Automobilista 2 Custom Force Feedback - Overview & Recommendations

So what is that line for?

 

There are other lines or codes that may not work or only partially work as it should or as originally intended by the creator. In my opinion, this line is correct and the value should be set as low as possible or 0 in order to feel less force in slow corners.
The static force regulation or static force reduction of a base intervenes in the damping model of a simulation using its own internal FFB software (own algorithms). That is the big advantage of this base controller. It will always be very difficult to combine the physics of cars and tracks with the tire physics, the damping model, the different forces, the different bases (dd and belt) and the FFB (custom or defaults). Actually an almost impossible task and yet so important for a simulation like Ams2. And at the end there are the users and everyone has different preferences and ideas, but thanks to Reiza we can decide for ourselves. What other current simulation offers this? I do not know any

 

Hey Michael,

You are correct that adjusting normal_static_force_reduction higher should indeed do exactly that, unless the specific tune disabled it somewhere. Looking real quick on my mobile it seems to still be working in the file.
At 0 it does nothing. I disabled the use of it at some point in the original rfuctor files. Also note however, that static force reduction might or might not be the best solution to what was requested here.

Anyways, at 0 the filter is disabled. It can be set in the interval 0. 0 to 1.0, so maybe try 0.2 or 0.3 to see if it does what is required.

Best,

-Karsten

 

Unfortunately it is not like that Karsten! Increasing the static _force_reduction in the file causes massive anomalies in the steering axis and in addition they lose a lot or almost all of the FFB (can be seen in the graph and of course felt). This is the same with your files as with mine.Test your file with 0.7 or 0.8.Yes it is excessive but to see what it causes.Even with 0.1 or 0.2 or 0.3 they will have disadvantages so for me it is always at 0. The static force reduction on the base will make everything right.

 

That sounds weird. I added the algorithm in the file a long time ago, and in many earlier files used it at 0.15 or 0.2 etc.
This was so all bases would benefit from the same as we do on simucube 2.
But it is a somewhat weird filter and that's why I set it to 0 to disable it.
It does exactly remove the "static" part of the force from the signal, so it does and should indeed weaken the ffb significantly at higher values. It does so too when you use simucube 2 version.
There is an added benefit to using it in the file instead of in simucube 2 software, as I added it to only affect the rack force, whereas simucube 2 filter will be added after all forces are accumulated, so any long lasting effect would also be affected.

If it acts weird, maybe I made some error, but just didn't care, since I had it at 0 anyways, and considered simply removing the code for it anyways

Best

-Karsten

 

Yes, your idea was and is perfect, but unfortunately there are problems with it.I know that I never liked this filter in the file, even when I still had a dd1.There, too, I had anomalies in the steering axis and I always had the value very low back then.But it's not a problem, I can set it to 0 and everything is fine. Thanks for the info

 

That's all fine if you have that sort of filter in your software. I have a Simagic Alpha, and the SimPro software has nothing like it. What can I change in your file to reduce the effect of heavy steering on turning? Tyre Resistance maybe?

 

You sure this is right? This line already exists on line 253 below?

 

Line 253 is this in mine;
(delta_load_wt (* (+ 0.5 load_factor) (+ (* 0.5 susp_delta_HF) susp_delta_LF) adhesion_front_scaled))

 

Yes, I know that your Simagic doesn't have it.But that doesn't mean that it's bad.My Moza R21 V2 doesn't have it either and yet I have a fantastic FFB with this base. There are many ways to weaken it in the file but there will always be consequences.Yes, you can change the tire resistance but there will be consequences.Yes, you can add a little power_steering_angle but there will be consequences.And it goes on and on. For me it's always a combination of different changes.I change something and notice that it changes the middle or the center feeling or the grip or the power and and and...... Finding this balance so that everything fits together again is not always easy and everyone experiences it differently of course. Try to adapt it to your needs as best as possible and make sure that you feel good about it

 

yeah, not sure why line no is different, but I already have that line there, does it need to be there twice?

 

Not in mine. Just line 252. Maybe download a fresh copy and look at it again. What program do you use to edit .txt files? I use Notepad++

 

Did that, and line 252 is the same as the new code
(susp_delta_LF (* (+ 1.2 (/ lonG_accel 2)) (abs (power susp_delta_LF 2.4)) sign_susp_delta_LF))

 

You should at least try the SFR with your Simagic Alpha, and see for yourself how it feels. After I read the above comments, I drove with SFR, and then without SFR, and I went back to using SFR along with the SFR that is also added in by my VRS base config.
I found that without the SFR in the AMS2 cFFB file, it was just plain old strength, and no slip effects at all. I've grown accustomed to the feeling of getting on the limits, then slightly going over, and then returning back to normal grip.
I also noticed that there was a greater chance of tank slap if a wild turning sequence got out of control without using the cFFB SFR in the file.
I guess one could get used to either using it or not, but IMO it's more fun with some form of SFR applied, and I didn't have any steering weirdness when using SFR.
Experimentation is the key.

 

I did try using it in Daniel's file, but only went from 0 to 0.04. Didn't notice much difference. Maybe I'll try some higher values to see if I can feel what else it might change.

 

You will notice at higher values 0.7 or 0.8 that it causes anomalies. Of course, at 0.04 it will almost not be noticeable but then it won't have the desired effect. I notice the anomaly starting around 0.1 so I prefer to leave it at 0. In my opinion, the internal processing of the base can simply do this better than the file can (whether custom file or defaults) or sometimes with other simulations. But as Peter Stefanie also said, it all depends on the user and if you have a better feeling with higher values then that's completely okay and just test it

 

Hey Daniel,

Can you describe the anomaly that you see in a little more detail?

 

Yes, of course Karsten, but I'm not on the rig today to give you exact data. Every file behaves differently. What I can tell you for sure is that the higher the value, the greater the FFB loss. Of course you have to compensate for that. This is also the case with my custom, but less pronounced. Both files also have the anomalies in the steering axis, but mine is even more pronounced. But I'll tell you more about that once I've tested both again. Go to a concert today and enjoy music

 

May the swift be with you^^

 

Hey buddy, may the clutch be with you