Still do :) I wish they would have continued the series. What we could have today would be awesome! -Larry "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:am5i9j$2v77s$[email hidden]... > MadDAWG, did you used to race MTM2? > > > > Any way back to your question. What I was getting at is a larger rangein > > between the same number of pints. Using your example above the 180degree > > sweep had 1" between points, and the 270 degree sweep wheel had 1.5" > between > > points. I would think that it would be easier to repeatedly hit that1.5" > > window than the 1" window. > > You're right, it's easier to hit........but it's not what you want to do. > Keeping with the example, as you turn your steering wheel, the wheels on > your car turn. They pick up the beginning of each point and stay pointedin > that direction until you hit the next point. Then they turn again. Youturn > your steering wheel smoothly, but your car wheels actually turn in steps > (small jumps). They jump from the beginning of one point to the beginningof > the next. > So, let's say you're at the beginning of one of these points and turning > right. Your wheels won't turn again until you hit the next point, 1 1/2"to > your right. What happens if your target (the apex of a corner orsomething) > is only 3/4" away, or at a point on the screen somewhere before the wheels > actually turn again? If your points were 1" apart, you'd be closer to > hitting the target you want. > As you're driving down your virtual road, there is an infinite number of > points you could want to steer at, but your wheel only lets you target afew > of them (whether the wheel has 180 or 270� sweep). The more points your > wheel gives you, the easier it will be to go exactly where you want. Both > sweeps give you the same number of points, but 180� keeps them closer > together so more of them will be in the range where you 'usually steer(how > often do you have the steering wheel all the way to the left or right?). > Because the wheel limits the number of points you can aim at, generally > you'll miss the exact apex (or whatever target you're steering at) by a > little bit, or you have to make some little zig-zags (small, almost > unnoticeable corrections) to get to the exact point. Of course, since weact > ually have about 128 points, not 15 as in my example, it's not as bad asmy > example makes it seem. There could be reasons why someone might prefer a > 270� sweep, but they have more to do with ergonomics than > mechanical/electrical steering precision. > In LFS demo, you can see the wheel sweep and points in the controllersetup

Quoted text (13 lines)

> page. You can also see how smooth it is when you select 'mouse' to steer > with. > > -- > Slot > > Tweaks & Reviews > www.slottweak.com > > > > >

"Larry" wrote > I did. Still do :) > > I wish they would have continued the series. What we could have todaywould > be awesome! Larry, are you referring to MTM2? (sorry, it was a long post and I'm not sure which part you are talking about). Did you race in 1998 and 99? Man, that was some of the best online racing ever. Had to know your short cuts ;-) LFS demo kind of reminds me of the same type of online action. What team were you on? -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

> I wish they would have continued the series. What we could have todaywould > be awesome! > > -Larry I hear Papy is gonna have some free time coming up. I could see it now. SODA 2 with monster trucks. MadDAWG

I never raced it online, just offline. But I did it a lot :) -Larry "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:amcjol$4rnn6$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > "Larry" wrote > > I did. Still do :) > > > > I wish they would have continued the series. What we could have today > would > > be awesome! > > Larry, are you referring to MTM2? (sorry, it was a long post and I'm not > sure which part you are talking about). Did you race in 1998 and 99? Man, > that was some of the best online racing ever. Had to know your short cuts > ;-) LFS demo kind of reminds me of the same type of online action. > What team were you on? > > > -- > Slot > > Tweaks & Reviews > www.slottweak.com > >