Or Asetek and Granite Devices join forces? 
i think people are misunderstanding the relationship between granite and asetek, from what i understand asetek just purchased some licensing, giving them access to some software materials and a base for the hardware like the QR. asetek are also not using granite motors as they have already stated they are using mige motors, perhaps a custom design mige.
i am pretty sure there is not going to be a partnership or integration between the companies… be cool if i was wrong though.
we are speculating now on what this ‘‘new thing’’ might be, lets just hope we all benefit from it, i would be dissapointed if its just a set of pedals or a wheel, i would really like to see some kind of push in the software department but that wouldnt be worth the hype and secrecy so its definately a new product of some kind, i would like to see an advanced bluetooth module of some kind to push the hardware into another league, id buy it in a heartbeat but again they have just been too quiet about that i think its as good as a pipe dream.
New BT module is wheel side only (no change to the base, only FW), and Mika stated earlier that some vendors already have their hands on them.
1 Like
Yes you are probably right, I read the announcement more carefully now, so my bad. I am totally with you on the SW side and I truly believe a telemetry based ffb if implemented right would be a game changer giving a unique competitive advantage to simucube. It could even be a “product” to be sold at a price… I guess we will know more in 3 weeks.
ohhh i see… well that makes sense
True. New Ascher should have it.
I hope there is less to the story than I read here. Because I am very satisfied with my SimuCube2. The Truedrive software in particular is simply brilliant. I know that’s not what everyone thinks. But adjusting the behavior of the wheelbase to my needs with the slew rate is super easy and very effective.
i dont think anybody thinks true drive is bad… it has just stayed somewhat static for a long time with minor updates fixing bugs and stuff rather than really stretching what could be done i guess. doesn’t stop it from being amazing in its own right though.
1 Like
Well, Moza is doing something interesting with their EQ, but then it becomes difficult to understand also when different simulators convey sand/grass/etc effects to slightly different frequencies, making that EQ difficult to use as user needs to know what frequency the sim is giving the signals, and thats not easy to analyze if you are not an engineer.
We also have ideas on how to improve and streamline some of the filtering options in True Drive, but then there is always the community backslash if we change / remove filter options to enable better ones to be placed there instead. So that is one of the reasons why the filters haven’t seen any notable developments. But we are working on things that would outweigh the community’s discomfort of us streamlining some of the options in True Drive. The new product we will soon reveal, includes large portions of the background work we have done during the last two years.
One of the first in line to improve in True Drive, is to remove separate directInput filter settings and replace them with just one, as we are close to finalizing the project where we added Linux support and did rebalancing and partly rewriting all the directInput filter code.
3 Likes
thanks for letting us know that, its good to know that you guys are working on things to improve our experience further.
i do understand what you mean about playing with frequencies and the user not really understanding what frequencies relate to what effects in game but i think having the option there to enable user experimentation can only be a good thing. I think in that instance it becomes more about discovery than needing to know what frequency does what if you know what i mean, being able to play with frequencies and boosting them in certain areas will enable users to find that eureka moment where the effect they want to feel coming through more is found, i think this would greatly improve the profile sharing aspect as people would be able to share far more varied and unique setups with others.
im not even sure how possible this is to implement, maybe its far too much work to consider, maybe not, i dont know but in my mind it sounds like a cool concept that will only expand on what the user can experience.
As for the community backlash when altering filters, in my personal opinion i think you should not worry too much about what the community thinks, you guys are the experts and we are just the users hoping for the best possible experience and we have to trust what you guys decide to do as you will clearly only do something in order to bring improvements. The backlash would only possibly happen if we lose effects to tune ourselves because (in my opinion) i think one of the strengths of truedrive is the flexibility it offers us and it would be a shame to see that shaved down… but again, i think most of us would respect your expertise enough to know any changes are likely for the positive.
thanks again for always being on top of things and spending time in the forums, that is excellent for the community.
But actually we have a 2 band EQ which is completely sufficient. For a long time I looked at tips on Youtube & Co, also setups for other manufacturers. But what I get is not what I want. X Band EQ’s aren’t as cool as you might think. At least not for our hobby. They are essential for instruments or homerecording. But not for sim racing.
For example, “kerbs” bothers you. (All values are fictitious, because I adapt the “kerbs” differently for me) Once you drive over them at 60 km/h, then at 150 km/h and then at 290 km/h… 3 Different frequencies for every track, every curve and every vehicle. It’s a solution that definitely works! But a multi-band EQ is not the best solution. A compressor which we already have from GD solves the problem much more easily. But nobody uses it, everyone thinks the full slew rate is the best. I use the Slew-Rate…So I’m not attacking the frequency itself, I’m attacking how the frequency rises. Going this route gives you a maximum on “detail”, but at the same time you can get rid of those pesky “kerbs”, accidents and collisions. Use the Slew Rate!
However, I have to admit that GD isn’t exactly propagating the slew rate. Although GD totally stands out from the crowd and has a wheelbase that is superior to any other.
Use the slew rate!!!
2 Likes
How community resistance to dumbing down settings stops from adding NEW filters?
1 Like
Come on Mika, nobody objected on improved or better filters. We have actually been asking about them constantly over the years. Yes, many of us had raised concerns on losing the ability to having options when it comes to filters and sliders (like for example when the simplified tuning was introduced to TD). Sure there was also fuss with the community for Paddock causing delays, but still a lot of testing and bug reporting by the community helped in improving it and that is really the purpose of the community. I am quite sure that if you came up with a suggestion on replacing a filter with an explanation on what the improvement is and why it is needed, nobody would have a problem. On the contrary we would try to help and provide input/ideas/beta test etc. So please if you have ideas on filters development, please share them with us.
Also when you say the new product includes large portions of the background work, what does this mean? Does this concern current SC2 Owners, or it is going to be specific to the new product which will be unrelated to us?
I think it’s not as easy as you might think. But there are enough effects that change the signal. But there are very few effects that really benefit the community. But there are still many to try.
Here a small selection.
There are strange interactions in signal processing when filters are processed. It would be easy to make the system unstable, and that would increase our support workload. We would need to test and analyze all possible combinations, and that becomes quite a large task. Also the code becomes easily a if-then-else mess if we take precautions for the corner cases.
For example, we could easily replace the torque bandwidth limit and slew rate filter with a better smoothing filter that would give better result with less lag, but community wants to have all filter options even though all of these result in the same result eventually. Our competitors do not have many options and ways to achieve a single result - make torque more or less smooth…
Answers to these questions are going to be revealed when its time.
Had to try…we will find out in a couple of weeks then. Jut hope we won’t be disappointed.
1 Like
It is more about the fact that one of the things the Simucube grew out of and is Known for is a wide range of adjustment to suit just about any desire.
When things are removed or altered that narrow the range of adjustment in the system it sort of goes against why many bought into the SimuCube in the first place.
There are lots of wheels out there now that have “less” adjustment but at the same time that means that in some cases you are not going to be able to find the feel that you want out of it…
The SimuCUBE is quite RAW in its normal filtering and implementations without as much behind the scenes trickery and this is where it shines… The resistance I believe comes from that fact in that people like and bought into getting the best representation of what is coming from the game and then being able to interpret it themselves, RATHER than having someone else determine for them what that interpretation should be…
Granted this is harder for many people and there should be some easier methods to figure stuff out but that is why it has been suggested about an Advanced Settings that allows full access to the current state of raw filtering… With other visibility options to allow for easier basic set-ups… Then as a driver may expand their quest into finding the optimal settings for them that can delve deeper…
The resistance is due to possible loss of what has become important features or ranges in settings and with that the concern that altering the existing will actually affect the feel they have in a negative manner which it very well could as you have said yourself and I have said that filtering is a balancing act and altering one filter could have a negative effect on others and overall feel.
3 Likes
Many == very small minority, and we’ve got the data from device telemetry on how many people actually enjoy tuning settings daily instead of just driving.
Imagine we continue to have filters that work great and those same filters have downsides in some situations that are not well documented or that would require complex documentation, and a competitor releases a product that has a great one slider to achieve the same adjustment range on wheel without downsides or caveats. I think, at that point, we are in a bad place and will head towards facing the same thing that happened to Nokia in 2010 - great features but very bad user experience. Why wouldn’t we doing constant improvement on the current features as well on all levels?
2 Likes
If this is the case and assuming you have a working model already why not give it to some on the forum to test? Im sure if the feedback was good the resistance to change would be far less. I think the biggest issue many of us have is like many companies have done in the past when supposedly upgrading products is taking away features people actually used and wanted. Youll never make everyone happy but i dont think many of us would complain if something actually worked better.