Automobilista 2 Force Feedback - Overview & Recommendations

I agree, for now, if I'm not mistaken, the Default and/or Custom profile is loaded at the start of the game ... it would be enough that the same was not loaded at startup, but after choosing the track and car, in this way you could perform the replacement on the fly during a game session without restarting it ... so currently if you need to change the file you have to do it by closing the game, replacing the file and restarting the game itself.

 

Being that in the madness engine in pc2 , they had 3-4 different presets you could flick between, it may very well be possible to have custom 1,2,3.
Though I think default is getting better slowly and the difference between the well tuned silver raw customs and default is a lot closer now .
If default had some more sliders for choosing strength of road bumps and kerbs separately, and maybe some others like brake feel and lateral grip etc, I think it would be a whole lot more user friendly.

 

Yes it's true ... it would be much simpler ...

 

PC2 had a bunch of sliders called Tone, Volume etc. that sounded like you were working an 80's stereo system and didn't make any sense in the context of FFB.

Ideally, I would like to see sliders for controlling the relative strengths of:

1. brake locking effects
2. wheel slip effects
3. longitudinal force scaling
4. lateral force scaling
5. vertical force scaling
   
6. kerb effects
7. understeer effects
8. road surface effects
9. engine rumble effects,

in order of importance.

R3E has something similar plus a bunch of others that even the devs don't seem to know what they do, and it works well although it takes a while to get tuned. Then there is the need for all of these signals to actually be present in the FFB, which I am not sure about in AMS2.

 

In recent years, many players have become completely disgusted with having overly complex and confusing FFB settings. It's pretty easy to understand the reasons why (each title having it's own effect terminology) but, I agree that having access to more specific effect settings would be good for advanced users. If implemented in the UI, such settings need to be kept in an advanced section of the tuning menu (WARNING! Extreme player confusion and/or frustration may occur! If you can't handle the heat, please stay out of the kitchen!).

The trend away from complex FFB-tuning schemes has led to some developers simplifying the FFB settings to the level where we have almost no customization options at all (ACC, Dirt Rally 2, for example).

At least in the case of AMS2, we have the option to use custom FFB effects (Custom Profiles) and tune to personal preference manually.

My suggestion would be to allow users to setup a few custom profiles, named by user choice, accessible from the game FFB settings menu. That serves as a form of ffb-effect access for the advanced users without encouraging the popular rebellion against having "too many FFB-effects".

 

I agree AMS2 already has confusing menus, so adding more sliders should be taken with care. My favourite example is the Manual Pitstops -option (which should be called Manual Pitlane Control) that is hidden behind a broken scroll bar so that many players won't ever find it.

I believe part of the confusion arises when devs use confusing marketing terms to describe things instead of precise terms (ooh scary physics). If the user doesn't know what "lateral weight transfer" means, they probably should just stick to default profiles. For the more expert users, a tool tip should be provided in any case.

Ideally, tuned profiles for different wheelbases (let the community do this work if necessary) should be provided. There's just no way the same profile works for a G29 and a DD1.

 

Madness Tool - Custom FFB and Profile Manager

 

This "madness" is exactly what Reiza is working to avoid with a Default FFB profile that works for all cars. Which it does, quite nicely now. Alternately, some of the well-known custom files also work universally. No need to use more than one in my experience in AMS 2, but certainly a requirement to use many in PC 2.

 

Different experience here with PC2

jack spade custom FFB or SMS defaut immersive with some minor adjustments are working fine for all the cars I have driven in the game over last 4yrs

this forum Karsten custom FFB for PC2 seems giving good results overall as well

and there is a guy on PCARS forum named Popsracer who also developed a good variant from what I hear


My 2p

 

I have no problems keeping myself out of a spin and pushing limits quickly with the current FFB feel. I get a lot of detail. I quite like the direction Reiza is going with FFB. Keep refining guys!

For PC2, I have moved to Silver FFB. I like the feel. I used to use Christiaan's which was pretty great but Silver is just on another level. He's unlocked feel that just was not there before. I never had too much of an issue with keeping control on the cars on default, though. The FFB just lacked a lot of detail.

As for a lot of simplifying of FFB in sims over time... well, I can understand. Many want it to feel great to start with. I think great default settings based on the wheel currently connected are very important BUT allow some good customization in-game for those who want to fine tune.

A lot of people don't bother but I personally like to turn off settings and start working on them one at a time until it all feels good to me. The main issue with that is consistency of FFB feel throughout the car range. If they all feel good, you can feel confident in your settings.

 

If the overall gain is 100% and you increase a per-car gain by 10%, then yes (110% total).

I'm not sure how the per-car increase is calculated when the overall gain is lower though. Percentage of overall gain or linear increase / decrease. It seems to be the latter.
If my overall ffb-gain is 35% and I increase the per-car gain by 5%, the total is 40% for that car.

 

No ... the per-car gain is a % of your overall ffb-gain ... then if your overall is 100% and your per car is 110% then your final gain is 110 (100 x 110 / 100) ... if your overall is 35% and your per car is 120% then your final gain is 42,00% (35 x 120 / 100) ... in your example if your overall is 35% and per car is 105% then your final gain is 36,75% (35 x 105 / 100) NOT 40%

If your overall is 35% and your per car is 5% (not 105%) then your final gain is 1,75% (35 x 5 / 100)
If your overall is 35% and your per car is 105% then your final gain is 36,75% (35 x 105 / 100)

if your overall is 50% and you want go up to 100% you must set per car to 200% for obtain a final ffb of 100 (50 x 200 / 100)
if your overall is 50% and you want go down to 25% you must set per car to 50% for obtain a final ffb of 25 (50 x 50 / 100)

 

Okay, then my theory of operation is flawed. In the end, the final percentage doesn't really matter to me, the resulting (per-car) force level at the wheel does.

 

Back after a break.
T300 working good.
100 in CP.
in game 65/50/50/5.
I still struggle with snappiness of the rear and feeling the grip limit.
This game also punishes rough braking, where the weight shifts too quickly to the rear.
Again because of lack of feel from the rears it is super hard to catch this sometimes.

 

Hi I just wanted to say that the default is great. I was a little unsure to start with, what having gone through so many profiles lately, more than 15, but a lot of those were good. Only ever minor adjustments to my thing.

But the default is again, last time maybe was july, really good again. Which is not saying anything too bad actually because obviously it takes time with development. And I always appreciate a whole raft of changes at once.

My settings are 75 in CPanel (edit used to be 100) for a tx, 68-90 in-game, then 50, 50, 50.

While people may think this is somehow me not bothering to change things, I totally prefer it like that. All settings seem to combine just nicely at those values. For cars prior to this and on custom I was tuning things down even when the control panel was 75. Now I leave basically all of them at 100 iirc I have not changed a thing.

It is true that I used custom high end on 75 cp and it was good with 100 in game, but with everything added and a lot of helpful advice and preference actually, I have gone back to the 68 value I used to use.

And in many ways I think now its back to 68 things have come full circle and a lot must be in balance.

Anyway its great driving! cool and thanks for getting it back.

Almost the same

Not sure why people have been saying 100 to us which is not default - after trying it for a few days I think I can safely understand why TM put it at 75. I do not really see the difference for belts overly much. It could be I did not turn it down enough in game but either way I think there's less hassle with clipping and whatnot, signal... but also its a good feel at 75 and 100 did not add much to the experience tbh.

An example may be set it to 100cp then 50 in game, then lower dampening, perhaps. May try that for extra fine detail maybe. The reason is dampening for me is 50 is because it gives you the big signals without the little signals getting in the way- maybe that all changes when its lighter and more detailed.

Only one way to find out!! Going to go 50, then 43 for gain, lower the better as per instructions in various places. I would think they know more than me about it.

I switch between custom and default. often with some suspension changes cars behave a lot better depending on track. and diff etc. default is getting toward silver raw, both are good.

the gt3 porsche for instance drives better with the custom I have found, while other cars with default, both work for all but maybe one is better depending.

edit: nope, for me I have now gone back to original control panel tx at 75 gain. in game still at 68. I do not mind a compressed signal I bet there is no difference in real signal fidelity etc/outcome of feel.

even dampening at maybe 58 is a better deal for a tx/300 perhaps because the file itself might be trying to do too much, and a more direct ratio of usable signal may be less is more. This is on the g58 ginetta p1 car. Its been great for ffb unlike the porsche gt3 maybe, for a long time.

But I am going to attest that custom version 48 is one of the best ever. There's less of a rubber feel with this custom file, hence while default is what I usually use.

But I do not think it is that - I put gain back to 100 for the custom, and default suffers no such thing - and the rubber feel is back, but custom 51 has this added steering effect on bigger turns it seems and it clips my wheel. I think its unnecessary. Its non linear in terms of game-controller. Which for me at least is a problem (im an idiot). When it works it really works well, but on some turns to me its a detriment.

And its not fully dialed in it seems, thus I only use default now.

After much testing I have determined yes 100cp value is stronger but not necessarily better in terms of usable control and feel. The signal can not become a higher quality - it is what it is - amplifying something is not always the answer.

 

Can anyone explain exactly what LFB and FX does or doesn't do? I recently changed my FFB settings from:
FFB: 55
LFB: 30
FX: 15
Damp: 0

to:
FFB:65
LFB:0
FX:0
Damp: 0

and FFB feels much better. Am I missing any feedback with LFB and FX at 0? I tried playing with these settings and the only difference I feel is stronger / exaggerated FB on road bumps and curbs. If I leave these at 0 do I lose certain feel?
I have a CSL Elite 1.1 wheel base.

 

For T300 I can say with confidence for best performance (longevity idk) CP setting needs to be on 100.

 

Well I have mine at 50lfb , 50 fx , 50dampening,

CPanel is 75, and gain in game is now 75.

I can promise you, this is on default - its never been better acoss the board. I believe for the group C's and ginetta p1, for example, and probably group 1, the ffb is top shelf.

Its consistent at those settings and each one is a kind of high-water mark that blends in well. From center to turn its not out of place, and game and panel for me are at 75 as stated.

Once you dial in the porsche group c for Spa, preload up to 110 iirc, down one notch on front spring and swaybar one notch down, then rebound and slow bump down 1, to my driving maybe its not the fastest way round a track - its in a world of its own then.

I know I said elsewhere I like race room etc, you can have 2 top shelves the same height.

Message coming

I don't want to dash your confidence but its good to be skeptical sometimes. I wanted 100 to be better. And if you're not up for a read, then lets just say that 75 is the new '100' in basically every way except outright torque - which is a red herring anyway, as the wheel was not adversely impacted in performance going to 75, just recalibrated around it.

Edit: while I have heard that the 300 did not suffer as hard as the 500 with over heating, and it should be no bother - there is a reason (whether thats self belief) from thrustmaster why they leave it at 75 is my best guess. I have a tx and they are essentially providing the exact same output and characteristics and the driver they use is essentially the same. Functionally - there is no difference beyond parts and maintenance and probably the power supply.

I think they made 75 the new 100 as well. In a way, I think the driver and separately the firmware re-calibrated everything. You will get the extra strength but you will not get the extra finer detail - that or I am plain wrong, but my testing in the past few days could not convince me to move to 100.

Why but do they do that? Litigation probably. It just looks so much better being able to say "hey we make sure its down on 75 as a precaution" They won't like negligence and they did go to some effort anyway...... and you don't get access to the source code. So you won't chase them down.

I want to explain something I did earlier because I had it at 100 for 2 days, and it did nothing for me. I think its getting compressed anyway above 75.

I mean, YES I agree its absolutely better at 100 in the Cpanel in terms of strength at the wheel; the thing is, the detail is not any better. And maybe I am not used to it or some such but I just put it back to 75 and I can swear that its better overall in terms of balance and turning. I leave dampening on 50 anyway. The engine revs are up at 50 as well, and its wonderfully balanced as a profile. If you can possibly get used to 75 gain in game and in the CPanel for a tx/300/500 I suggest do it.

Like I said I think the finer detail, which lets face it a belt is going to have a hard(er) time with anyway, its all combined in the same mechanism/activating mechanism (a belts limitations, even a dual belt)... um... yes, it will render it in such a way that 75 is probably the limit.

For example I did not notice anything other than less force, and that extra force was not needed anyway to get the good inputs and the sensation of steering, etc.

And also I just want to state - try your other sims and you will see 75 on them is probably better too. For this belt at 100 I think its too out of strength-sync with the other components. Meaning I think 75 is the new 100. Due to not getting any extra fine detail and the extra strength being of detriment to smooth turning in general. The way a dual belt drive works at the edges of the turning range is not as good as direct drive and probably the better CSL's or that one thats better from Fanatec. So I think actually its a detriment, as stated, for all these reasons.

But if you are happy with it as is, and you don't want to do the science experiment thats ok. The non scientific literature will tell you it 'does not clip'. It does. And that the added strength is all there is to it - well it gets in the way as its out of sync with the other factors. I do not think the driver appreciates 100 anymore. And its not a matter of lowering it.

? Without harping on about it - another example. Center wheel strength and turn strength. Its far more in-line with one another when it comes to transitions.

Or succincly I think 100 is a red herring or placebo in certain regards, you do get extra strength but its not complimentary in any way to the driving experience because you simply can only extract so much out of the wheel, and I think 75 was recalibrated anyway to give the best of both worlds. At least you must take it with a grain of salt, if you believe the TX is the more advanced but same level tech, and that the 300 somehow benefits via the driver but the TX does not despite them being functionally the same.

Its hard to fathom I know - I am confusing. Or you can take it to mean there is literally no difference beyond a bit more torque which one can do without - the graphs read roughly the same, and the output of the wheel is basically the same, the signal is still roughly the same (the sine wave is no more thick or thin or detailed, its literally just the torque at the wheelbase thats stronger)...thus its more a waste than benefit in terms of driving experience.

To explain one final time. If you put gain - and its just gain, my man on a sine wave, up and make it stronger, its basically the same as 100 when you put it on lighter; like amplification the signal is the same, those vibrations do not get more detailed, they just get 'thicker'; so I would say the benefits are marginal as the signal is not helping you do much extra with the driving. There may be absolutely marginal betterment from no compression of signal, etc,if its even doing that in many of these titles but good luck finding it - as it can get more muddy or any number of things, you can run into clipping more easily - and besides that the default etc is made with 75 and other factors in mind.
? So how would that work - well if you have it on 100 and you need to turn it down any, then there is still no gain there, and its mainly torque strength. The unit is capable of outputting that, but thats just like saying you will run an engine hard all day.

But I will reiterate it again so you know I am not pulling your leg - if you like it like that, I won't stand in the way of it, but from my own testing from an objective standpoint, from someone who tried both but could not move, it was unfeasible to hope for 100 strength when it did nothing besides make the belts tighter. Instead of fine-tuning it up, I fine tuned it down - and instead of getting more detail, it barely did a thing for the driving. If anything it was a hinderance.

How do you get more useful vibrations when the belts are pulling tighter anyway? Its almost cancelling it out it seems but I can't substantiate that. Only that it was not the worthwhile improvement I wanted - nor did I or do I feel 75 is lacking. [I believe and think I understand/uncovered that 75 is basically its highest usable strength/fidelity overall; in certain circumstances 100 may be better but only in one regard, which you can tune-up toward anyway to within 10% I suppose of that strength...less is often more though with FFB; profiles have come a long way and even on DD people will turn them down]