I don’t get it, it’s a bit too too technical for me (let me add another “too”, just to make sure you understand my level of non understanding).
What I think I might understood is:
@Mika ain’t so wrong when he says that everything above 1.5Nm/ms slew rate isn’t helpful nor realistic for simracing?? (I should have known that he doesn’t make such a statement without proof, sorry for the way I reacted @Mika)
Diff settings on the fly are as important as I thought and felt they are. I use it with every car possible, and I can’t tell you how much I love to get rid of the bullshit mid corner oversteering when the transition from braking/rolling to on throttle is happening. Entry oversteering was a problem aswell, but not as difficult as mid corner.
No, he didn’t just make that up. This value must at least be based on some consideration. A consideration that can be checked “relatively” easy with Motec, but can also be refined for yourself with its help!
Here’s another car, one that, despite the weaker in-game FFB setup, requires significantly more slew rate for the curps. You can see that the blue dots on the X-axis for the torque do not go nearly as far to the right into stronger torque(like the other car from the post before). The “string of pearls” of green points on the Y-axis at 1.5Nm/ms is significantly denser or more connected.
Those cars make you love your decision of lowering the slew rate!
Here again for 32Nm and 1.5Nm/ms. Classic Open-Wheeler… I think Brabham BT44
I went through your post again. You calculate it correct, but to me it looks similar to:
The car accelerates in 2 seconds to 100 km/h. So in a minute it accelerates to 3’000km/h. This is only correct if the car can accelerate to 3’000 km/h, and acceleration is linear. It isn’t: for 0 to 100 a F1 car has 2.5 seconds, from 100 to 200 under 2 seconds. But it never exceeds maybe 400 or 450 km/h.
So my understanding is that a Simucube 2 can reach, depending on the model, maximum torque in 3 to 4 milliseconds, but in a minute it’s still the same. Wrong??
It’s really something I have to try out asap. Lowering slew rate can maybe impact overall torque I can use, I can maybe decrease static force reduction. Makes me really consider quite some stuff. And it seconds what @Mika wrote.
I love looking at raw data like this (I’m an electrical engineer) and value it highly. However, what ultimately matters here is that almost all (but not all to be clear) reviewers of the Invicta report that it feels noticeably better than their SC2 Pro daily driver. I don’t think it’s clear yet how or what is making this difference. Just that the leading theory is a difference in slew rate. And it’s just another bullet point on the list of justifications for a hypothetical SC3.
But I think extrapolating the value to one second instead from one millisecond makes it clear what kind of “power” is at work. The SC2’s can reach full torque atleast at 3,5ms, what tatally fine!!!
ahh… it is more like km/h and km/s… 330km/h is same like 0,091666km/s
in other words 9500Nm/s is same like 9,5Nm/ms, but that GD is using Nm/ms is much more logic!!!
Maybe a hidden capacitor on the board that smooths the signal a little bit?
Or maybe a hidden Peak&Notch Filter that is suspiciously missing from the Asetek software?!?!?
But the story with the slew rate convinces me to 0.0%!!!
electrical engineer - cool job! I repaired guitars and bass amps when I was young. I still think tube amplifiers fascinating today and why they sound like that.
I understand people concerns on getting an SC2 at this stage but all this discussion here is just pointless.
Asking GD if they are working on SC3 - do you guys really expect an answer on this? Regardless if they do work on it or they dont, nobody is going to say, isnt it obvious why?
Comparing Asetek and SC2 especially on Slew Rate, and that Asetek is better because it has supposedly a tiny bit higher slew rate?? And that GD needs to bring an SC3 which will have a higher Slew Rate to be the better base? Come on, really? I can guarantee you that if you limit slew rate by 20% in TD in an SC2 pro, there is no way you can perceive any difference. So even if Asetek feels better (havent tried it so cannot say), there is no way this is due to the Slew Rate. You like the new qr system of Asetek then by all means go and get one, for sure this is a great wheel overall.
Another point that i would personally consider though, GD helped Asetek on the software. But GD is currently working on its TD software which as far as we understand is going to bring serious improvements to SC2. Will Asetek software be updated down the line and how?
You can wait for another 1-5 years waiting for an SC3 to be released (and hoping that it would be the better product), or just go and get an SC2 or an Asetek now and enjoy sim racing.
I don’t think anyone realistically expects GD to answer questions regarding SC3 before they announce it.
All we know is that multiple people who have used both claim the Invicta is noticeably better. No one knows for sure why. Just that there’s a difference, and it’s a positive one. It is what it is.
It’s normal to want post-purchase confirmation after buying and owning something as expensive as this. Almost all humans are wired that way. But to think it’s impossible to improve on, especially after 5 years since its release, is a little silly. Let’s get real guys.
Most likely it’s possible to improve SC2 and Ultimate. But it’s telling that for example boosted media gave gloving review of Asetek base, saying it feels even better than his Ultimate. But still today he’s using the old SC Ultimate. I suppose it would have been tempting to sell the Ultimate and buy a better base half the price?
So I guess the babble above means that a replacement wheel needs to be a lot better for people to upgrade or change to, Granite may think they still have unused potential in the HW not needing to rush for new platform for example.
For me personally I would give more value to not FFB specific features, but stuff like USB hub and analog wireless axes instead of FFB tweaks that you can’t even notice in blind test situation.
Unless i try them side by side with same settings, i am not going to believe what youtubers say especially on the FFB topic which highly subjective. So the only thing that is what it is, is that a few people said it is noticeably better. If that is sufficient for you then that is absolutely fine.
What improvement are you really looking for and what is important for you? If it is the qr, then yes there should be an SC3 and sooner rather than later. However i personally dont care about this at all. I care more for the FFB and that is why i got a simucube 4.5 years ago. The only thing that can really bring an improvement in that aspect is the software development. And if SC2 is capable to handle a new software, then what would be the reason to bring an SC3 in the market? How would that make any sense?
I will! It’s fascinating stuff anyway. I think that a stronger DD, one with more slew rate per time won’t be superior. We are already at some overshooting situation where we use filters to tame the animal. So I definitely don’t need more force, more slew rate. I don’t need more of anything. I’m totally happy with what I have.
Remember the “this will change simracing forever” campaign? We guessed 24/7, but pedals weren’t on the radar. Is like @Panschoin says: we won’t know till all know. As we don’t have someone from Granite in this discussion it looks like we are digging in the dark, while they laugh tears and work on something. For me the QR discussion isn’t an issue neither; the Simucube one does a good job, and I need enough power for LED’s and display.
Something totally different: has none of us a job, needs a job? We are writing here all day long while others are building streets, buildings, whatever
An integrated QR is a big one. And one that’s actually “quick” (SC QR is not).
The other thing you guys might be missing is there seems to be a lot of us looking to leave the Fanatec ecosystem right now given the recent mess. But they have an objectively superior QR(2), so moving to an SC2 Pro is a downgrade with regard to QoR.
Would like to avoid making that tradeoff, while still keeping with this proven brand. That’s what an SC3 hopefully would be.
I can confirm that! I have an SC2 U and when I started looking at the slew rate, I gradually lowered it in 0.5Nm/ms steps. Until I got to 2-3Nm/ms I really didn’t feel any difference, even in RF2. At 1Nm/ms it became interesting and I stopped at 0.65Nm/ms and even then realized that I shouldn’t go any lower and then came up with the “formula” mentioned above. Curps I was no longer afraid of! But with this tool I was able to easily design my FFB in “active” games so that they became more precise, more real and more bearable. Dirt Rally 2.0 was another candidate where the slew rate had a really positive impact.
Wait a sec…to visulize what I mean. Brabham BT44b @ 32Nm, I still love thisone! Sorry, for the pics, but I think they will help to explain it.
First @ 1,5Nm/ms ~0,5s with “activated” slew rate on a 2:22min lap!
In this regard, I also noticed something about some of the setups that you can find online. Many people don’t use the slew rate… I’ll leave the equalizer out completely now. Because the slew rate has a significant impact.
What I noticed is that many people don’t use the slew rate, but instead they use the Reconstruction Filter, Damping, Friction Inertia and something like Smoothing in the game very excessively.
QR is more important if you change wheels regularly. (I have only 2 wheels, soon 3
maybe. The last time I changed the wheel was sometime during the summer maybe) Powered QR is important if you change wheels with screens that need power.
Of course there are people to whom for example screens are a must, but I have heard more “nice but a gimmick” than “best ever” about them.
But it’s only my experience, maybe it’s more important than I realize.
I drive only on VR so screens and therefore powered connection to the base is not needed.
Someone is timing you with the stopwatch?
I don’t like SC QR myself, use Buchfink Q1R instead and may be switch to Xero-Play in the future, they all work.
I honestly think you are just trying to grasp at straws to validate your decision for getting Asetek. Just go for it, no one is trying to convince you otherwise.
I’ve watched Boosted Media review and read Asetek feedback posted on that forum. Didn’t see what you see in them, but I am sure if you start focusing on minor things out of the context, you can convince yourself of anything.
Go to Asetek forum, check how happy people are there, what issues they are having, how is the support, has anyone updated to it from Simucube and what they think, etc.
Asking if Asetek better than Simucube on Simucube board will just get you that far.
Good luck with your decision.
You’re misunderstanding my position… at the moment, if anything, I’m leaning SC2 Pro vs wait for SC3.
Asetek’s products may be functionally superior, but they’re just so ugly. Can’t get over that. But they seem to be compelling evidence that SC3 could be a noticeable improvement over SC2.
But with this tool I was able to easily design my FFB in “active” games so that they became more precise, more real and more bearable. Dirt Rally 2.0 was another candidate where the slew rate had a really positive impact.
+Fever 
+a nice healthy Beer 