yes but for sat to even exist there has to be a pt along the lateral direction which in turn requires a lateral force to pull the force centroid out along the lat direction which obviously requires a certain amount of long slip
A longitudinal component is implicit in the idea of a slip angle. With no longitudinal component to the velocity vector, the slip angle is basically undefined and every definition that depends on slip angle breaks down. However, that's not really what you're getting at.
I haven't seen any definitions of pneumatic trail or self-aligning torque (or, for that matter, lateral force) that include a longitudinal parameter. Whether this is because they are truly independent of longitudinal forces or whether the standard definitions only apply within normal operating conditions and break down at the edge cases (e.g. the well-known problems with low-speed behaviour in various sims), I don't know.
I haven't seen any definitions of pneumatic trail or self-aligning torque (or, for that matter, lateral force) that include a longitudinal parameter. Whether this is because they are truly independent of longitudinal forces or whether the standard definitions only apply within normal operating conditions and break down at the edge cases (e.g. the well-known problems with low-speed behaviour in various sims), I don't know.
Hehe +1 for me more FF can never hurt anyone lol
In Race-The WTCC game i have FF as high as it can go and while im Idle in the pits the Wheel shackes my whole table shackes if that were to happen in LFS lol that would be fun +1 for me again
In Race-The WTCC game i have FF as high as it can go and while im Idle in the pits the Wheel shackes my whole table shackes if that were to happen in LFS lol that would be fun +1 for me again
me thinks we need [url=http://www.thetoddtime.com]the todd(/url] in here
either way the caster steering torque should be much greater than any sat ever will be so the entirely torqueless condition should never happen
You can feel flatspots in FFB already... take for example FO8, set full brake pressure, accelarate to max speed and on purpose lock the brakes. Now put FFB strenght to 200% and you can definately feel the flatpots. But yes, on normal driving conditions the flatspots makes no difference to FFB in LFS... but it is already modelled, the flatspots in the tyre are just not big enough?
i dont think you do feel much from a flatspot in real live through angular movement either ... its the vibrations that get you not the wheel moving
all the tire moddeling info in this thread has been super informative, even though I only get most of it. So what i am getting from this is the main reason they feel so different is because the SAT curves are different, one levels off after max slip and the other drops quickly?
There is also another component originating from the lateral force and the mechanical trail, which is usually the most significant one, because the mechanical trail is usually bigger then the pneumatic trail.
Maybe the open wheel cars in nKP have smaller mechanical trail values and the SAT component is more visible as a result?
I have already suggested this on the nK forum. The original flat-spot calculation moved the wheel FAR too much. As an arcade 'you've got a flatspot' indicator it was awesome (if you can afford a new wheel every 6 weeks), but as a realistic flatspot feeling it was miles off. I have suggest, iirc, no more than 20% of what it used to be as an indicator (because not many people have vibrating seats, which would be the ideal way of doing it). It should NOT cause the car to self-steer due to steering vibrations.
However, it MUST cause the tyre to be more likely to lock up at the flatspot again - does LFS or nK model this situation?
I think LFS only models it partially, as an effect of the overheated sections not having as much grip as the other ones. However on a real *flat* spot the rolling resistance should also have a short spike, which is I believe not modelled in LFS. I think a flatspot in LFS is just a normal (round) tyre section with a bit smaller radius than the rest, which means that the tyre can roll much better over the flatspot than it should, and also the FF outcome would be a bit more noticeable if it was really *flat*.
On nKP I heard that the flatspot was a completely canned effect anyway, just done with a fake bump being fed into the FF but without any physical modelling of the flatspot itself.
On nKP I heard that the flatspot was a completely canned effect anyway, just done with a fake bump being fed into the FF but without any physical modelling of the flatspot itself.
i think android is correct in that lfs doesnt model either inter section smoothing (or angled section surfaces) or multi section contact patches both of which would be necessary (from my current grasp on the physics) for flatspots to create that spike in rolling resistance without explicitly coding it
If LFS modelled it the way Android is describing (and I remember your cookie diagrams from a while back), then there wouldn't be such a pronounced "drop" when the flatspot touches the ground. They have a pretty large effect at lower speeds that way even now; if the "vertices were not directly joined" then it wouldn't really happen much I wouldn't think; there's enough sections that you would just roll over without noticing. Why would multi section contact patches be necessary? I would think the opposite would be simpler?
I can't quite follow you there, isn't the pronounced drop because it is modelled as I described?
Anyway, I think that's the one you're referring to:
Anyway, I think that's the one you're referring to:
just installed the game again only because of this thread, and tested with my new DFP... didnt like the FF at all, it seems unreal and has nothing to do with the car on the track. Same for the tyre sounds and other things. Really strange. Things just dont 'fit' to each other lke in LFS.
I just don't understand how you can say that
It feels so much better than LFS is untrue. I know exactly what the car is doing at all times, i can feel everything that's going on. It feels so natural to drive for me because of the quality of feedback it gives, and every one of nKPros fans state that as one of the main reasons they love it.
Each to their own though. I'm completely baffled when i hear statements like that though, i wonder if we're driving the same sim.
(After racing nothing but nKPro for over a year it's taken me 6 month to get to the point where i can feel what's going on in LFS. The feel for a sim has a lot to do with what your used to i guess
)lfs "only" has one section every 22° which is a relatively large chunck of rubber
because otherwise the tyre will just jump from section to section withou experiencing the effect of having multiple section joined together in a flat bit of surface
Sorry Moose, but i also feel the same way, in best case FF felt slightly better than ISI's..
I didn't get that edgy feel that i get in LFS, the one that makes you move in the chair like an idiot, like you were really in the car feel..Hehe, you don't have to say sorry
.we cant all agree
I just don't get it
nKPro is the ONLY sim that gives me the 'really in the car' feel. As much as i love LFS it just doesn't come close in terms of feel. In fact it gives hardly any feel whatsoever in comparison.I feel like I'm playing a game with LFS. nKPro gives me so much more feedback that it feels like I'm racing a car.
That edgy feeling your on about...i just never get that with LFS.
Damn, how different we people are.. 
An update of the FF effects in LFS would be great. The FF feels so slow, mostly because the general steering resistance is too high, making very fast movements (and especially countersteering) with the wheel impossible.
Best FF effects for me (by far) are in Richard Burns Rally, it just feels as it should, gives an excellent feedback of the state of the wheels and the car, and doesn't hinder you in fast movements or countersteering.
Another strange thing with the FF in LFS is that while the car is standing, you can move the wheel without effort, but once the car starts rolling the steering resistance raises, but this should be the complete opposite way
Best FF effects for me (by far) are in Richard Burns Rally, it just feels as it should, gives an excellent feedback of the state of the wheels and the car, and doesn't hinder you in fast movements or countersteering.
Another strange thing with the FF in LFS is that while the car is standing, you can move the wheel without effort, but once the car starts rolling the steering resistance raises, but this should be the complete opposite way
I too am less than excited by nKPs FFB. It has moments of magic, and moments of sleep, mostly the latter.
However, I am willing to write it off as being a bug (highly likely) or a configuation error (what windows settings does nK work best with. LFS ones?. I'm using Linear and 100% FFB on a G25), and will only do a fiar comparison next year or so when the next patch is released.
I am willing to state that is, at the very least, the second best FFB out there (not including RBR - I don't have enough experience on gravel with 4WD to comment, but it feels okay, if a little 'electronic' rather than smooth). In LFS I can feel tyre sidewall flex, in nK I sometimes struggle to feel the whole car move.
However, I am willing to write it off as being a bug (highly likely) or a configuation error (what windows settings does nK work best with. LFS ones?. I'm using Linear and 100% FFB on a G25), and will only do a fiar comparison next year or so when the next patch is released.
I am willing to state that is, at the very least, the second best FFB out there (not including RBR - I don't have enough experience on gravel with 4WD to comment, but it feels okay, if a little 'electronic' rather than smooth). In LFS I can feel tyre sidewall flex, in nK I sometimes struggle to feel the whole car move.
i think the g25 wheel is just barely good enough for getting the proper feedback. i can take the fz5 with race_s, set parallel steer to 97%, remove front toe and i don't really have to do any countersteering at all. it happens automatically like i think it should? actually what i find myself doing is trying to counter the automatic countersteer from getting too far! so while i'm counter-countersteering the wheel actually has very low resistance and is easy to fling 180 deg in either direction with great speed. using the same set on any track i can't think of a single thing i don't feel but should, like the SO railroads and well lids(?), road camber changes, remaining suspension travel, understeer etc etc. the second point you make is the only thing i can imagine lfs could be improved upon, FFB wise.
ugh, after reading my post i'm not sure if counter-countersteering makes any sense but oh well...hard to explain
Would also like to add that, tire size and Speed plays a roll. bigger the wheel less precision.
If LFS calculates the physics @ 120hz ie 120 per second, at 140mph on a 17inch wheel the physics Engine skips over about 6 sample spots which could contain the flat spots.
as for netkar they probably used a combination of the two. They probably used generic effect and used inputs from Engine to modify it for that particular instant.
Just fyi, LFS calculates the tyre physics at 2000Hz
Indeed, before anyone says anything, yes the "regular" physics run at 100Hz, but the internal tire physics do run at 2000Hz.
Android, I think I misunderstood your diagram initially but now I get what you mean. Wouldn't this increase rolling resitance even more than the other way? Do we have any data to back up the thought that they're modelled the way you describe?
Android, I think I misunderstood your diagram initially but now I get what you mean. Wouldn't this increase rolling resitance even more than the other way? Do we have any data to back up the thought that they're modelled the way you describe?
netKar level feedback
(67 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG