Jump to content

ffb fixed, some comms from devs

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, afahoy said:

All the sliders are just set to 100 by default.

Not good defaults imo, and it was the same situation in DR1.

Hold on Codies spoke about how they couldnt just fix the ffb as many wheels out there and they have to program for them all. Are you telling me after all the hardwork they put into the ffb (no coughing at the back) they put out 100 default settings for all wheels across the board? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, nasoduko said:

noob question isnt sat the value of the feedback for the game ?

SAT = self-aligning torque – that is the force that makes the angle of your front wheels return to zero (straight ahead direction) if you let go of the wheel after a curve.

(EDIT: As @afahoy rightly pointed out, SAT forces the wheels in the direction the car is moving, which is not necessarily straight ahead, especially when rallying.) 😉 

Edited by Laserjones
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like the spring in the profile of the thrustmaster i guess ,anyway ,can someone explain to me what is everything there on the ffb means cause i douldnt find a manual 

or somebody has good settings for tspc ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, nasoduko said:

like the spring in the profile of the thrustmaster i guess ,anyway ,can someone explain to me what is everything there on the ffb means cause i douldnt find a manual 

or somebody has good settings for tspc ?

More accurately, it’s the force that makes the wheels want to point in the direction the car is moving. If the car is sliding to the left, the wheels will want to point to the left, so the SAT force will try to turn your wheel to the left. This happens because the front suspension is set at a slight angle (the caster angle) a bit like shopping trolley wheels.

For settings, try this:

Self Aligning Torque: 45

Wheel Friction: 0

Tyre Friction: 50

Suspension: 65

Collision: 10

Try it like that for a few days before you adjust anything, as it takes a while to get used to.

Edited by afahoy
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given CMs apparently rebuilt the entire input system, it would be useful if they actually included tool tips for the settings, or made some formal comment on how the sliders work and interact. 

Instead they leave us to fumble around in the dark. 

I’m going to throw my T300 back in the rig this weekend and see if there is any tangible difference between that at the Fanatec CSL Elite. 

Might borrow a PS4 copy too and also see if there is any difference between PC and PS4. 

I’ve seen a few PS4 T300 players claiming they find the forces ok, so perhaps there are specific hardware combinations that work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, afahoy said:

More accurately, it’s the force that makes the wheels want to point in the direction the car is moving. If the car is sliding to the left, the wheels will want to point to the left, so the SAT force will try to turn your wheel to the left. This happens because the front suspension is set at a slight angle (the caster angle) a bit like shopping trolley wheels.

For settings, try this:

Self Aligning Torque: 45

Wheel Friction: 0

Tyre Friction: 50

Suspension: 65

Collision: 10

Try it like that for a few days before you adjust anything, as it takes a while to get used to.

thanks mate i will,but i find the suspension and friction a little low as values,as for profiles what are your settings,,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Laserjones said:

Of course, the force felt when landing would be a linear (vertical) force on a real car, not a twisting force (torque). But a little "fake jolt" via the wheel torque would still be better than nothing here, as the difference in the direction of the force would hardly be noticeable. There's nothing wrong with using the torque motor for non-torque effects as long as the difference is hardly noticeable. In fact, all the physics-based suspension effects (which @CalvinCar loves so much, unlike canned vibrations) are linear, non-torque forces. Still, Calvin seems to find it okay that they are "faked" via the torque motor. 😉 It would result in a really strange, incomplete FFB if it was limited to actual torque forces only. Then parameters like Suspension and Collision would not even exist.

Also, this is a point where gravel texture vibration would really become useful beyond its immersion factor. You jump – texture vibration stops. You land – texture vibration starts again. A very simple, but clear signal. Also, texture vibration should change in its intensity depending on how many wheels are currently touching the ground (and, of course, depending on the type of road surface). This would provide another source of information to the driver. It's definitely more than a fancy "nice-to-have" effect.

I think you've misunderstood me. To be clear I have no issues with non linear torque forces being communicated (not faked) via the torque motor as long as those forces come from the physics simulation in the game and as long as they are useful, balanced and relatively non intrusive. 

What I do object to is fake, canned effects that are not derived from the physics simulation. So things like the gravel texture effect, fake jolts and any other arcade immersion adding device is out for me. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, virgism said:

T300RS, PC -  there a lot of feedback from wheel (don't know how to show you that i don't have any problems with FFB). As you can see, i feel even small rocks through FFB, FFB in Australia is brutal.  (SAT only 35, Suspension 100, tyre/wheel friction 150. Thrustmaster - Overall - 80, Constant - 100, Periodic - 80, spring and damper - 0)

 

Those are exactly my experiences. My t300 has been randomly inverting my pedals for some reason so I hooked up my old g29 and the result is the same: bumps, stones cambers are clearly perceptible without being overpowering, the feel for grip and tyres digging in is excellent. Tyre slip is communicated nicely by a decrease in torque in proportion to the severity of the slide and it just feels as though I'm really driving over soft, deformable sandy and claylike surfaces, instead of over concrete. 

I really don't know if this is the pinnacle of rallying ffb (I'm sure small improvement could be made) but as far as a pure physics simulation based ffb it's never really going to feel radically different. Certainly adding a bunch of fake effects into the signal just to make it really busy and make it seem "complete" is not the way to improve it. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CalvinCar said:

To be clear I have no issues with non linear torque forces being communicated (not faked) via the torque motor as long as those forces come from the physics simulation

But Suspension forces (except canned micro-vibration) are based on the physics simulation! But they are not torque forces, but linear forces (mostly up/down). So when you say that physics-based Suspension forces are fine with you, you accept that these forces are "faked" via torque, because torque is the only force most wheels can generate.

7 minutes ago, CalvinCar said:

What I do object to is fake, canned effects that are not derived from the physics simulation.

I still don't understand why you make this differentiation. Aren't the usefulness and the perceived realism of a signal much more important than how it is technically generated? As an example: Many games (including DR2) use pre-calculated "fake" shadows in their lighting engines, because most graphics cards are unable to calculate precise "real" shadows for the entire scene in real time. Have you noticed that the leaves on the tree shadows in DR2 don't move, unlike the leaves on the trees? It's because the shadows aren't generated in real time. But still the scene looks better and more realistic with the "fake" shadows than without any shadows, right? But based on your standards, these "fake" shadows would have to be banned from the game, because they are not derived from the "real" 3D lighting simulation. 😉 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Laserjones said:

But Suspension forces (except canned micro-vibration) are based on the physics simulation! But they are not torque forces, but linear forces (mostly up/down). So when you say that physics-based Suspension forces are fine with you, you accept that these forces are "faked" via torque, because torque is the only force most wheels can generate.

I still don't understand why you make this differentiation. Aren't the usefulness and the perceived realism of a signal much more important than how it is technically generated? As an example: Many games (including DR2) use pre-calculated "fake" shadows in their lighting engines, because most graphics cards are unable to calculate precise "real" shadows for the entire scene in real time. Have you noticed that the leaves on the tree shadows in DR2 don't move, unlike the leaves on the trees? It's because the shadows aren't generated in real time. But still the scene looks better and more realistic with the "fake" shadows than without any shadows, right? But based on your standards, these "fake" shadows would have to be banned from the game, because they are not derived from the "real" 3D lighting simulation. 😉 

Looks as though you're playing a semantics game. Bottom line is this: if the force is generated by the physics simulation and if (I stress "IF") the devs choose to convey it via the torque because it's useful and if it's done in a balanced, non intrusive way, I can deal with it, and in many cases I even welcome in.

what I don't want are fake effects created ex nihilo and which are canned rather than being a direct translation of what the physics simulation is doing. 

With regard to usefulness. Take the canned gravel texture effect in DR1. Some people think it adds immersion. Fair enough. But at the same time it also creates the perception that you're driving over hard non deformable stages paved with concrete. 

In DR2 in contrast, partly because that effect is not there, it really feels as though you're driving over soft deformable surfaces made of sand, clay etc. This adds a different kind of immersion as it aligns what you can see with your eyes with what you can feel. 

Also be aware that different brains perceive things differently, and there is the issue of brains being conditioned by other sims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Laserjones said:

But Suspension forces (except canned micro-vibration) are based on the physics simulation! But they are not torque forces, but linear forces (mostly up/down). So when you say that physics-based Suspension forces are fine with you, you accept that these forces are "faked" via torque, because torque is the only force most wheels can generate.

 

But... suspension work may result in geometry variations that causes torque forces (f.e. due to the movement of the steering arms) and these and the "front wheels speed gap (and lsd work) when loosing traction" forces are the ones that  DR2.0's ffb lacks the most. Rally cars have stiffer suspension and steering joints and bushes than street cars and rally tyres are stiffer (not only grippier) than road legal ones, as result you can feel some torque forces at the steering wheel that are "filtered" on daily cars. Try a Rfactor2 or a Raceroom (tune down the canned effects in raceroom) Front Wheel Drive car, you can feel that kind of forces in a closer to reality way than other simulator can give. 

And... don't forget that an impact on a tyre not only compress the suspension, lateral impacts and/or impacts under heavy steer situations causes steer forces over the steering rack.

IMHO Dirt Rally 2.0 FFB give a good SAT in order to feel the "dinamics" of the car (understeer, oversteer, weight transfers) but fails to give propper information from what is happening to front wheels.

Edited by grancab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CalvinCar said:

Looks as though you're playing a semantics game.

I don't feel like I started the game. 😉 I just tried to point out contradictions in what you said.

23 minutes ago, CalvinCar said:

what I don't want are fake effects created ex nihilo 

The effects so many people are missing aren't created ex nihilo, but ex realitate. They (should) attempt to recreate something that can be felt in a real car, but which the physics engine cannot deliver due to technical limitations (try to add millions of 3D pebbles to the road and see your graphics card go up in smoke – or your frame rate drop to 5 fps). Of course, they should be subtle enough not to cover up other important forces. And there should be a way to turn them off for those who find FFB clarity more important than FFB realism/immersion. But they should be there.

30 minutes ago, CalvinCar said:

In DR2 in contrast, partly because that effect is not there, it really feels as though you're driving over soft deformable surfaces made of sand, clay etc.

Well, it doesn't feel like that at all for me. For me it feels like not driving on a real surface at all. And it would not be a problem to add enough random variation to a canned texture effect to avoid that "concrete" feeling you mentioned (but I never perceived it that way in DR1).

Anyway, I'll rest my case now. I'll never convince you, and I'll never be convinced by you. Have a great time! 🙂 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Laserjones said:

I don't feel like I started the game. 😉 I just tried to point out contradictions in what you said.

The effects so many people are missing aren't created ex nihilo, but ex realitate. They (should) attempt to recreate something that can be felt in a real car, but which the physics engine cannot deliver due to technical limitations (try to add millions of 3D pebbles to the road and see your graphics card go up in smoke – or your frame rate drop to 5 fps). Of course, they should be subtle enough not to cover up other important forces. And there should be a way to turn them off for those who find FFB clarity more important than FFB realism/immersion. But they should be there.

Well, it doesn't feel like that at all for me. For me it feels like not driving on a real surface at all. And it would not be a problem to add enough random variation to a canned texture effect to avoid that "concrete" feeling you mentioned (but I never perceived it that way in DR1).

Anyway, I'll rest my case now. I'll never convince you, and I'll never be convinced by you. Have a great time! 🙂 

It seems to me that you've convinced yourself that you must have fake effects, especially the gravel texture effect, at all costs, and that the ffb is somehow "incomplete" without it. 

At the end of the day developers of sim racing games have been steadily moving away from such canned, arcade immersion adding devices for years now in favour of a more pure physics simulation ffb systems, and there is every indication that this trend will continue. 

My advice to you would be to stop exaggerating and telling yourself how the ffb in DR2 is "incomplete" and just enjoy it for what it is. If you find that you can't do that, set it aside and play something else. There are many titles that I haven't touched in years because I don't enjoy them, and that's perfectly fine. 

Edited by CalvinCar
  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Laserjones said:

I don't feel like I started the game. 😉 I just tried to point out contradictions in what you said.

It may be frustrating for you, but I think it is better to try playing for more than 10 hours with DR2 first than discussing here.  Then you may possibly change your mind a little.  In my case at first I felt there was something wrong , but my mind changed after playing.

Edited by ChappieDog771
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nasoduko said:

noob question isnt sat the value of the feedback for the game ?

S (self) A (aligning) T (torque)

This is the primary setting, that adjusts the wheels inclination to self right itself in the face of forward momentum or inertia. If you turn your wheel slightly while driving a real car, and then let go of the wheel - it straightens. That is self aligning torque. This is arguably the most important aspect of FFB, but only effective insofar as what it sets out to achieve. Other forces, like suspension, Tyre friction, and Tyre slip, all play (are supposed to play) an important role in completing the FFB picture. These elements, are largely absent in DR2 for most wheels despite their presence in the menu’s. In my case for example (using a Thrustmaster TX), the option to adjust wheel friction and tyre slip (absent completely) and tyre friction (greyed out) are non adjustable. Wheel friction is a damper that adds weight to the wheel rotation. It should always be set to zero. Damping is best done on the hardware itself. Tyre friction and suspension are the key elements to round out the picture. Both of these are improperly implemented in this game in its current state, especially for users like me with a TX where the tyre friction option can’t be adjusted.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, CalvinCar said:

It seems to me that you've convinced yourself that you must have fake effects, especially the gravel texture effect, at all costs, and that the ffb is somehow "incomplete" without it. 

At the end of the day developers of sim racing games have been steadily moving away from such canned, arcade immersion adding devices for years now in favour of a more pure physics simulation ffb systems, and there is every indication that this trend will continue. 

My advice to you would be to stop exaggerating and telling yourself how the ffb in DR2 is "incomplete" and just enjoy it for what it is. If you find that you can't do that, set it aside and play something else. There are many titles that I haven't touched in years because I don't enjoy them, and that's perfectly fine. 

Sounds to me like you've convinced yourself your opinion is objectively correct and anyone else who differs from that is wrong. Please get off your high horse, thanks.

Edited by ShodanCat
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

IRL you can drive car with one hand over jump. Now try to do this in DR1 :)

 

BTW, two weeks ago, I invited 2 my friends to play some sim games - DR1, DR2, Asseto Corsa and RBR.  They liked all games, except DR1 - theu don't understood behavior of a car (and both have more than 30 years of driving experience). DR1 is fun to drive, but it's not a sim - cars have no weight, FFB is randomly created. Sadly, a lot of people are thinking, that DR1 has good FFB.

Community asked for realism, CM shipped (they invited two good rally drivers and Jon Armstrong  did an excellent job) - but seems community doesn't like realism at all, they want just strong, fake FFB.

After almost 15 we have real competitor to RBR, but nobody wants it. Sad.

 

Maybe CM need to create Dirt Rally Moon Edition, with moon physics and fake FFB - to please DR1 fans.

Edited by virgism
  • Thanks 2
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, virgism said:

IRL you can drive car with one hand over jump. Now try to do this in DR1 🙂

 

BTW, two weeks ago, I invited 2 my friends to play some sim games - DR1, DR2, Asseto Corsa and RBR.  They liked all games, except DR1 - theu don't understood behavior of a car (and both have more than 30 years of driving experience). DR1 is fun to drive, but it's not a sim - cars have no weight, FFB is randomly created. Sadly, a lot of people are thinking, that DR1 has good FFB.

Community asked for realism, CM shipped (they invited two good rally drivers and Jon Armstrong  did an excellent job) - but seems community doesn't like realism at all, they want just strong, fake FFB.

After almost 15 we have real competitor to RBR, but nobody wants it. Sad.

Now slow it down to 0.25 and watch the wheel jerk subtly right then left on landing (because IRL nobody can jump perfectly straight, or land with their wheels in the perfect orientation for smooth forward rotation). Something that doesn't happen in DR 2.0.

Well done, you've proven the point perfectly.

Edited by JesseDeya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JesseDeya said:

Now slow it down to 0.25 and watch the wheel jerk subtly right then left on landing (because IRL nobody can jump perfectly straight, or land with their wheels in the perfect orientation for smooth forward rotation). Something that doesn't happen in DR 2.0.

Well done, you've proven the point perfectly.

Really ? And now watch my Australia video. Or another:

 

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, virgism said:

Really ? And now watch my Australia video. Or another:

 

I did. You're driving with fingertips!!!! That is not realistic in the slightest!

Am I taking crazy pills?

The Fiat driver had a full one hand death grip on the wheel, he is not driving it delicately pinched between two fingers as you are doing, nor would he be able to. You are literally and quite convincingly proving the point about how half-baked the FFB in DR 2.0 is.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You don't need a death grip on wheel IRL. It's called "power steering" btw :)

Anyway , to make this video i decreased SAT to 35 and needed 5 tries, before I reached jump without crashes. In Argentina video you can see, that even if i drive 10 km/h, there is a feedback from wheel.

Edited by virgism
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ShodanCat said:

Sounds to me like you've convinced yourself your opinion is objectively correct and anyone else who differs from that is wrong. Please get off your high horse, thanks.

I don't think so. He just recommend to have an open mind, not to have prejudicing.

In my eyes, those who are complaining about DR2's FFB doesn’t seem to be trying to understand DR2’s FFB with little effort.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Another video - gravel (same as in Poland) - as you see, you don't need a lot of force, to hold wheel. At 3:30 he evens says "Hi" to friends -spectators, when turning wheel with one hand.

 

Edited by virgism
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

BMW on very bad road - as you see, you don;t need a lot of force, just fast corrections:

 

For me, physics and FFB : RBR = DR2 > DR1 > WRC 7 > Dirt 4

Edited by virgism
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShodanCat said:

Sounds to me like you've convinced yourself your opinion is objectively correct and anyone else who differs from that is wrong. Please get off your high horse, thanks.

it seems that the devs at codemasters agree with me, and they disagree with you, which has nothing to do with horses, high or low or whatever. 

  • Confused 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×