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

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

Mario