Automobilista 2 Custom Force Feedback - Overview & Recommendations

Update (Note - this relates to Default+):
OK, so you do definitely want damper somewhere in the midrange for Default+. I've settled, for tonight anyway, on Gain 65, LFB 5, D 45 and I don't use menu spring and it doesn't relate to in-car FFB. The way the settings interact, or a way of thinking about it, is gain sets the strength of the high forces, LFB sets the bottom strength, so use the two to manage the range of forces - lower or zero LFB (so a greater difference between low and high forces) will accentuate the feeling of difference between the low forces and high ones. For me, LFB 0 felt too violent between the wheel in a relaxed state and it pulling full force. The damper adjusts, as the quoted contributor states, to the tightness/hardness (higher damper setting) or looseness/softness (lower damper setting) of the transitions between low and high forces. I hope that helps!

 

Yes - the above was for the Default+ FFB.

 

yes .
but it gets confusing for new users if we have references to the default ffb mixed in with the custom thread.

 

Great explanation tx mate!

 

So if I understand correctly, the custom files is still derived from the code of the original default ffb code? Reasoning here is that I love the new FFB, but would still like to tweak those new + values as opposed to the older default values. So in short, can we adjust the code of the new default+ settings for fine tuning? Do we even have access to the new code? Or am I on the wrong track so to speak?

 

Actually Karsten created this momentum rack from scratch, it doesn’t bare any resemblance to what the default custom looks like.

Also the placeholder for default custom doesn’t seem to have much code info, and doesn’t really respond to changes much .
So there’s not any scope to fine tune default or default + by the user.
What ever code they are running is hidden, default + may well have borrowed some of the custom file for all we know, as there’s certainly some familiar feel to it.
And it’s possible that some of what’s in custom has been semi supplied or assisted by Reiza after some back room talks perhaps.

 

Great reply, tx man

 

I didn't find anything about the AMS2 custmFFB.ini file on the first page
I must install it in "Documents\Automobilista 2" folder along with the new ffb_custom_settings.txt file?

 

Where have you got a .ini file from? Afaik all you should need is the custom settings text file.

 

There might have been an .INI file uploaded at somepoint for people with Simucube Wheels to allow them to import settings for the wheel within the Simucube software, called True Drive. However, the only file you need to place within the My Documents AMS2 folder is the .txt file. If there is a file uploaded with both .ini and .txt in the file name, try removing the .INI part in the name and opening it with notepad to see if it looks like a FFB file. I’ve lost track of all the iterations at this point, and I concur the first page should probably be updated to include some of the more recently tuned files.

 

I just tried the latest build for the first time. I still massively prefer the old custom file I’ve been using compared to the new default+.

Question for the file guru’s please (Forgive me if this has already been discussed):

Is it ok to continue using @Kuku Maddog’s delta x tune, or will I experience problems with certain car / track combos? I really love this file!

I’ve been away for a while due to a house move, so I’m not up to speed with what’s been going on with the files. I don’t have much time right now to experiment, but I just want to check that there are no issues with continuing to use this file.

Many thanks in advance!

 

Hey Fizzy
no issues with custom file post update.
but if you haven’t downloaded latest , it will not have the jolt fix that Dom assisted with.

(trail_l (* (+ 0.025 0.015) 22))
(trail_r (* (+ 0.025 0.015) 22))

you will need to swap out the lines above for the old as seen in this picture.

 

@Fizzy @Kuku Maddog @Chip

I just took a few mins yesterday for a slight change on 4.6. Just had to, since I had something annoy me too much giving it a short spin. If it passes @Panos Schoino and @Shadak 's critical hands I will post it later or tomorrow.
I have really not had and still have very limited time, so it might not happen, but if it does, then perhaps we should update that front page with the latest files that make sense to have there.

@Kuku Maddog I know you changed your base, so maybe you now have a different view on what works and does not work in the delta file. Is there something specific that you feel was a great improvement? If so I will try and add only that part too & have it pass @Panos Schoino and @Shadak too.

But other than this I will say that it looks like majority of people are very happy using Default and Default+ now, so that is great news for the title. I'm now mostly looking forward to competitive/rating improvements and such

Best,

-K

 

No Default or Default+ here. Just too "Rubber Bandy" for me. I have tried so many settings to try and make it feel good, but just can't get a good feeling like with the Custom Files from you guys. Thanks heaps.

 

If anyone with g29 is interested I have updated my file to use new mass_damper feature (use damping slider to turn it on/off). The difference is small but noticeable. However, I still prefer/recommend the "old" ffb feel (damping slider at 0).

 

am sticking with custom too, the default+ is a great improvement over default, it feels much closer to 4.6 but it's hard to leave behind the level of customisation we have available to us here. For example I like to my wheel to go a little light when I lose grip at the rear, although it might be unrealistic it's what I prefer and makes sense to my brain, being able to dial in these kind of sensations is invaluable.

 

So good to hear from you! Thanks for taking the time to post and update the file once more. I’ve tried to make the new default+ file work, but the custom files are still better. Hopefully, @Kuku Maddog can provide a summary of his changes, or just some feedback to help guide the latest iteration forward. I’m beyond thankful to have these files to test. Hope you’re well.

 

@Kuku Maddog @Karsten Hvidberg

Thanks a million. I’m sure I speak for many here (and beyond) when I say your efforts are very much appreciated.

 

hi @Karsten Hvidberg , nice to hear from you and hope you are well.

im intrigued by what you might have instore.
Long post coming

I think my most recent Delta S is actually staying pretty true to 4.6 original in many aspects.

When thinking of what's been the most consistent change of the Delta series, I would have to say the adoption of using the blended centering has been almost universally approved.
(centering (blend (- 1 trail_strength_feel) 0.52 0.5))

as you can see in latest tune ive made it something that can be easily adjusted for different taste and wheels depending on how snappy you want your wheel.
(self_align_scale 0.22) # Speed and strength of self alignment - Range 0.22-0.52+
(centering (blend (- 1 trail_strength_feel) self_align_scale 0.5))

Outside of that the most significant difference would be abandoning the Desmos graph based oversteer; understeer and yaw relax for more direct method of older rfuktor.
For me the complicated relax code was hard find the right balance and seemed to add a delay to these affects that was sometimes misleading.
Others may disagree or simply have not been bothered by it and just have got used to it.

But i have found keeping it simple and having everything all tied in at the end including having Yaw offset with trail has given a more natural balance feel that doesn't overstep or overpower.

(trail_strength_feel 0.13) # range 0.11-0.16 , influences feel of caster and drag/pull of centering force.

(yaw_scale (* yaw_scale (blend (- 1 trail_strength_feel)) 1 0.5))
(yaw_stretch_front (* yaw_stretch_front (blend (- 1 trail_strength_feel)) 1 0.5))
(yaw_stretch_rear (* yaw_stretch_rear (blend (- 1 trail_strength_feel)) 1 0.5))

(centering (blend (- 1 trail_strength_feel) self_align_scale 0.5))
(force_scale (* 1.7 (/ 0.22 centering)))

some users may prefer more exaggerated oversteer etc, but they have the option of increasing the scales to their taste and some may still like the earlier Delta philosophy of having Yaw and OS equal in force scales.

This was very immersive and felt really good with light nimble cars, but the extra weight of heavier cars did make the strong Yaw a bit of a handfull at times, specially when pushing hard and with the tendency for AMS2 to be more dynamic in terms of rear end Sop forces than any other sim, maybe its too much for new users coming from other Sims.

The only thing I'm still unsure of and maybe you can clarify, is the Wanted Steering angle section in the file.
original seems to have two versions both active

(wanted_sa_l (* (- steering_angle_l sa_delta_l) m_l)) #getting the old angle, to calc where it would have gone by itself
(wanted_sa_r (* (- steering_angle_r sa_delta_r) m_r))
(wanted_sa_l (* (- steering_angle_l sa_delta_l) (blend m_l 0.5 1))) #getting the old angle, to calc where it would have gone by itself
(wanted_sa_r (* (- steering_angle_r sa_delta_r) (blend m_r 0.5 1)))

I never been too sure if this was an oversite from Wip and both shouldn't be used together or not ?
While it doesn't break anything having both active , and it actually feels a little tighter, i did have a Simagic user say they had a slight notch around center, and it was there but not significant at all, but i did notice that it was almost like it was Micro binding between left and right forces in transition moments like through chicanes etc. it was harder to shift the weight through the center and forces could ramp up around center in that moment when still having non blend code active.

So for now I've decided to just have the Blend scenario active ( I've been meaning to experiment with the ratio of the blend actually .) as it seems to reduce the situation and once you get used to it not being quite as tight, it feels quite natural.

But aside from all this , there's not a big step away from your original 4.6 which has proven to be very settled .
and the only thing that might be good would be something to limit the peaks of max bump force so that the Historic Monza oval bumps didn't go overboard , specially on lower end wheels it seems.
( also did you see the missing bump line that Stakanov found ?
(right_bump_pos (max right_bump_pos right_bump)) .)


Always happy to be corrected and my opinions are just from my point of view after lots of trial and error, and I always welcome technical input from others with different gear and tastes.
As you know , probably only about 25% of users give any feedback, so its always hard to judge whats working and whats not.
I’m also acutely aware of how confusing this thread and also different versions of the file can be.
I’ve tried to improve the layout of the file adjustment etc, to cater for new users, as who knows how long this system will be around and people may only discover this years later, similar to how I discovered PC 2 custom files, that are now very old and take a lot reading to understand.

 

I'm not satisfied with the either Default preset. The overall behavior is pretty good with Default+, and the surface details come through nicely but, I get no scrub or tear effects, even with FX set to 100%. I also miss the engine-vibe and brake effects.

It may be the need to using a lot of damping to stabilize the wheel with the SC2 Sport, combined with the Martin Ascher BB but, those effects are completely missing so, a custom file remains the best & only option for me.

It reminds me of ACC-ffb, lacking in certain details but, I'm glad that it works for most players. It's just not my cup of tea.