Automobilista 2 Custom Force Feedback - Overview & Recommendations

I’d like to think that’s why I’ve been so poor in the rain - but I doubt it. I’m now on 3.5 and aware Karsten has a new version due out, possibly today.

I really need to learn and understand more about ffb forces. I’m staggered at how so many of you can pin point individual forces within a given file. I think I’m just doing things by the seat of my pants most of the time.

 

Hey Stakanov, What parameter do you mean with center?

 

WithLogitech and the last final rFuktor3.6 a value of +/- 0.8 ... and default relax of 0.4
In game 76-66-66-66 or if you want test the absence of oscillation set in game 76-02-66-66

 

Lars Mars right now

 

so you don't use the tighten range and falloff anymore?

 

Here's rFuktor 3.7.

Hot off the @Shadak / @Panos Schoino press!

Adding comments later.

 

I like the tighten range and falloff, in the center and to mitigate the oscillation, but it is not enough to eliminate it even if we say it is more tolerable ... but if on the one hand I improve something, on the other hand I distort the coherence of the file, especially since the custom files use the relaxation curves of the crossover, the OS, the DS and the Yaw .. . the use of tightening is certainly possible but on condition that you use values and curves that are completely different from those of the guys who compile the files and use the DDs ...
I think the two items (range and falloff) should be better implemented in the file, but if they don't use a cheap basis and they don't use tightening, it becomes difficult for them to create something coherent ... and it doesn't seem right to waste time afterwards all the work they already do for us ... ... they must always go by trial and error based on what we tell them ... and when we are not talking about facts, but about sensations, various personal interpretations arise ... who says one thing and who another and none is wrong or just because they are sensations ... in short, it becomes complicated for everyone ...

Regardless, in this 3.7 final I will try to make 3 versions of the KArsten's file, one with thiyrning, another without and finally one without and with practically zero LFB

 

As we cant test on nom-DD, it might feel different, especially tearing/scrub. There is also now a very nice change that takes weight jnto account in a better way for road "feel" on suspension travel etc.

 

Removed 3.7 file due to error found.

 

rFuktor 3.7 feels pretty good and thank you for the update.

 

I look forward to trying 3.7 later.
while some cars felt marvellous on 3.6 , some others felt rough.
I just updated my thrustmaster firmware to 2021 3.2 as well so will be interesting if that changes anything more than just compatibility with new products.
it felt a little smoother in idle state

 

Hi all,
I must say I have only just discovered this custom force feedback option from a YouTube video that I watched the other day. And it has brought this sim alive for me to the point that I want to play it daily rather than once a month.

Is there a guide anywhere as to what settings in the file do? I apologise if it's in the forum thread somewhere but 130+ pages I got lost searching. I want to do some reading up before I was to go digging into the file.

The things that I want to change:
how heavy the steering gets when I'm on the brakes. It's a little off putting when I transition from brakes on with heavy steering and then getting off the brakes the steering feels suddenly very light.

I am also having trouble picking how much steering lock I need to apply in certain corners. It seems like there is no drop off in force when I push the front tyre past the ideal slip angle. The limited real world experience I have of racing cars I was taught is you were steering and then the wheel felt lighter you had gone past that ideal amount of steering lock for a given speed.

If I were to be able to tweak those two factors a bit then it would be the best ffb I have ever used

 

Hi Ben,

Which wheel base do you have and what are your in-game ffb settings?

The brake is simple to adjust, just lower "brake_feel" in the file to maybe 1.3 or 1.2.
The reason for having the brake feel stronger is @Shadak pointing out it is one of, if not the most violent force when racing irl, so it adds to the immersion.

 

I have a dd1 set to Max torque of 18nm on the wheelbase itself
In game I'm running 40/2/15/30

Yea I get the immersion rationale for the brake force it's just a bit too much of a jolt to the system if I want to touch the brake a little to help get the nose into the apex I end up missing the apex anyway because the steering suddenly was twice as heavy and I didn't turn the wheel enough.

 

Have only briefly tried stock file but feels good . a little different, but good.

i find i need to increase lfb to get the wheel more free moving , which is reverse to previous for me. but then this does have the other centering method .
At low setting it’s more rubbery in centre.

it seems to fill the wheel well and don’t seem to get the looseness some cars used to have and it almost physics defying the way it resists tank slap like peter mentions.

It’s probably the best the camaro ss has felt and been manageable.
i usually really struggle with it .

Much more testing and settings optimising to do later .
track bumps seem low .
I also feel like the TM firmware update has smoothed something on my wheel , as default ffb is now a little less buzzing with rod noises.

 

Ben schippers
If you've just discovered these custom files, you might not know that with them (only for the called RFUKTOR file series):

- The FX slider is independent and no longer depends on the gain.
- The damping slider, now serves as power steering, the higher it is set, the less force there is when cornering.

 

Is it pure placebo or am I feeling more from the rear end with this compared to 3.5? Running both 3.5 and 3.7 as they came at the moment.

 

@Karsten Hvidberg @Shadak - The 3.7 file is very nice I'm taking a little more time because the tuning is very subjective and talking only about value preferences seems repetitive to me and (this time) I want to analyze very deeply (step by step) and check all the evolutions from 3.5, to 3.6 and finally to this 3.7 to be able to do (hopefully) a good mix for the low end wheelbases that enhances the pleasure that users have had with the 3.5 but with the characteristics had up to this last file!!!!
But let's talk about 3.7:
01) Regarding the new items it can be said that they are very interesting, that is, the (bump_feel_follow_weight 0.75) and the (brake_feel_follow_weight 0.75), while the second does not create particular discrepancies feeling good both on cars/light forces and on cars/heavy forces, the first creates strong jumps with the car with more downforce and weight that is the F. Ultimate and also in the straight, in fact in the presence of the bumps, the jolts are perhaps amplified too much ... for what has been said above I think that I will bring the second item to 0.80 and the first at 0.40 (I just have to ask you a question that I will ask at the end of the post);
02) The slip_crossover_pos curve has been very close and from 0.1 it has been reduced to 0.06 in the rFuctor 3.6 and 3.7, perhaps this is very useful for DDs that are connected to the shaft, but with gear wheels I think it is better to 0.1 by starting the effect a little later since we already have a lot of friction and softness on the center or 0 force (we'll see);
03) Another thing I want to verify is the reduction of damping from 0.15 of file 3.5 to 0.10 of file 3.7, it may seem little but we are talking about a reduction of 33% which is no longer modifiable by the cursors as DP now manages Power Steering;
04) I have little to say about the effects, I have seen the changes in the scales and the one pronounced in the tear but they are subjective and easily modifiable.
WE WILL SEE WHAT WILL COME OUT

Clarifications required:

01) What value can I modify in this code to reduce only the scale without reducing the relative effects on which they apply??
(bump_weight_scale (/ 500 (/ (+ corner_FL corner_FR) 9.8)))
(bump_weight_scale (+ 1 (* bump_feel_follow_weight (- bump_weight_scale 1))))

EDIT: I would like to reduce only this relationship with the micro bumps ... the rest I feel good
(micro_bumps_scale (* micro_bumps_scale bump_weight_scale))

02) Only for test, is it always possible to insert the trail both as centering and as force_scale???

Now is:
(centering (blend (- 1 trail_scale) 0.22 0.5))
(force_scale (* 1.5 (/ 0.22 centering)))

Is always possible this for test??
centering (blend (- 1 trail_scale) 0.22 0.5))
(force_scale (blend (- 1 trail_scale) 1.3 0.8))

I notice a sequence of values familiar to me despite not having a DD ... that is the LFB at 2, and a DP (power steering) reduced by 10 compared to the GAIN ... if I may ask, keep the LFB at 2 to avoid oscillations??

 

@Stakanov I tried a bunch of different combinations including the power steering in increments of 10 all the way from 10 to 90 and it wasn't able to change the heaviness on brakes or me not being able to feel when I have gone too far on steering lock.
So one thing I did try was to copy your recommendation to rule out me using a silly set of numbers. I wasn't having any oscillation issues at lfb up to about 10

 

@Ben Schippers thanks for info ... same here with lowend G920 ... in this last 3.7 the LFB the range tollerance for the oscillation is 0-10 and especially with cars like Formula Ultimate 2019 and F10 Gen2 i go down to 0-2 ... instead with other cars I can easily raise but you are DD and is correct low value