When I say “not defined” then it’s not about the range itself. Speeding up 20%? Increasing priority? Limiting an amount to 20? That is not clear
Some filters are constant, some not, some are only active under certain circumstances. A general algorithm can’t do that. While the first section of filters are for the Simucube side the second one (fine-tuning) are for effects coming out of the simgame, as I understand. Direct filters are dealing with the forces of the Simucube while the fine-tuning ones are dealing with effects coming from the game settings.
@Mika Sorry for bringing it up again but I found no answer to it in the forums.
Is this a known issue in the latest firmware that the Simucube 2 can’t be initialized properly? I have to turn it off and on again to make it work the first time. Was no issue with the old firmware. 
So, with your theory: if NO filters are in use, no need of ULLM, right?
By the way, im in doubt that Constant Operated Filters (the ones that only acts at servo level - not dependant of Game signal) are causing any delay/latency to Signal, they are working on servo side, so the signal and its latency is there, like always, but the servo is being “stopped” by those filters, we are killing/braking the signal, not inducing any latency. If you try to solve problems (like too much Friction) using ULLM, then something is wrong
1 Like
I would imagine it to work like this.
Dampening, Friction, Inertia for instance.
As to my best knowledge the input signal travels the fastest without any affection. Driving over a stone in the game is landing directly by the wheel and the level of sensation is from the torque of the Simucube. If there is nothing in between you get whatever the game intended. Asap you use a filter the signal is still the initial one but affected/redefined in processor time per filter. While the Simucube is “feeding” the wheel she interacts through USB with the PC. The PC is connected with the pedals, shifter, handbrake. Those data goes and comes. As a result you have latency, maybe more or less. And to reduce this we have ULLM
Thats is the case for Recon Filters and other that modify the signal.
Constant Operating Filters (D,F,I) does nothing to Signal, just works at servo level.
You can try It without any Game started, move Friction Slider to the far right and the servo will react whenever a Signal is on Play or not.
If we need ULLM to solve Constant Operating Filters deficiencies, then Constant Operating Filters are not so well designed.
2 Likes
Before I purchased my SC2 Pro I did extensive research as I do with most of my purchases and I knew what I was getting into. I knew that I would have to learn how to tune and tweak settings, I knew it wouldn’t feel exactly like I liked out of the box, I knew that FFB between sims could vary drastically.
This is enthusiast grade equipment which most of us have upgraded to after using plastic wheels clamped to our desks for years, most sensible people dont just jump into this hobby blind
There are a lot of new people coming into this hobby spending thousands to get the best setups but have no idea where to even start (all the gear no idea). I’m not sure why those people all of a sudden become the priority.
But I suppose the main goal for any business is to make money so catering to the masses seems to be the route this is going leaving the people that have been sim racing for decades in the dust
8 Likes
Not really leaving hardcore racers in the dust, only not entirely satisfying people who are opposing the online system. I have been simracing for quite some time and I’m happy with an easy profile sharing system. Pretty much everyone I’ve spoken too in my simracing bubble has been around quite some time aswell and pretty much everyone is enthusiastic about sharing profiles in an easy and efficient way. It isn’t simply that the masses and pro are by definition different people with different wishes. If the current way is perfection, probably not but in my opinion a good first step.
Note: I am in favour of having an offline option if feasible. If it isn’t feasible in an easy way (like it seems to be) I understand the decision looking at the reactions in my personal simracing bubble.
3 Likes
The problem is attempt to bring everyone to common and unfortunately the lowest denominator.
This new shared system would have been much better received if it was made fully optional, exactly as majority of people in the poll indicated. No one completely oppose online features, we live in 21st century, but forcing it down to everyone’s throat whether you need it or not is just plain oppression.
Look at SimCommander software, they have online profiles sharing feature, but they don’t force everyone saving their data on the cloud or handicap ability to edit local settings. When I feel like it I can publish my profile and when I need to get somebody’s else I will go to the cloud and import one.
How many people forced to use Cloud stored profiles will be actually making them public for everyone else to see. How many profiles per specific game do we really need, thousands? Yet we force everyone there, making profiles modification more difficult by adding intermediate hoops and increasing cloud storage cost.
And now we see limitations that GD just does not have resources to properly vet published content, reason images, comments, etc are not allowed, and how useful TD profile really is without accompanying in game settings or proper feedback?
And man, I saw some profiles published there. Literally “For noobs by noobs”, some dangerous even, like profile for DR2, the title that does not have proper in game signal gain control, with 100% TD torque.
4 Likes
Yeah I agree it ain’t perfect yet. But perfection comes at a cost, I’m sure the ui will improve over time. Dedicated offline completely might not come if costs are to high but judging by my personal sim bubble almost none would find that a big problem, in contrast to that poll (polls are almost always very limited in scope). I’m pretty sure none will feel oppressed 
I just got triggered at that generization in the post before mine.
As someone considering the move to an SC2, I have to admit, this development is a little concerning.
I have nothing against profile-sharing and have shared ffb & SimVibe profiles from years ago through SimCommander. While doing so does require internet connectivity, the software itself remains functional in an offline mode. The mode used is the user’s choice, as it should be, imo.
I also think that both new users and advanced users should be offered ease of use features as well as advanced features, in either mode (File-sharing limitations apply in off-line use, of course). The challenge then becomes how to offer novices easy access to information in terms they can better understand.
There are ways to accommodate those in either camp. I recognize that doing so requires additional work for the developers but, understanding any complex process is made easier when broken down into smaller pieces (Ex: Basic ffb settings / Advanced settings / Combining effects, etc.).
Use of a rating system for shared profiles can also be helpful, as can “Pro-Tips” from developers and advanced users.
3 Likes
Thanks for the feedback, everyone.
Those that continuously say “I do not want to use online mode because I do not want to use online mode”:
Please state the reasons for that. Otherwise it is just an argument without any basis.
Without knowing the reason, it is very difficult to understand the actual problem here.
1 Like
imo the main point of discussion here is not the online mode, instead it is the complete cut-off of td classic. if that wouldn’t be abandoned, stay sure nobody would have anything against an optional online mode. my 2 cents.
4 Likes
It’s not about want or don’t want. It’s about choice. We shouldn’t have to be forced to use an online system
I’m sure people would be a lot happier if we could have a dedicated offline app and those that want to use shared profiles can use the online app that way everyone is happy
2 Likes
So why is that? When it is a better system for everyone?
Even Microsoft has dropped support of Windows 7 (except for severe security patches). We also want to move on at some point. People can keep using Windows 7, they just will not get all the features that are in Windows 10, and might feel that they are missing out. Same applies for our product right now - we are rewriting things for the better.
2 Likes
It’s a better system for people that aren’t willing to put in the time and effort, it’s a better system for the masses, it’s not a better system for the enthusiasts
Like I said, it’s about choice. A proper offline mode is all we want. Some people are not interested in the online system
Again, it’s about choice
1 Like
This is just the same as “we do not want to be forced online”.
No real reasons or credible arguments that back this reasoning have been presented so far, except for the very first ones in December, where things like having option to use the device when there is no internet or when internet connection is spotty. And this has been fixed by the offline caching of the online profiles.
So why do you need that choice?
1 Like
This is not a personal attack towards anyone.
Our developer team just wants full understanding of the underlying issues that exist. We clearly do not understand them at the moment, we just see the great feedback from our partners, good improvement ideas on the FB, and some critical feedback on this forum.
2 Likes
This is a feedback thread, we’re giving you feedback and telling you we don’t want to be forced to use an online mode. That reason should be enough. Why do I need to log into some profile sharing app to use my base?
Granite devices will choose what they want to do and who to cater to
Just to clarify, no one (myself at least) is against the online profile system, that’s fine if people want to use that they can. We just want and app to tweak our bases settings and that’s it
6 Likes