AutoBanter
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

AutoBanter (http://www.autobanter.com/index.php)
-   Simulators (http://www.autobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   New PC's FFB (http://www.autobanter.com/showthread.php?t=373240)

Mario Petrinovic April 5th 12 10:23 AM
New PC's FFB
 
Well, I got new PC, and there are some changes. On this PC I can
clearly feel where I am regarding latency (cockpitLookDeadZone setting).
Here, my latency definitelly is somewhere around 0.038500. Well, this has
more sense than what I wrote previously. But, there are some changes,
compared to previous PC. On this PC I kept everything on default, while on
previous I did some changes to Nvidia control panel. Also, while now I also
have Class 1 video setting in iRacing, previously I didn't use DX10
optimization. Previously I had keyboard and mouse on PS/2, while now I have
them on USB. Previously I had wheel into USB 2.0, now I have it into USB
3.0.
Thankfully now I can clearly distinguish where I am with my latency,
so I can experiment with different settings (if I find time to do that).
Regarding the feel of FFB, if latency is too low, your are chasing car, if
it is too high, car is chasing you. When it is too low, car runs away from
you, but you cannot catch it. This isn't so easy to distinguish, but it is
very easy to distinguish too high latency. In short, with too high latency
FFB behaves somehow like a yo-yo. Like it has a spring in itself, and this
spring acts exactly like a yo-yo. It is controlable, but of course, because
of latency it plays around, and in adjsuting to this, all feels just like a
yo-yo.
Well, now that I am sure what is what, now I can freely experiment
with different video settings, to see how they affect latency.
Also, while previously I had FOV at 61, now it is clear that it is
62. It makes difference, and it really is a shame that you cannot adjust
this to a finer degree in iRacing.
Also, previously I used FFB settings 117/117/117/117, but now I like
118/100/100/100. But I'll take another look at this when I adjust better,
and when I test different cars.
But, on this PC I also (like on previous PC) like to have hight of
screen at 0.0%. Interesting.


Mario Petrinovic April 5th 12 11:27 AM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario Petrinovic:
Also, while previously I had FOV at 61, now it is clear that it is
62. It makes difference, and it really is a shame that you cannot adjust
this to a finer degree in iRacing.
-------------------------

This, actually, means that the distance from my eyes to the edge of
the table where I am attaching my wheel isn't 44 cm, but it is 42.5 cm.


FolkGT April 5th 12 05:12 PM
New PC's FFB
 
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 12:27:49 +0200, "Mario Petrinovic"
> wrote:

>Mario Petrinovic:
> Also, while previously I had FOV at 61, now it is clear that it is
>62. It makes difference, and it really is a shame that you cannot adjust
>this to a finer degree in iRacing.
>-------------------------
>
> This, actually, means that the distance from my eyes to the edge of
>the table where I am attaching my wheel isn't 44 cm, but it is 42.5 cm.

Isn't the correct procedure to measure the distance between your eyes and
the screen?

Mario Petrinovic April 6th 12 03:08 PM
New PC's FFB
 
FolkGT:
Mario Petrinovic:
>Mario Petrinovic:
> Also, while previously I had FOV at 61, now it is clear that it is
>62. It makes difference, and it really is a shame that you cannot adjust
>this to a finer degree in iRacing.
>-------------------------
>
> This, actually, means that the distance from my eyes to the edge of
>the table where I am attaching my wheel isn't 44 cm, but it is 42.5 cm.

Isn't the correct procedure to measure the distance between your eyes and
the screen?
--------------------------------

You would need four hands and two bodies to do this. And, at the
end, WHY would you do this? Well, to find the correct FOV, of course. And
what if, after all this measuring you make some mistake in measurements?
Then you will have WRONG FOV.
The sole and whole reason to measure this is to find the RIGHT FOV.
I have a metod to see what FOV is right the other way. The CORRECT way. You
see, WHY would you need the correct FOV in the first place? Well, to
correctly set things up.
99% of people CLAIM that FOV doesn't make a difference. They are
basing their claim on what? Mostly on their dreams. People who claime this,
either never tried different FOVs, or they have their FFB so badly set up
that EVERY FOV gives wrong result.
Well, for me, the sole reason to adjust FOV is to make FFB work
correctly. And, isn't the ONLY "correct" way to see if FFB works correctly,
well, to see if it works correctly. Simple as it can be. Well, my FFB works
correctly (-tliest) with FOV of 62. I know that this is the correct FOV, and
there is no need for me that I announce the right distance publicly so that
I can help myself. I do this so that I can help others.
So, did you try 42.5 cm? Did it work better than what you previously
had?


Tony R April 8th 12 09:06 PM
New PC's FFB
 
On 06/04/2012 15:08, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> I
> have a metod to see what FOV is right the other way. The CORRECT way.

You wouldn't happen to related to Jean-Marie Balestre by any chance?

Mario Petrinovic April 9th 12 02:26 PM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario Petrinovic:
Well, I got new PC, and there are some changes. On this PC I can
clearly feel where I am regarding latency (cockpitLookDeadZone setting).
Here, my latency definitelly is somewhere around 0.038500. Well, this has
more sense than what I wrote previously. But, there are some changes,
compared to previous PC. On this PC I kept everything on default, while on
previous I did some changes to Nvidia control panel. Also, while now I also
have Class 1 video setting in iRacing, previously I didn't use DX10
optimization. Previously I had keyboard and mouse on PS/2, while now I have
them on USB. Previously I had wheel into USB 2.0, now I have it into USB
3.0.
-------------------

Oh yes, another thing. Now I keep Profiler running all the time on
my computer (this means that it is running during boot-up), while previously
I had it shut down and opened it only when I went to the simulation. Who
knows, maybe this is why I feel FFB more clearly now.


FolkGT April 9th 12 06:09 PM
New PC's FFB
 
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:08:04 +0200, "Mario Petrinovic"
> wrote:

>FolkGT:
>Mario Petrinovic:
>>Mario Petrinovic:
>> Also, while previously I had FOV at 61, now it is clear that it is
>>62. It makes difference, and it really is a shame that you cannot adjust
>>this to a finer degree in iRacing.
>>-------------------------
>>
>> This, actually, means that the distance from my eyes to the edge of
>>the table where I am attaching my wheel isn't 44 cm, but it is 42.5 cm.
>
>Isn't the correct procedure to measure the distance between your eyes and
>the screen?
>--------------------------------
>
> You would need four hands and two bodies to do this. And, at the
>end, WHY would you do this? Well, to find the correct FOV, of course. And
>what if, after all this measuring you make some mistake in measurements?
>Then you will have WRONG FOV.

I sit pretty close to my screen. It only took one body and a tape
measure. ;)


> The sole and whole reason to measure this is to find the RIGHT FOV.
>I have a metod to see what FOV is right the other way. The CORRECT way. You
>see, WHY would you need the correct FOV in the first place? Well, to
>correctly set things up.
> 99% of people CLAIM that FOV doesn't make a difference. They are
>basing their claim on what? Mostly on their dreams. People who claime this,
>either never tried different FOVs, or they have their FFB so badly set up
>that EVERY FOV gives wrong result.
> Well, for me, the sole reason to adjust FOV is to make FFB work
>correctly. And, isn't the ONLY "correct" way to see if FFB works correctly,
>well, to see if it works correctly. Simple as it can be. Well, my FFB works
>correctly (-tliest) with FOV of 62. I know that this is the correct FOV, and
>there is no need for me that I announce the right distance publicly so that
>I can help myself. I do this so that I can help others.
> So, did you try 42.5 cm? Did it work better than what you previously
>had?

If it feels good to you, that's all that really matters.

I was basing my question to you on the information found in the .PDF
document you can download from he

http://www.silverball-magic.com/my-s..._Explained.pdf

On page 10 it give this formula to determine FOV:

2 * arctan (0.5 * w / d)

w = width of screen
d = distance from your eyes to the screen.

To be honest, if I use that formula for my setup it gives an FOV that I
feel is too narrow. So, whatever works for you is good. I was just
curious how you came up with the idea of measuring from your eyes to the
wheel, instead of from your eyes to the screen. The distance from your
eyes to the wheel in theory should never change once you have your setup
in place, but the distance between your eyes and the screen can be
drastically different, depending on whether you're using a 24" monitor or
a 54" TV screen.

Mario Petrinovic April 9th 12 08:15 PM
New PC's FFB
 
FolkGT:
Mario Petrinovic:
>FolkGT:
>Mario Petrinovic:
>>Mario Petrinovic:
>> Also, while previously I had FOV at 61, now it is clear that it is
>>62. It makes difference, and it really is a shame that you cannot adjust
>>this to a finer degree in iRacing.
>>-------------------------
>>
>> This, actually, means that the distance from my eyes to the edge
>> of
>>the table where I am attaching my wheel isn't 44 cm, but it is 42.5 cm.
>
>Isn't the correct procedure to measure the distance between your eyes and
>the screen?
>--------------------------------
>
> You would need four hands and two bodies to do this. And, at the
>end, WHY would you do this? Well, to find the correct FOV, of course. And
>what if, after all this measuring you make some mistake in measurements?
>Then you will have WRONG FOV.

I sit pretty close to my screen. It only took one body and a tape
measure. ;)


> The sole and whole reason to measure this is to find the RIGHT FOV.
>I have a metod to see what FOV is right the other way. The CORRECT way. You
>see, WHY would you need the correct FOV in the first place? Well, to
>correctly set things up.
> 99% of people CLAIM that FOV doesn't make a difference. They are
>basing their claim on what? Mostly on their dreams. People who claime this,
>either never tried different FOVs, or they have their FFB so badly set up
>that EVERY FOV gives wrong result.
> Well, for me, the sole reason to adjust FOV is to make FFB work
>correctly. And, isn't the ONLY "correct" way to see if FFB works correctly,
>well, to see if it works correctly. Simple as it can be. Well, my FFB works
>correctly (-tliest) with FOV of 62. I know that this is the correct FOV,
>and
>there is no need for me that I announce the right distance publicly so that
>I can help myself. I do this so that I can help others.
> So, did you try 42.5 cm? Did it work better than what you
> previously
>had?

If it feels good to you, that's all that really matters.

I was basing my question to you on the information found in the .PDF
document you can download from he

http://www.silverball-magic.com/my-s..._Explained.pdf

On page 10 it give this formula to determine FOV:

2 * arctan (0.5 * w / d)

w = width of screen
d = distance from your eyes to the screen.

To be honest, if I use that formula for my setup it gives an FOV that I
feel is too narrow. So, whatever works for you is good. I was just
curious how you came up with the idea of measuring from your eyes to the
wheel, instead of from your eyes to the screen. The distance from your
eyes to the wheel in theory should never change once you have your setup
in place, but the distance between your eyes and the screen can be
drastically different, depending on whether you're using a 24" monitor or
a 54" TV screen.
-----------------------------------

First, thanks for this excellent link. Some time ago I searched all
through the Interenet to find info about all this, but never found anything
as good as this.
Good additional info is that eyestrain stops at the distance of
90cm. IOW, eyestrain at 90cm is the same as eyestrain at 900cm, or 9000cm.
But, closer from 90 cm it is, the bigger the eyestrain is.
Regarding your "tape measure" and "one body", I measured A LOT this
same distance, and even "hired" others to measure me. There were a lot of
different results, it isn't easy to do this, and your natural FOV that you
get from mentioned formula can change 5 degs up or down, depending on how
well you did the measuring.
And preciesly this was the reason why I am giving people the
(horizontal) distance from my eyes to the edge of table. I am of normal
hight, and I presume that my arms are of normal length, so I presume that
every person of normal hight has this value the same, or very similar. If
you are taller, this value is greater, if you are smaller (maybe woman),
this value is smaller. So, to know this specific value can be of extreme
help, because it is easy to measure from the edge of table to the screen,
and adding those two together can EASILY give you your distance from eyes to
screen.
I really wonder why iRacing, or anybody else, didn't do this before.
It would cut a lot of mistakes people do, when they rely on their WRONGLY
made measurements. Basing on my meausurements, once I was convinced that my
natural FOV is 65 (or even 67), other times I was convinced that it is 57
instead. And, look at that, it is 62.


Mario Petrinovic April 9th 12 08:28 PM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario PetrinovicFolkGT:
Mario Petrinovic:
>FolkGT:
>Mario Petrinovic:
>>Mario Petrinovic:
>> Also, while previously I had FOV at 61, now it is clear that it is
>>62. It makes difference, and it really is a shame that you cannot adjust
>>this to a finer degree in iRacing.
>>-------------------------
>>
>> This, actually, means that the distance from my eyes to the edge
>> of
>>the table where I am attaching my wheel isn't 44 cm, but it is 42.5 cm.
>
>Isn't the correct procedure to measure the distance between your eyes and
>the screen?
>--------------------------------
>
> You would need four hands and two bodies to do this. And, at the
>end, WHY would you do this? Well, to find the correct FOV, of course. And
>what if, after all this measuring you make some mistake in measurements?
>Then you will have WRONG FOV.

I sit pretty close to my screen. It only took one body and a tape
measure. ;)

> The sole and whole reason to measure this is to find the RIGHT FOV.
>I have a metod to see what FOV is right the other way. The CORRECT way. You
>see, WHY would you need the correct FOV in the first place? Well, to
>correctly set things up.
> 99% of people CLAIM that FOV doesn't make a difference. They are
>basing their claim on what? Mostly on their dreams. People who claime this,
>either never tried different FOVs, or they have their FFB so badly set up
>that EVERY FOV gives wrong result.
> Well, for me, the sole reason to adjust FOV is to make FFB work
>correctly. And, isn't the ONLY "correct" way to see if FFB works correctly,
>well, to see if it works correctly. Simple as it can be. Well, my FFB works
>correctly (-tliest) with FOV of 62. I know that this is the correct FOV,
>and
>there is no need for me that I announce the right distance publicly so that
>I can help myself. I do this so that I can help others.
> So, did you try 42.5 cm? Did it work better than what you
> previously
>had?

If it feels good to you, that's all that really matters.

I was basing my question to you on the information found in the .PDF
document you can download from he

http://www.silverball-magic.com/my-s..._Explained.pdf

On page 10 it give this formula to determine FOV:

2 * arctan (0.5 * w / d)

w = width of screen
d = distance from your eyes to the screen.

To be honest, if I use that formula for my setup it gives an FOV that I
feel is too narrow. So, whatever works for you is good. I was just
curious how you came up with the idea of measuring from your eyes to the
wheel, instead of from your eyes to the screen. The distance from your
eyes to the wheel in theory should never change once you have your setup
in place, but the distance between your eyes and the screen can be
drastically different, depending on whether you're using a 24" monitor or
a 54" TV screen.
-----------------------------------

First, thanks for this excellent link. Some time ago I searched all
through the Interenet to find info about all this, but never found anything
as good as this.
Good additional info is that eyestrain stops at the distance of
90cm. IOW, eyestrain at 90cm is the same as eyestrain at 900cm, or 9000cm.
But, closer from 90 cm it is, the bigger the eyestrain is.
Regarding your "tape measure" and "one body", I measured A LOT this
same distance, and even "hired" others to measure me. There were a lot of
different results, it isn't easy to do this, and your natural FOV that you
get from mentioned formula can change 5 degs up or down, depending on how
well you did the measuring.
And preciesly this was the reason why I am giving people the
(horizontal) distance from my eyes to the edge of table. I am of normal
hight, and I presume that my arms are of normal length, so I presume that
every person of normal hight has this value the same, or very similar. If
you are taller, this value is greater, if you are smaller (maybe woman),
this value is smaller. So, to know this specific value can be of extreme
help, because it is easy to measure from the edge of table to the screen,
and adding those two together can EASILY give you your distance from eyes to
screen.
I really wonder why iRacing, or anybody else, didn't do this before.
It would cut a lot of mistakes people do, when they rely on their WRONGLY
made measurements. Basing on my meausurements, once I was convinced that my
natural FOV is 65 (or even 67), other times I was convinced that it is 57
instead. And, look at that, it is 62.
------------------------------

Just to make things even more clear.
When you are sitting and driving a simulation, you ALWAYS take THE
SAME position. And this position is same to 1mm. Believe me. I experimented
a lot with moving my screen 1mm closer of further, and I always got the same
FFB sensation at the same mm, and the other (same) sensation 1 mm closer or
further. When you go to drive simulation, you always take the same position
(I repeat). If you chair is further away, you will sit at the edge of chair,
if it is closer, you will push your back into the chair, and feel very
uncomfortably, but you will never-the-less, be at the same position you
always take when you are driving, and this is up to 1 mm (or even more
precise, believe me). Always the same, no matter what.
The problem arises during measurements. During measuremenst you put
your body in different position, and you are apsolutely convinced that this
is that same position you have while you are driving. But, IT ISN"T, believe
me.


FolkGT April 10th 12 06:06 PM
New PC's FFB
 
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 21:15:40 +0200, "Mario Petrinovic"
> wrote:

> First, thanks for this excellent link. Some time ago I searched all
>through the Interenet to find info about all this, but never found anything
>as good as this.

I'm glad you found it helpful! :)

Mario Petrinovic April 14th 12 03:40 PM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario Petrinovic:
Well, I got new PC, and there are some changes. On this PC I can
clearly feel where I am regarding latency (cockpitLookDeadZone setting).
Here, my latency definitelly is somewhere around 0.038500. Well, this has
more sense than what I wrote previously.
Thankfully now I can clearly distinguish where I am with my latency,
so I can experiment with different settings (if I find time to do that).
Regarding the feel of FFB, if latency is too low, your are chasing car, if
it is too high, car is chasing you. When it is too low, car runs away from
you, but you cannot catch it. This isn't so easy to distinguish, but it is
very easy to distinguish too high latency. In short, with too high latency
FFB behaves somehow like a yo-yo. Like it has a spring in itself, and this
spring acts exactly like a yo-yo. It is controlable, but of course, because
of latency it plays around, and in adjsuting to this, all feels just like a
yo-yo.
Well, now that I am sure what is what, now I can freely experiment
with different video settings, to see how they affect latency.
----------------------

There is some development, here.
Up till now I chased the divide between, yo-yo zone and no yo-yo
zone. Well, this was wrong. On my system that divide is at
cockpitLookDeadZone = 0.038570/0.038569. Well, the prefered value of
cockpitLookDeadZone is deeply into yo-yo zone. I still didn't determine
where exactly (I had enough of testing for today), but it is somewhere
around 0.08. Good news is that it looks like it doesn't have to be so
precise, it looks like three decimal places should do.
Also, on my system the fps lock at 84 is too low, regarding FFB. 169
is good. 169 is better than "no lock". "No lock" is much better than 84, and
almost as good as 169. I still didn't have time to see how low can I go
regarding this, but 84 is clearly too low.


Mario Petrinovic April 25th 12 12:19 AM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario Petrinovic:
Mario Petrinovic:
Well, I got new PC, and there are some changes. On this PC I can
clearly feel where I am regarding latency (cockpitLookDeadZone setting).
Here, my latency definitelly is somewhere around 0.038500. Well, this has
more sense than what I wrote previously.
Thankfully now I can clearly distinguish where I am with my latency,
so I can experiment with different settings (if I find time to do that).
Regarding the feel of FFB, if latency is too low, your are chasing car, if
it is too high, car is chasing you. When it is too low, car runs away from
you, but you cannot catch it. This isn't so easy to distinguish, but it is
very easy to distinguish too high latency. In short, with too high latency
FFB behaves somehow like a yo-yo. Like it has a spring in itself, and this
spring acts exactly like a yo-yo. It is controlable, but of course, because
of latency it plays around, and in adjsuting to this, all feels just like a
yo-yo.
Well, now that I am sure what is what, now I can freely experiment
with different video settings, to see how they affect latency.
----------------------

There is some development, here.
Up till now I chased the divide between, yo-yo zone and no yo-yo
zone. Well, this was wrong. On my system that divide is at
cockpitLookDeadZone = 0.038570/0.038569. Well, the prefered value of
cockpitLookDeadZone is deeply into yo-yo zone. I still didn't determine
where exactly (I had enough of testing for today), but it is somewhere
around 0.08. Good news is that it looks like it doesn't have to be so
precise, it looks like three decimal places should do.
Also, on my system the fps lock at 84 is too low, regarding FFB. 169
is good. 169 is better than "no lock". "No lock" is much better than 84, and
almost as good as 169. I still didn't have time to see how low can I go
regarding this, but 84 is clearly too low.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, I tested all this.
First, FFB has to be precise to all 6 decimal places. My setting is
0.086551 (the default is 0.050000).
With finetuned FFB I could feel better what the right FOV is, and
now the best is 63. This means that the (horizontal) distance from my eyes
to the edge of table where wheel is attached is 40 cm. The FOV is extremly
important, with wrong FOV you cannot negotiate corners correctly. Too bad
you cannot adjust it more precisely (one decimal place should be enough).
Regarding what fps, the more, the better. "No lock" fps is better
than 169.
I tested with Skippy on Jefferson Reverse, which is a good
combination for testing.


Mario Petrinovic April 25th 12 03:13 PM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario Petrinovic:
Mario Petrinovic:
Mario Petrinovic:
Well, I got new PC, and there are some changes. On this PC I can
clearly feel where I am regarding latency (cockpitLookDeadZone setting).
Here, my latency definitelly is somewhere around 0.038500. Well, this has
more sense than what I wrote previously.
Thankfully now I can clearly distinguish where I am with my latency,
so I can experiment with different settings (if I find time to do that).
Regarding the feel of FFB, if latency is too low, your are chasing car, if
it is too high, car is chasing you. When it is too low, car runs away from
you, but you cannot catch it. This isn't so easy to distinguish, but it is
very easy to distinguish too high latency. In short, with too high latency
FFB behaves somehow like a yo-yo. Like it has a spring in itself, and this
spring acts exactly like a yo-yo. It is controlable, but of course, because
of latency it plays around, and in adjsuting to this, all feels just like a
yo-yo.
Well, now that I am sure what is what, now I can freely experiment
with different video settings, to see how they affect latency.
----------------------

There is some development, here.
Up till now I chased the divide between, yo-yo zone and no yo-yo
zone. Well, this was wrong. On my system that divide is at
cockpitLookDeadZone = 0.038570/0.038569. Well, the prefered value of
cockpitLookDeadZone is deeply into yo-yo zone. I still didn't determine
where exactly (I had enough of testing for today), but it is somewhere
around 0.08. Good news is that it looks like it doesn't have to be so
precise, it looks like three decimal places should do.
Also, on my system the fps lock at 84 is too low, regarding FFB. 169
is good. 169 is better than "no lock". "No lock" is much better than 84, and
almost as good as 169. I still didn't have time to see how low can I go
regarding this, but 84 is clearly too low.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, I tested all this.
First, FFB has to be precise to all 6 decimal places. My setting is
0.086551 (the default is 0.050000).
With finetuned FFB I could feel better what the right FOV is, and
now the best is 63. This means that the (horizontal) distance from my eyes
to the edge of table where wheel is attached is 40 cm. The FOV is extremly
important, with wrong FOV you cannot negotiate corners correctly. Too bad
you cannot adjust it more precisely (one decimal place should be enough).
Regarding what fps, the more, the better. "No lock" fps is better
than 169.
I tested with Skippy on Jefferson Reverse, which is a good
combination for testing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, now that I've set up the things reasonably well, I tried to
see how car behaves with cockpitLookDeadZone values higher than 0.1.
Previously I didn't go higher than that since iRacing has set it to 0.05 as
a default. Well, now I tried all the values. And look at that...
So, now I have really well set up all the things, so, lets see how
this will go. This value can be set in a range from 1.0 to 0.0. The middle
of this is 0.5. And, look at that, this value works excellently, just like
it should. Safe, and you can correct driving even if in the middle of spin
(actually, it really behaves like a real car), and control it in 99% of
situations.
So, this SHOULD actually be the default setting. Why iRacing has put
it at 10x lower value, who in the whole world knows. My God, will I spend
whole my life clearing THE MESS iRacing is leaving behind. At least if they
would leave some info, or whetever. But not, they are actually blocking any
discussion about this. Unbelievable.
So, it is actually all very easy, just put this value to 0.5, put
first of FFB settings (Overall) to whatever you like, put the rest of them
at 100% (I would also uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings"), put in-game
FFB values at max., and set FOV so that you count in the distance from eyes
to the edge of table as 40 cm.


Mario Petrinovic May 3rd 12 07:46 AM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario Petrinovic:
So, it is actually all very easy, just put this value to 0.5, put
first of FFB settings (Overall) to whatever you like, put the rest of them
at 100% (I would also uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings"), put in-game
FFB values at max., and set FOV so that you count in the distance from eyes
to the edge of table as 40 cm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, it turned out that setting the hight of screen is also very
important.
BTW, I would definitely uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings".
This setting gives unlinearity to FFB.


FolkGT May 3rd 12 05:51 PM
New PC's FFB
 
On Thu, 3 May 2012 08:46:30 +0200, "Mario Petrinovic"
> wrote:

>Mario Petrinovic:
> So, it is actually all very easy, just put this value to 0.5, put
>first of FFB settings (Overall) to whatever you like, put the rest of them
>at 100% (I would also uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings"), put in-game
>FFB values at max., and set FOV so that you count in the distance from eyes
>to the edge of table as 40 cm.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Oh, it turned out that setting the hight of screen is also very
>important.
> BTW, I would definitely uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings".
>This setting gives unlinearity to FFB.

Interesting. I'm beta-testing pCARS right now and with that game you
definitely have to check that option. I'm surprised other games don't
have the same requirement.

Mario Petrinovic May 4th 12 06:32 AM
New PC's FFB
 
FolkGT:
Mario Petrinovic:
>Mario Petrinovic:
> So, it is actually all very easy, just put this value to 0.5, put
>first of FFB settings (Overall) to whatever you like, put the rest of them
>at 100% (I would also uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings"), put in-game
>FFB values at max., and set FOV so that you count in the distance from eyes
>to the edge of table as 40 cm.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Oh, it turned out that setting the hight of screen is also very
>important.
> BTW, I would definitely uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings".
>This setting gives unlinearity to FFB.

Interesting. I'm beta-testing pCARS right now and with that game you
definitely have to check that option. I'm surprised other games don't
have the same requirement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you having Damper, Spring and Centering Spring (Centering Spring
unchecked) at 100%? Well, if you don't have, then some strange things happen
(which are also unlinear), so, in that case, if game developer expects you
to have unlinear FFB settings, he can try to flatten this unlinearity by
adjusting settings (also in ulinear way). This is the case with iRacing, who
is suggesting some non-linear FFB settings.


Mario Petrinovic May 4th 12 08:13 PM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario Petrinovic:
Mario Petrinovic:
So, it is actually all very easy, just put this value to 0.5, put
first of FFB settings (Overall) to whatever you like, put the rest of them
at 100% (I would also uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings"), put in-game
FFB values at max., and set FOV so that you count in the distance from eyes
to the edge of table as 40 cm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, it turned out that setting the hight of screen is also very
important.
BTW, I would definitely uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings".
This setting gives unlinearity to FFB.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, there are some corrections. Now that I've set up hight of
screen, it turned out that FOV was wrong. The correct one is 66 (was 63).
Previously, 63 allowed me to go through corners better, but it turned out
that it was because lower FOV losenes car, and this is beneficial with
default tight setups. Now, with hight of screen set correctly, I realize
that 66 is the right FOV.
This means that the distance from eyes to the edge of table is 36
cm, not 40 cm.


Mario Petrinovic May 4th 12 11:18 PM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario Petrinovic:
Mario Petrinovic:
Mario Petrinovic:
So, it is actually all very easy, just put this value to 0.5, put
first of FFB settings (Overall) to whatever you like, put the rest of them
at 100% (I would also uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings"), put in-game
FFB values at max., and set FOV so that you count in the distance from eyes
to the edge of table as 40 cm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, it turned out that setting the hight of screen is also very
important.
BTW, I would definitely uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings".
This setting gives unlinearity to FFB.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, there are some corrections. Now that I've set up hight of
screen, it turned out that FOV was wrong. The correct one is 66 (was 63).
Previously, 63 allowed me to go through corners better, but it turned out
that it was because lower FOV losenes car, and this is beneficial with
default tight setups. Now, with hight of screen set correctly, I realize
that 66 is the right FOV.
This means that the distance from eyes to the edge of table is 36
cm, not 40 cm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ha, ha, I just figured out one important thing.
Well, with my new PC I decided to start from the begining, from "the
first state", to not change anything, to see how it will go. And
immediatelly I noticed far crispier FFB. Well, I thought, that's ok, why
not, : ). But I didn't know why. I ran Profiler before, I am running it now,
everything was the same. Except that I noticed that I cannot change the
properties of wheel axes. This is strange, I thougt. Well, today I realized
that this is because I didn't have any profile loaded/selected into the
Profiler. So, today I decided to make one profile, and look at that,
immediatelly I noticed how much lag a profile is adding to FFB. A lot of
lag, car becames almost "uncechable". Well, why don't try to turn Profiler
completly off? So I did this, and guess what, things started to be even
better, car became even more "catchable" (it means, when car starts to drift
away, I can catch it, Watkins Glen is good track to test this, because there
car slides a lot under power) than before when only Profiler without a
profile was running.
Well, this certainly is a good news. So, no Profiler from now on.


FolkGT May 7th 12 08:22 PM
New PC's FFB
 
On Fri, 4 May 2012 07:32:55 +0200, "Mario Petrinovic"
> wrote:

>FolkGT:
>Mario Petrinovic:
>>Mario Petrinovic:
>> So, it is actually all very easy, just put this value to 0.5, put
>>first of FFB settings (Overall) to whatever you like, put the rest of them
>>at 100% (I would also uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings"), put in-game
>>FFB values at max., and set FOV so that you count in the distance from eyes
>>to the edge of table as 40 cm.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Oh, it turned out that setting the hight of screen is also very
>>important.
>> BTW, I would definitely uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings".
>>This setting gives unlinearity to FFB.
>
>Interesting. I'm beta-testing pCARS right now and with that game you
>definitely have to check that option. I'm surprised other games don't
>have the same requirement.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Are you having Damper, Spring and Centering Spring (Centering Spring
>unchecked) at 100%? Well, if you don't have, then some strange things happen
>(which are also unlinear), so, in that case, if game developer expects you
>to have unlinear FFB settings, he can try to flatten this unlinearity by
>adjusting settings (also in ulinear way). This is the case with iRacing, who
>is suggesting some non-linear FFB settings.

I see. The devs at pCARS recommend the following settings:

Overall Effects Strength: 100-104
Spring Effect Strength: 0
Damper Effect Strength: 0
Enable Centering Spring: Unchecked. (so it doesn't matter the setting)
Degrees of Rotation: 900 (different steering setups are done per car
within the game)
Allow game to adjust settings: Checked

Mario Petrinovic May 8th 12 07:45 AM
New PC's FFB
 
FolkGT:
Mario Petrinovic:
>FolkGT:
>Mario Petrinovic:
>>Mario Petrinovic:
>> So, it is actually all very easy, just put this value to 0.5, put
>>first of FFB settings (Overall) to whatever you like, put the rest of them
>>at 100% (I would also uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings"), put
>>in-game
>>FFB values at max., and set FOV so that you count in the distance from
>>eyes
>>to the edge of table as 40 cm.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Oh, it turned out that setting the hight of screen is also very
>>important.
>> BTW, I would definitely uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings".
>>This setting gives unlinearity to FFB.
>
>Interesting. I'm beta-testing pCARS right now and with that game you
>definitely have to check that option. I'm surprised other games don't
>have the same requirement.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Are you having Damper, Spring and Centering Spring (Centering
> Spring
>unchecked) at 100%? Well, if you don't have, then some strange things
>happen
>(which are also unlinear), so, in that case, if game developer expects you
>to have unlinear FFB settings, he can try to flatten this unlinearity by
>adjusting settings (also in ulinear way). This is the case with iRacing,
>who
>is suggesting some non-linear FFB settings.

I see. The devs at pCARS recommend the following settings:

Overall Effects Strength: 100-104
Spring Effect Strength: 0
Damper Effect Strength: 0
Enable Centering Spring: Unchecked. (so it doesn't matter the setting)
Degrees of Rotation: 900 (different steering setups are done per car
within the game)
Allow game to adjust settings: Checked
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once I discussed this with Ade Allen, he made Real Feel plugin fo
rFactor, and he also didn't now that, and since the developers of both,
iRacing and pCARS don't mention this specifically anywhere, I presume that
they don't know too. Centering Spring works even if unchecked. Centering
Spring is a part of FFB, and it works so that if it is more than 100% it is
harder than natural for you to turn wheel away from center, and if it is
below 100% it is easier than natural (or something like that). Anyway, 100%
is the natural strength of FFB forces (this goes for Damper and Spring,
too).
When Centering Spring is checked, it works indepemdetly of FFB. IOW,
this checked Centering Spring ISN'T a part of FFB, but unchecked is a part
of FFB. If you see the description of this (put mouse arrow over the text),
you'll see that by checking it you "enable centering forces in force
feedback games which do not have a centering force". For force feedback
games that do have a centering force you don't have to check this box, and
this slider adjusts this force unchecked. It really is confusing (it was for
me, also), and there is nowhere an closer explaination, and the whole
simcommunity is convinced (just like you) that this slider doesn't work if
unchecked, but this isn't so. For example, iRacing recommends this slider to
be at 100%. Which means that iRacing's FFB works on "Overall", AND
"Centering Spring".


Mario Petrinovic May 8th 12 08:12 AM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario Petrinovic:
FolkGT:
Mario Petrinovic:
>FolkGT:
>Mario Petrinovic:
>>Mario Petrinovic:
>> So, it is actually all very easy, just put this value to 0.5, put
>>first of FFB settings (Overall) to whatever you like, put the rest of them
>>at 100% (I would also uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings"), put
>>in-game
>>FFB values at max., and set FOV so that you count in the distance from
>>eyes to the edge of table as 40 cm.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Oh, it turned out that setting the hight of screen is also very
>>important.
>> BTW, I would definitely uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings".
>>This setting gives unlinearity to FFB.
>
>Interesting. I'm beta-testing pCARS right now and with that game you
>definitely have to check that option. I'm surprised other games don't
>have the same requirement.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Are you having Damper, Spring and Centering Spring (Centering
> Spring
>unchecked) at 100%? Well, if you don't have, then some strange things
>happen
>(which are also unlinear), so, in that case, if game developer expects you
>to have unlinear FFB settings, he can try to flatten this unlinearity by
>adjusting settings (also in ulinear way). This is the case with iRacing,
>who is suggesting some non-linear FFB settings.

I see. The devs at pCARS recommend the following settings:

Overall Effects Strength: 100-104
Spring Effect Strength: 0
Damper Effect Strength: 0
Enable Centering Spring: Unchecked. (so it doesn't matter the setting)
Degrees of Rotation: 900 (different steering setups are done per car
within the game)
Allow game to adjust settings: Checked
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once I discussed this with Ade Allen, he made Real Feel plugin fo
rFactor, and he also didn't now that, and since the developers of both,
iRacing and pCARS don't mention this specifically anywhere, I presume that
they don't know too. Centering Spring works even if unchecked. Centering
Spring is a part of FFB, and it works so that if it is more than 100% it is
harder than natural for you to turn wheel away from center, and if it is
below 100% it is easier than natural (or something like that). Anyway, 100%
is the natural strength of FFB forces (this goes for Damper and Spring,
too).
When Centering Spring is checked, it works indepemdetly of FFB. IOW,
this checked Centering Spring ISN'T a part of FFB, but unchecked is a part
of FFB. If you see the description of this (put mouse arrow over the text),
you'll see that by checking it you "enable centering forces in force
feedback games which do not have a centering force". For force feedback
games that do have a centering force you don't have to check this box, and
this slider adjusts this force unchecked. It really is confusing (it was for
me, also), and there is nowhere an closer explaination, and the whole
simcommunity is convinced (just like you) that this slider doesn't work if
unchecked, but this isn't so. For example, iRacing recommends this slider to
be at 100%. Which means that iRacing's FFB works on "Overall", AND
"Centering Spring".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The placement of "Overall" is also interesting. "Overall" shouldn't
do anything, expect what the name suggests, changing the strength of forces,
nothing more. You should adjust that strength per your preference, and there
SHOULDN'T be a recommendation by game developer for this. In a well balanced
system (natural perspective, and FFB working like it is designed to work)
Overall doesn't do anything. I have it at 118%, but if I put it at 100%, or
at 150%, it behaves nearly the same, only the strength changes. But, we see
that game developers actually only work with the Overall, in a mean of
CHANGING FFB. It does have a sense on unbalanced system, where FFB behaves
diferently. And this is the problem of FFB. If unbalanced, it introduces
sinusoides, and by changing the Overall you are actually manipulating the
amplitude of those sinusoides, and thus you are adjusting FFB.


FolkGT May 8th 12 06:58 PM
New PC's FFB
 
On Tue, 8 May 2012 08:45:32 +0200, "Mario Petrinovic"
> wrote:

>FolkGT:
>Mario Petrinovic:
>>FolkGT:
>>Mario Petrinovic:
>>>Mario Petrinovic:
>>> So, it is actually all very easy, just put this value to 0.5, put
>>>first of FFB settings (Overall) to whatever you like, put the rest of them
>>>at 100% (I would also uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings"), put
>>>in-game
>>>FFB values at max., and set FOV so that you count in the distance from
>>>eyes
>>>to the edge of table as 40 cm.
>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Oh, it turned out that setting the hight of screen is also very
>>>important.
>>> BTW, I would definitely uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings".
>>>This setting gives unlinearity to FFB.
>>
>>Interesting. I'm beta-testing pCARS right now and with that game you
>>definitely have to check that option. I'm surprised other games don't
>>have the same requirement.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Are you having Damper, Spring and Centering Spring (Centering
>> Spring
>>unchecked) at 100%? Well, if you don't have, then some strange things
>>happen
>>(which are also unlinear), so, in that case, if game developer expects you
>>to have unlinear FFB settings, he can try to flatten this unlinearity by
>>adjusting settings (also in ulinear way). This is the case with iRacing,
>>who
>>is suggesting some non-linear FFB settings.
>
>I see. The devs at pCARS recommend the following settings:
>
>Overall Effects Strength: 100-104
>Spring Effect Strength: 0
>Damper Effect Strength: 0
>Enable Centering Spring: Unchecked. (so it doesn't matter the setting)
>Degrees of Rotation: 900 (different steering setups are done per car
>within the game)
>Allow game to adjust settings: Checked
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Once I discussed this with Ade Allen, he made Real Feel plugin fo
>rFactor, and he also didn't now that, and since the developers of both,
>iRacing and pCARS don't mention this specifically anywhere, I presume that
>they don't know too. Centering Spring works even if unchecked. Centering
>Spring is a part of FFB, and it works so that if it is more than 100% it is
>harder than natural for you to turn wheel away from center, and if it is
>below 100% it is easier than natural (or something like that). Anyway, 100%
>is the natural strength of FFB forces (this goes for Damper and Spring,
>too).
> When Centering Spring is checked, it works indepemdetly of FFB. IOW,
>this checked Centering Spring ISN'T a part of FFB, but unchecked is a part
>of FFB. If you see the description of this (put mouse arrow over the text),
>you'll see that by checking it you "enable centering forces in force
>feedback games which do not have a centering force". For force feedback
>games that do have a centering force you don't have to check this box, and
>this slider adjusts this force unchecked. It really is confusing (it was for
>me, also), and there is nowhere an closer explaination, and the whole
>simcommunity is convinced (just like you) that this slider doesn't work if
>unchecked, but this isn't so. For example, iRacing recommends this slider to
>be at 100%. Which means that iRacing's FFB works on "Overall", AND
>"Centering Spring".

The Centering Spring implementation must be game specific. For pCARS, if
I *check* the Centering Spring option, there is a marked difference in
steering weight when adjusting the slider between 0 and 100. If I
*uncheck* the option, there is *NO* difference when adjusting the slider.
One has to assume that the implementation of Logitech's API varies from
developer to developer. I don't think there is a "one true way".

Mario Petrinovic May 9th 12 05:47 AM
New PC's FFB
 
FolkGT:
Mario Petrinovic:
>FolkGT:
>Mario Petrinovic:
>>FolkGT:
>>Mario Petrinovic:
>>>Mario Petrinovic:
>>> So, it is actually all very easy, just put this value to 0.5, put
>>>first of FFB settings (Overall) to whatever you like, put the rest of
>>>them
>>>at 100% (I would also uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings"), put
>>>in-game
>>>FFB values at max., and set FOV so that you count in the distance from
>>>eyes to the edge of table as 40 cm.
>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Oh, it turned out that setting the hight of screen is also very
>>>important.
>>> BTW, I would definitely uncheck "Allow game to adjust settings".
>>>This setting gives unlinearity to FFB.
>>
>>Interesting. I'm beta-testing pCARS right now and with that game you
>>definitely have to check that option. I'm surprised other games don't
>>have the same requirement.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Are you having Damper, Spring and Centering Spring (Centering
>> Spring
>>unchecked) at 100%? Well, if you don't have, then some strange things
>>happen
>>(which are also unlinear), so, in that case, if game developer expects you
>>to have unlinear FFB settings, he can try to flatten this unlinearity by
>>adjusting settings (also in ulinear way). This is the case with iRacing,
>>who is suggesting some non-linear FFB settings.
>
>I see. The devs at pCARS recommend the following settings:
>
>Overall Effects Strength: 100-104
>Spring Effect Strength: 0
>Damper Effect Strength: 0
>Enable Centering Spring: Unchecked. (so it doesn't matter the setting)
>Degrees of Rotation: 900 (different steering setups are done per car
>within the game)
>Allow game to adjust settings: Checked
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Once I discussed this with Ade Allen, he made Real Feel plugin fo
>rFactor, and he also didn't now that, and since the developers of both,
>iRacing and pCARS don't mention this specifically anywhere, I presume that
>they don't know too. Centering Spring works even if unchecked. Centering
>Spring is a part of FFB, and it works so that if it is more than 100% it is
>harder than natural for you to turn wheel away from center, and if it is
>below 100% it is easier than natural (or something like that). Anyway, 100%
>is the natural strength of FFB forces (this goes for Damper and Spring,
>too).
> When Centering Spring is checked, it works indepemdetly of FFB.
> IOW,
>this checked Centering Spring ISN'T a part of FFB, but unchecked is a part
>of FFB. If you see the description of this (put mouse arrow over the text),
>you'll see that by checking it you "enable centering forces in force
>feedback games which do not have a centering force". For force feedback
>games that do have a centering force you don't have to check this box, and
>this slider adjusts this force unchecked. It really is confusing (it was
>for
>me, also), and there is nowhere an closer explaination, and the whole
>simcommunity is convinced (just like you) that this slider doesn't work if
>unchecked, but this isn't so. For example, iRacing recommends this slider
>to
>be at 100%. Which means that iRacing's FFB works on "Overall", AND
>"Centering Spring".

The Centering Spring implementation must be game specific. For pCARS, if
I *check* the Centering Spring option, there is a marked difference in
steering weight when adjusting the slider between 0 and 100. If I
*uncheck* the option, there is *NO* difference when adjusting the slider.
One has to assume that the implementation of Logitech's API varies from
developer to developer. I don't think there is a "one true way".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I put it (unchecked) in iRacing at 0% and at 100%, there is a lot
of difference. 100% is "true way", 101% isn't, and 99% isn't. There is a
reason for Centering Spring, which is felt nicely in iRacing.
BTW, for whoever is interested, now I think that the distance from
monitor to the edge of table is 37.5 cm (15 in.).
Also, I will experiment with in-game settings. It could be that max.
in-game settings oversaturate FFB, and that "true way" should be 20 (max. is
40), and 50 for Damper (max. is 100). Also, it could be that Overall "true
way" is 100%, but I must test all this first.


FolkGT May 9th 12 07:14 PM
New PC's FFB
 
On Wed, 9 May 2012 06:47:49 +0200, "Mario Petrinovic"
> wrote:

> If I put it (unchecked) in iRacing at 0% and at 100%, there is a lot
>of difference. 100% is "true way", 101% isn't, and 99% isn't.

That seems odd to me. If the option is unchecked, then the strength
should be ignored. To put another way, the strength only applies if
you're actually using the option. Maybe a bug in iRacing's interaction
with the Logitech API?

Mario Petrinovic May 9th 12 11:35 PM
New PC's FFB
 
FolkGT:
Mario Petrinovic:
> If I put it (unchecked) in iRacing at 0% and at 100%, there is a
> lot
>of difference. 100% is "true way", 101% isn't, and 99% isn't.

That seems odd to me. If the option is unchecked, then the strength
should be ignored. To put another way, the strength only applies if
you're actually using the option. Maybe a bug in iRacing's interaction
with the Logitech API?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, some other guy said that it is "known bug". IOW, he thought that
this is a bug, but if you read carefully, you realize that this isn't a bug.
It is confusing, though (just like about everything regarding FFB), and
somebody should provide some credible explaination, but I am afraid, if
anybody is trying to explain FFB, he would be in danger to reveal some FFB
shortcomings, and this would deter people from using FFB, so nobody explains
anything (which actually is the state of things, regarding knowlage about
FFB).
BTW, thanks very much for the info from pCARS. This made me retest
Overall force, and really, in my system also it works the way I explained
(as amplifier of sinusoids or something like that, if you remember). I
figured out that I had it too high. It is too "springy" at that level, so I
went down. "Springness" is present all the way down to 111% (on my system),
and at 110% it starts to develop slack. I tried 100% and it is too "dampy"
(I encountered those states before, one end is "springy", while the other is
"dampy"). I tried 102% to 118% (I had enough of testing when I got down to
101%, so I will try it tomorow, lol), and 102% to 110% is with slack, with
109% being the most drivable. In fact, it behaves very much like when you
are adjusting perspective, so I will try to adjust perspective (FOV and
hight of screen) so that it works with Overall 100%, which should obviously
be the preferable value (I figerd it out during testing, because some things
work very well, the closer to 100% you are, only right now my system isn't
adjusted for 100%, it works better right now at 109%).
With my system at all testings I am close to the very top of the
session, right among some "A" class people, so this shows that everything
works well. I could be at the very top (possibly, if there isn't some
absolutely fast guy at the session), if I am not just testing FFB, but
rather take adventage of track specifics. Right now I am just doing a
generic drive-around.


Mario Petrinovic May 10th 12 12:06 AM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario Petrinovic:
FolkGT:
Mario Petrinovic:
> If I put it (unchecked) in iRacing at 0% and at 100%, there is a
> lot
>of difference. 100% is "true way", 101% isn't, and 99% isn't.

That seems odd to me. If the option is unchecked, then the strength
should be ignored. To put another way, the strength only applies if
you're actually using the option. Maybe a bug in iRacing's interaction
with the Logitech API?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, some other guy said that it is "known bug". IOW, he thought that
this is a bug, but if you read carefully, you realize that this isn't a bug.
It is confusing, though (just like about everything regarding FFB), and
somebody should provide some credible explaination, but I am afraid, if
anybody is trying to explain FFB, he would be in danger to reveal some FFB
shortcomings, and this would deter people from using FFB, so nobody explains
anything (which actually is the state of things, regarding knowlage about
FFB).
BTW, thanks very much for the info from pCARS. This made me retest
Overall force, and really, in my system also it works the way I explained
(as amplifier of sinusoids or something like that, if you remember). I
figured out that I had it too high. It is too "springy" at that level, so I
went down. "Springness" is present all the way down to 111% (on my system),
and at 110% it starts to develop slack. I tried 100% and it is too "dampy"
(I encountered those states before, one end is "springy", while the other is
"dampy"). I tried 102% to 118% (I had enough of testing when I got down to
101%, so I will try it tomorow, lol), and 102% to 110% is with slack, with
109% being the most drivable. In fact, it behaves very much like when you
are adjusting perspective, so I will try to adjust perspective (FOV and
hight of screen) so that it works with Overall 100%, which should obviously
be the preferable value (I figerd it out during testing, because some things
work very well, the closer to 100% you are, only right now my system isn't
adjusted for 100%, it works better right now at 109%).
With my system at all testings I am close to the very top of the
session, right among some "A" class people, so this shows that everything
works well. I could be at the very top (possibly, if there isn't some
absolutely fast guy at the session), if I am not just testing FFB, but
rather take adventage of track specifics. Right now I am just doing a
generic drive-around.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yes, the biggest problem with iRacing's FFB is wrongly set
"cockpitLookDeadZone". Why iRacing has put this value at 0.05, while the
balanced value is 0.5, completly evades me.


FolkGT May 10th 12 06:11 PM
New PC's FFB
 
On Thu, 10 May 2012 00:35:06 +0200, "Mario Petrinovic"
> wrote:

>FolkGT:
>Mario Petrinovic:
>> If I put it (unchecked) in iRacing at 0% and at 100%, there is a
>> lot
>>of difference. 100% is "true way", 101% isn't, and 99% isn't.
>
>That seems odd to me. If the option is unchecked, then the strength
>should be ignored. To put another way, the strength only applies if
>you're actually using the option. Maybe a bug in iRacing's interaction
>with the Logitech API?
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No, some other guy said that it is "known bug". IOW, he thought that
>this is a bug, but if you read carefully, you realize that this isn't a bug.
>It is confusing, though (just like about everything regarding FFB), and
>somebody should provide some credible explaination, but I am afraid, if
>anybody is trying to explain FFB, he would be in danger to reveal some FFB
>shortcomings, and this would deter people from using FFB, so nobody explains
>anything (which actually is the state of things, regarding knowlage about
>FFB).
> BTW, thanks very much for the info from pCARS. This made me retest
>Overall force [...snip...]

Speaking of pCARS, have you considered giving it a try?

http://www.wmdportal.com/about/

10€ gets you monthly builds, 50€ gets you weekly builds and a copy of the
game at launch. and there are other levels in between with other perks.
And if it sells well, that 50€ could turn into 150€ down the road.

It's really an exciting time right now. The FFB is being completely
rebuilt, and the last update hinted at great things to come. The design
we're going for allows the driver to adjust a great many FFB factors so
that the game will cater to your individual tastes. The analogy used is
it's like an amplifier where you have different "knobs" to adjust
different aspects of the FFB, just like you can adjust treble, bass, etc.
on an amplifier.

I bet someone like you would have a blast being part of the community and
helping shape the direction of the game. :)

Mario Petrinovic May 10th 12 08:42 PM
New PC's FFB
 
FolkGT:
Mario Petrinovic:
>FolkGT:
>Mario Petrinovic:
>> If I put it (unchecked) in iRacing at 0% and at 100%, there is a
>> lot
>>of difference. 100% is "true way", 101% isn't, and 99% isn't.
>
>That seems odd to me. If the option is unchecked, then the strength
>should be ignored. To put another way, the strength only applies if
>you're actually using the option. Maybe a bug in iRacing's interaction
>with the Logitech API?
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No, some other guy said that it is "known bug". IOW, he thought
> that
>this is a bug, but if you read carefully, you realize that this isn't a
>bug.
>It is confusing, though (just like about everything regarding FFB), and
>somebody should provide some credible explaination, but I am afraid, if
>anybody is trying to explain FFB, he would be in danger to reveal some FFB
>shortcomings, and this would deter people from using FFB, so nobody
>explains
>anything (which actually is the state of things, regarding knowlage about
>FFB).
> BTW, thanks very much for the info from pCARS. This made me retest
>Overall force [...snip...]

Speaking of pCARS, have you considered giving it a try?

http://www.wmdportal.com/about/

10€ gets you monthly builds, 50€ gets you weekly builds and a copy of the
game at launch. and there are other levels in between with other perks.
And if it sells well, that 50€ could turn into 150€ down the road.

It's really an exciting time right now. The FFB is being completely
rebuilt, and the last update hinted at great things to come. The design
we're going for allows the driver to adjust a great many FFB factors so
that the game will cater to your individual tastes. The analogy used is
it's like an amplifier where you have different "knobs" to adjust
different aspects of the FFB, just like you can adjust treble, bass, etc.
on an amplifier.

I bet someone like you would have a blast being part of the community and
helping shape the direction of the game. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the suggestion. Yes, I was thinking about it lately,
actually, right after reading your previous post I considered it seriously.
I believe soon I'll try it (its hard to find time for everything, though, in
those modern times).
BTW, fimaly I figured out about Centering Spring. It should be at
the same value as Overall. I didn't find it before because they both have to
be at the precise value, otherwise there is no benefit of them being the
same. Thankfully, my last Overall was at close value, so I tested around it.
My last Overall was 109% (the settings were 109/100/100/100), and the value
where they both have to be is 108% (so, "the right" settings are
108/100/100/108). With these new settings I was the first in fixed setup
sessions that I drove today, and even did my personal best without much
trouble. I aldo tried some non-default (non-100%) Spring and Damper
settings, but these were not good. I tried to lower in-game (by the same
percentage moving both, force and damper), and this is good only if you
lower (from maximum) it by little.
Things still aren't absolutely perfect, but I am satisfied.
Interestingly, the same filosofy (of Overall and Centering Spring
being the same, and Damper and Spring at 100%) I had right before iRacing
2.0 edition came out. I was very satisfied with that (only, it was a bit too
light, since at that time Damper was locked at 75%, and nobody new about it,
except iRacing, of course), and thought that I was at the end of my
research, but then came iRacing 2.0 and things became messy again. Probably
it is then that iRacing had put that (WRONG) cockpitLookDeadZone value, and
confused FFB *once AGAIN*. Now, after so much time, I found what was messy,
and now I am waiting for iRacing 3.0, so that iRacing can mess things up
*again* (and again, and again...). Jesus Christ.


Mario Petrinovic May 11th 12 03:25 PM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario Petrinovic:
BTW, fimaly I figured out about Centering Spring. It should be at
the same value as Overall. I didn't find it before because they both have to
be at the precise value, otherwise there is no benefit of them being the
same. Thankfully, my last Overall was at close value, so I tested around it.
My last Overall was 109% (the settings were 109/100/100/100), and the value
where they both have to be is 108% (so, "the right" settings are
108/100/100/108). With these new settings I was the first in fixed setup
sessions that I drove today, and even did my personal best without much
trouble. I aldo tried some non-default (non-100%) Spring and Damper
settings, but these were not good. I tried to lower in-game (by the same
percentage moving both, force and damper), and this is good only if you
lower (from maximum) it by little.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, this was wrong. It looks like the old formula is still working.
The formula is:
Overall x Spring/Damper = Centering Spring.
This means that with 108/100/100/108 I couldn't lower Spring/Damper
because 1.08 (CS) / 1.08 (O) = 1.00 (S/D).
But, I found out that 108/100/100/108 works well because Overall
should be 108 on my system, but Centering Spring is best to be kept at 100.
So, now I am using 108/93/93/100, because 1.00 (CS) / 1.08 (O) = 0.93 (S/D).
Also, FOV was wrong (again, so easy to measure it, yet it is always
wrong, lol), and now I say that the distance from eyes to the edge of table
is 35 cm.


GaryR May 12th 12 04:28 AM
New PC's FFB
 
You two and this FF discussion are the death knell of this (should
have been put to slep years ago) group. Mario - you make me dizzy with
your up/down/back/forth "THIS IS IT" settings. Give it up, get a
hobby, plant flowers, get a life, but this is the most ridiculous one
person discussion I have ever witnessed in the 30 plus years I have
been witness to usenet..

Am I the only one that is saying "who gives a ****" after reading the
1st 50 of these "Mario FF" posts??

Maybe i'm just getting too old for usenet nonsense.
GR

>On Fri, 11 May 2012 16:25:57 +0200, "Mario Petrinovic" > wrote:

>Mario Petrinovic:
> BTW, fimaly I figured out about Centering Spring. It should be at
>the same value as Overall. I didn't find it before because they both have to
>be at the precise value, otherwise there is no benefit of them being the
>same. Thankfully, my last Overall was at close value, so I tested around it.
>My last Overall was 109% (the settings were 109/100/100/100), and the value
>where they both have to be is 108% (so, "the right" settings are
>108/100/100/108). With these new settings I was the first in fixed setup
>sessions that I drove today, and even did my personal best without much
>trouble. I aldo tried some non-default (non-100%) Spring and Damper
>settings, but these were not good. I tried to lower in-game (by the same
>percentage moving both, force and damper), and this is good only if you
>lower (from maximum) it by little.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ok, this was wrong. It looks like the old formula is still working.
>The formula is:
>Overall x Spring/Damper = Centering Spring.
> This means that with 108/100/100/108 I couldn't lower Spring/Damper
>because 1.08 (CS) / 1.08 (O) = 1.00 (S/D).
> But, I found out that 108/100/100/108 works well because Overall
>should be 108 on my system, but Centering Spring is best to be kept at 100.
>So, now I am using 108/93/93/100, because 1.00 (CS) / 1.08 (O) = 0.93 (S/D).
> Also, FOV was wrong (again, so easy to measure it, yet it is always
>wrong, lol), and now I say that the distance from eyes to the edge of table
>is 35 cm.


Tony R May 12th 12 10:26 AM
New PC's FFB
 
On 10/05/2012 18:11, FolkGT wrote:
> Speaking of pCARS, have you considered giving it a try?

Cruel. When Mario opens up the console and can see all the FFB
parameters he can adjust, his head will literally explode!

FolkGT May 12th 12 03:20 PM
New PC's FFB
 
On Fri, 11 May 2012 23:28:11 -0400, GaryR > wrote:

>You two and this FF discussion are the death knell of this (should
>have been put to slep years ago) group.

Then why don't you do something to contribute, rather than lashing out? Or
is being an asshole just easier for you?

jwilson54[_2_] May 12th 12 06:21 PM
New PC's FFB
 
On 5/12/2012 10:20 AM, FolkGT wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2012 23:28:11 -0400, > wrote:
>
>> You two and this FF discussion are the death knell of this (should
>> have been put to slep years ago) group.
>
> Then why don't you do something to contribute, rather than lashing out? Or
> is being an asshole just easier for you?
The only good I got out of this FFB discussion is that it kept the news
group alive.I would guess that the majority of simmers really don't care
about all Mario's research,they will just use settings that feel right
to them.At least when I ran FFB thats what I did.

Mario Petrinovic May 12th 12 08:49 PM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario Petrinovic:
Mario Petrinovic:
BTW, fimaly I figured out about Centering Spring. It should be at
the same value as Overall. I didn't find it before because they both have to
be at the precise value, otherwise there is no benefit of them being the
same. Thankfully, my last Overall was at close value, so I tested around it.
My last Overall was 109% (the settings were 109/100/100/100), and the value
where they both have to be is 108% (so, "the right" settings are
108/100/100/108). With these new settings I was the first in fixed setup
sessions that I drove today, and even did my personal best without much
trouble. I aldo tried some non-default (non-100%) Spring and Damper
settings, but these were not good. I tried to lower in-game (by the same
percentage moving both, force and damper), and this is good only if you
lower (from maximum) it by little.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, this was wrong. It looks like the old formula is still working.
The formula is:
Overall x Spring/Damper = Centering Spring.
This means that with 108/100/100/108 I couldn't lower Spring/Damper
because 1.08 (CS) / 1.08 (O) = 1.00 (S/D).
But, I found out that 108/100/100/108 works well because Overall
should be 108 on my system, but Centering Spring is best to be kept at 100.
So, now I am using 108/93/93/100, because 1.00 (CS) / 1.08 (O) = 0.93 (S/D).
Also, FOV was wrong (again, so easy to measure it, yet it is always
wrong, lol), and now I say that the distance from eyes to the edge of table
is 35 cm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, this was also wrong.
It looks like FFB now on my system works like it should.
First of all, you balance FFB by the way of Centering Spring.
Then, you adjust Damper/Spring and Overall to your liking, and then
you rebalance FFB with Centering Spring. Easy, and it works like it should.
Future days I will see if Damper and Spring have to be at the same
value. Also, I'll see if you can balance wrong FOV with Centering Spring.
BTW, it is advisable to first put Damper/Spring somewhere where you
like, because it is hard to set Centering Spring if Damper/Spring are too
high (100% is too high on my system, 97% works alright).


Mario Petrinovic May 12th 12 09:13 PM
New PC's FFB
 
Tony R:
FolkGT:
> Speaking of pCARS, have you considered giving it a try?

Cruel. When Mario opens up the console and can see all the FFB
parameters he can adjust, his head will literally explode!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not quite.
If you notice, I am not adjusting in-game settings at all. I am not
interested in that too much. I am trying to balance forces, FFB forces in
iRacing were unbalanced. Deliberately. iRacing deliberately unbalanced FFB
forces. For me, this is a sign of insanity. Secondly. you simply don't do
such foolishness if you plan to do a serious business. If you plan a to sell
a voodoo, yes, but not if you plan a serious business.
Firstly, iRacing locked damper to 75%. You simply don't do that. Why
would you do such a foolish thing in the first place. To mess things up? And
then you are expecting from people to do delicate adjustements on their
cars? Jesus Christ.
iRacing corrected this, but then they've put cockpitLookDeadZone
value off balance. Well, if you did this, at least you should leave some
info. For every inbalance you should leave an info, if you are a serious
player. If you are playing a child games, then you must allow children below
13 to play your game, otherwise you will have no target audience.
I am not interested in "rumble strips" FFB fireworks. I don't care
about this, this kind of FFB isn't important for racing, but every child
would be amazed with it. I am interested in representing cornering forces,
weight-shift forces, forces that are important for racing. And you don't
have this without Spring and Damper, simple as that.
Another thing, nobody solved even the basic things about FFB. How
you calibrate, for example. You have to work every axle BEFORE you are
calibrating it. Then, you have to put center of wheel at 8191, and the right
has to 900 (if you have set it to 900 in the Logitech driver). Nothing of
this is presented even as a hint. I am not sure if iRacing is even aware of
those problems. I've read in iRacing's documentation something like "you
have to calibrate SLOWLY". Lol, they have obviously encauntered that
problem, but didn't solwed it properly. No, you have work axes before
calibration, slowly calibrating will not help you. And what about 900 deg
right? Well, since their simulation is off balance anyway, they probably
didn't even notice that.
And on, and on. Which all tells you that they are starting from
completly wrong assumptions, completlz wrong basics. Which ends up in always
the same people using their software, and nobody else, because everybody
else didn't spend 5000 hours driving GPL around Monza, and onlz those who
did can use their software which is based on those wrong assumptions.


FolkGT May 14th 12 06:02 PM
New PC's FFB
 
On Sat, 12 May 2012 13:21:29 -0400, jwilson54 >
wrote:

>On 5/12/2012 10:20 AM, FolkGT wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 May 2012 23:28:11 -0400, > wrote:
>>
>>> You two and this FF discussion are the death knell of this (should
>>> have been put to slep years ago) group.
>>
>> Then why don't you do something to contribute, rather than lashing out? Or
>> is being an asshole just easier for you?
>The only good I got out of this FFB discussion is that it kept the news
>group alive.I would guess that the majority of simmers really don't care
>about all Mario's research,they will just use settings that feel right
>to them.At least when I ran FFB thats what I did.

One would think that with all the activity going on in the sim world...
Assetto Corsa, rFactor 2, pCARS, Test Drive Ferrari, there would be more
activity in here. I guess Usenet just isn't the forum it used to be. :(

Mario Petrinovic May 14th 12 06:12 PM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario Petrinovic:
Mario Petrinovic:
Mario Petrinovic:
BTW, fimaly I figured out about Centering Spring. It should be at
the same value as Overall. I didn't find it before because they both have to
be at the precise value, otherwise there is no benefit of them being the
same. Thankfully, my last Overall was at close value, so I tested around it.
My last Overall was 109% (the settings were 109/100/100/100), and the value
where they both have to be is 108% (so, "the right" settings are
108/100/100/108). With these new settings I was the first in fixed setup
sessions that I drove today, and even did my personal best without much
trouble. I aldo tried some non-default (non-100%) Spring and Damper
settings, but these were not good. I tried to lower in-game (by the same
percentage moving both, force and damper), and this is good only if you
lower (from maximum) it by little.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, this was wrong. It looks like the old formula is still working.
The formula is:
Overall x Spring/Damper = Centering Spring.
This means that with 108/100/100/108 I couldn't lower Spring/Damper
because 1.08 (CS) / 1.08 (O) = 1.00 (S/D).
But, I found out that 108/100/100/108 works well because Overall
should be 108 on my system, but Centering Spring is best to be kept at 100.
So, now I am using 108/93/93/100, because 1.00 (CS) / 1.08 (O) = 0.93 (S/D).
Also, FOV was wrong (again, so easy to measure it, yet it is always
wrong, lol), and now I say that the distance from eyes to the edge of table
is 35 cm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, this was also wrong.
It looks like FFB now on my system works like it should.
First of all, you balance FFB by the way of Centering Spring.
Then, you adjust Damper/Spring and Overall to your liking, and then
you rebalance FFB with Centering Spring. Easy, and it works like it should.
Future days I will see if Damper and Spring have to be at the same
value. Also, I'll see if you can balance wrong FOV with Centering Spring.
BTW, it is advisable to first put Damper/Spring somewhere where you
like, because it is hard to set Centering Spring if Damper/Spring are too
high (100% is too high on my system, 97% works alright).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, forget Centering Spring, this should be at 100%. I am still
testing Damper/Spring position. 100% is too high, 93% is too low, so its
somewhere in-between, : ). 94% looks good, but I still didn't test 95-99%.


Mario Petrinovic May 15th 12 10:50 AM
New PC's FFB
 
Mario Petrinovic:
Mario Petrinovic:
Mario Petrinovic:
Mario Petrinovic:
BTW, fimaly I figured out about Centering Spring. It should be at
the same value as Overall. I didn't find it before because they both have to
be at the precise value, otherwise there is no benefit of them being the
same. Thankfully, my last Overall was at close value, so I tested around it.
My last Overall was 109% (the settings were 109/100/100/100), and the value
where they both have to be is 108% (so, "the right" settings are
108/100/100/108). With these new settings I was the first in fixed setup
sessions that I drove today, and even did my personal best without much
trouble. I aldo tried some non-default (non-100%) Spring and Damper
settings, but these were not good. I tried to lower in-game (by the same
percentage moving both, force and damper), and this is good only if you
lower (from maximum) it by little.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, this was wrong. It looks like the old formula is still working.
The formula is:
Overall x Spring/Damper = Centering Spring.
This means that with 108/100/100/108 I couldn't lower Spring/Damper
because 1.08 (CS) / 1.08 (O) = 1.00 (S/D).
But, I found out that 108/100/100/108 works well because Overall
should be 108 on my system, but Centering Spring is best to be kept at 100.
So, now I am using 108/93/93/100, because 1.00 (CS) / 1.08 (O) = 0.93 (S/D).
Also, FOV was wrong (again, so easy to measure it, yet it is always
wrong, lol), and now I say that the distance from eyes to the edge of table
is 35 cm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, this was also wrong.
It looks like FFB now on my system works like it should.
First of all, you balance FFB by the way of Centering Spring.
Then, you adjust Damper/Spring and Overall to your liking, and then
you rebalance FFB with Centering Spring. Easy, and it works like it should.
Future days I will see if Damper and Spring have to be at the same
value. Also, I'll see if you can balance wrong FOV with Centering Spring.
BTW, it is advisable to first put Damper/Spring somewhere where you
like, because it is hard to set Centering Spring if Damper/Spring are too
high (100% is too high on my system, 97% works alright).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, forget Centering Spring, this should be at 100%. I am still
testing Damper/Spring position. 100% is too high, 93% is too low, so its
somewhere in-between, : ). 94% looks good, but I still didn't test 95-99%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, it is the other way around, forget Damper/Springs (they should
be at 100%), and get rid of slack by the way of Centering Spring. At 139% of
Centering Spring I got rid of slack.
Interestingly, the 139 number I liked in the past, on my old
computer, and at that time I probably didn't have natural FOV. So, it looks
like it isn't system specific, but rather wheel (I still use that old
wheel), or possibly human specific.
So, today I am using 118/100/100/139.


GaryR May 16th 12 01:24 AM
New PC's FFB
 
Contribute to what??? This incessant circle jerk babble about nothing
anyone gives a **** about? As far as being an asshole, it does come
easy sometimes but in this case i'm simply voiceing my opinion on a
thread/post/newsgroup that is long dead and buried.

And go **** yourself, welcome to uselessnet.. wish you were here 25
years ago... then I would have had 25 years to tell you to **** off on
a weekly basis.

Have a wonderful day, and be sure to reset your FF 600,000 different
ways cause that is the same as driving a real race car!


>On Sat, 12 May 2012 10:20:06 -0400, FolkGT > wrote:
>On Fri, 11 May 2012 23:28:11 -0400, GaryR > wrote:
>
>>You two and this FF discussion are the death knell of this (should
>>have been put to slep years ago) group.
>
>Then why don't you do something to contribute, rather than lashing out? Or
>is being an asshole just easier for you?

FolkGT May 18th 12 03:17 AM
New PC's FFB
 
On Tue, 15 May 2012 20:24:45 -0400, GaryR > wrote:

>Contribute to what??? This incessant circle jerk babble about nothing
>anyone gives a **** about? As far as being an asshole, it does come
>easy sometimes but in this case i'm simply voiceing my opinion on a
>thread/post/newsgroup that is long dead and buried.
>
>And go **** yourself, welcome to uselessnet.. wish you were here 25
>years ago... then I would have had 25 years to tell you to **** off on
>a weekly basis.
>
>Have a wonderful day, and be sure to reset your FF 600,000 different
>ways cause that is the same as driving a real race car!

I'm not the FFB guy, dip****. That's Mario. I'm the guy who's calling
you an asshole. And a retarded asshole at that. Keep the **** up.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:38 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AutoBanter.com