I think the second paragraph is alluding to my comments but you are transposing my words.
First of all I don’t want anything deleted or blocked, I want it this way but improved. If for any reasons they want to delete options I give my opinion in case it is heard, nothing more.
About the raw FFB, I have never said anything about 100% at all, just that I like to feel the direct raw ffb of the game, many are designed to use 2 / 4nm wheels(g29s in all development offices) and for me, with the strength of TD around 6nm it is more than enough to feel what the game developers want us to feel through the wheel.
There’s absolutely no need to remove any of the tuning options from the Interface. Same goes for narrowing down the scales within those options. That would be a big backwards step.
The direction GD are going in now will ultimately end up working just fine, given enough time.
What I think we need are basic templates that the more experienced users have come to a consensus on. Those can be dropped into the basic user interface as a great point to start from. I know this has already done to a large degree.
Leave the advanced tabs as they are. People who know the expected outcome when changing advanced settings also know the effects they are searching for perfectly well. Their experience gives them a “feel” for it. Neutering those parameters lowers the appeal of the product over the competition in my view.
I don’t consider myself one of the advanced users but I’d be pretty ticked off if I was and then saw available tuning options disappearing from TD.
I didn’t said that…? And I didn’t speake about “Static Force Reduction” too…I didn’t say I was also an expert ? I 'm not even sure that you know much more, but is not the subject.
But if you know details about this, feel free
So far,I did not use this filter (coming from SC1) but in this particular situation I think is very important, but it could be in general (just an example for Alfye20) . I started taking a real interest about this filter (I have my unit since 2 weeks).
Options are nice, though on this topic I’m guessing you’re removing the peaking and notch filter part of the simucube software as well? I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen someone use this and afaik there’s no easy way of getting the values that would give a useable result.
Hell, as far as I know it’s not described in the official simucube guide either.
First of all please understand this post is intended in a constructive tone and I am bringing it up because I think it is good point discuss.
Back to the matter of the “Ultra Low Latency Mode”(ULLM). while it is understandable that GD want to protect their IP the fog of mystery surrounding ULLM is just too thick and stops your customers, nearly all of which are power users from making educated decisions when setting up their profiles.
At first indications led me to believe that this setting trimmed the USB packets down or something to that effect to reduce latency. I have not personally worked with USB data before but packets often contain padding and pre-amble so it seemed reasonable to me that a small tightening in timings could be achieved by going out of spec on a title by title basis. To me in this instance the name seems semi indicative of function. I did however note it was very strange that I received less oscillations at 19% in iracing even though 10-15% was indicated as the window. I was told in an unconvincing fashion this must be wrong and then the fact at the time I was running a low specific output had “changed things”, which seems rather odd and unbelievable. It was at that point I started to think it is not just me who doesn’t understand how this filter works because I had experimented quite systematically at varying force levels and while I am no motor expert I do know how to conduct a reasonable experiment.
Now looking at this discussion and the assumptions of Niels seems to point towards this setting in fact being some sort of overdrive setting where overshoot is built into the signal, similar to a monitors pixel overdrive settings. This makes quite a difference to how the setting works and really effects whether I would want it on as it is now messing with the signal in a way I can see potential problems. As such the lack of clarify with this setting forces me to just turn it off. If I knew more precisely how it worked (while still protecting the IP) I might be able to make a better educated decision but as it is ULLM seems like marketing speak at a level worse than any competitors use. Which is at odds with GD’s normal brand and tone being an industrial robotics company where clarity of language is vital.
These days I am running approx. 0.5 specific output so much higher forces but I pile on the inertia to take the fight out of the wheel, I don’t suffer from oscillations because of this and I would prefer to leave predictive behaviour just to the reconstruction filter so ULLM is currently off. It would be nice to know actually how it worked, I might be convinced its better to turn it back on. Obviously these are all margin of error improvements but still…
Agree wholeheartedly.
In the same boat, as an engineer I am hesitant to use that function due to lack of proper documentation. Same can apply to some other filters like static force reduction, recon filter, resonance reduction, etc.
Why can’t we have more than one sentence technical exlanation on the specific function, with some graphs where applicable, in the user guide, not buried deep down on some internet board?
I don’t understand that ‘I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you’. If you want to protect your intellectual property, you need to patent it, not hide from the rest of the world. Plus you can always keep implementation details to yourself.
That should really help end users making more educated decisions during profiles tuning, instead of blindly copying some random, posted on the board settings from the same ill-educated users.
Since it seems to be some sort of prediction modelling (if I understand it correctly), I just turn it off. Strange that 19% works best in iRacing. I always thought off would be best. Maybe iRacing is an exception because of it’s relatively very slow FFB update rate (60 Hz)? But I thought that’s what reconstruction filter is for: to act as sort of interpolation (like TVs with fake 120 Hz, 240 Hz, 600 Hz, etc., they use interpolation to create the next frame based on the previous frame/s). But then I hear people saying recon filter isn’t interpolation, it’s for giving the wheel a more “rubbery” feel. Well doing interpolation for low FFB update rates (mostly iRacing) and giving a more rubbery feel (any game) are 2 different things, so which one is it? Lol.
Honestly, I just go by feel. In the end, I think that’s what really matters. We’re driving; we’re not in a science lab conducting FFB experiments (although the info would be nice, don’t get me wrong).
My primarily used filters, in no particular order, are: Damper, Friction, Slew-Rate, and Inertia. My secondaries are Recon, Torque Bandwidth, and Static Reduction. My least used, by far, is Ultra Low Latency.
ultra low latency mode is what i set at 19%. i have no idea if the optimal value can be a bit different depending on which sc2 model is used, or which components your pc is running (gd still hasnt answered that question properly). but i am pretty sure that 19% on iracing works best in my case (sc2 ultimate).
Ultra-low Latency setting is not some fixed ideal value that some will have you believe.
Its ‘ideal’ value will be unique to your individual setup, depending on other settings too. In my case, with the higher-than-average torque I am running, I find a good setting between 8-11%. Anything higher and it will encourage oscillatory behaviour.
Of course, lowering the torque, I can increase the value. Have a play with it, there is no common ideal setting, unless you’re running the exact replica of someone else’s settings, steering-rim etc…
Do you know if there are new setups in the making that’ll be added in the TD list though?
ie:
ACC hi/lo torque
IRacing/RF2/AC GTE/open-wheelers/GT3/MX5 (hi/lo torque), to name a few…
A bit like Heusinkveld do with its software.
This would give simple/outta the box/plug n’ play answers/solid starting base to every one as lazy as I am ^^
It was the optimum for me by conducting experiment in multiple cars where i would go down a straight and with other filter settings on the edge of oscillation find the value which was repeatedly better.
Im by no means saying its optimum for everyone. I just want to know how it works enough to make correct choices. If i knew how it worked i could understand secondary consequences to my choices. To say this isnt science is kind of missing the point. We have got to this fantastic point in DD wheels precisely due to scientific approach. Gains may be small but they are still gains and i paid a premium to get the SC2 and have the best i can have. It would be cool to not be in the dark on the setting.
Having said that im still happy and those arnt toys going out of the pram
No placebo in my case, perhaps for some it might be. I unfortunately am one who is very sensitive to latency, both visual and tactile; for me, the Low-latency filter helps with car-control.
I would run it higher if I could, but combined with my other settings, I get oscillatory behaviour once I pass the ~12% mark. Running between 8-11% gives me about 0.1sec/ave per lap in iRacing, vs running at zero.
It will be a personal thing, as is sensitivity to latency on displays…
Best is to test it out and see if you gain from it or not. One shoe indeed doesn’t fit all.
Beano, that was in reference to max value 20% vs recommened by someone and copied everywhere else 19%. Does it really make a difference or odd and fractional numbers just make it look more scientific?
Andrew, ha, I am struggling with reading-comprehension basics today In any event, there will be a very small delta between 19 and 20%. I will always use the highest number for ULL that is stable, but at the level of control and response the SC2 provides, difference between 19 and 20 are only semantics - or, in this case, placebo indeed Apologies for the misunderstanding.
In any event, I think we have many budding rocket-scientists in our DD community, haha
Thanks Beano, that should ease my not very scientific mind.
My personal observations after playing around with this filter in different titles.
Description perhaps is not very precise as it does more than just removing oscillatory behavior.
Example, Assetto Corsa, it has embedded Gyro (Dynamic Damping in ACC) which essentially removes any oscillation on straightaways, yet I have found this filter quite beneficial in AC as well.
It does take edge off some sharp details, the feedback feels more rubbery, like from real tires.
Eases that harsh slap back after understeer when you start gaining traction back.
5% is more than enough there, anything more and it starts eating too much details.
The other one is R3E, that one has very offensive oscillatory behavior (no dynamic damping) and require maxed out full 20% of Ultra Low Latency to let lower Damping to some reasonable 20% level so it doesn’t feel like driving through molasses.
Hope we’ll get some more descriptive explanation on the filter behavior and what it does somewhere down the road when the team gets some room to breathe to revisit documentation.
This discussion is so far over my head I can’t even see it. As a soon to be new racing gamer and new SC2 Pro owner I hope I can figure out a setup that will allow me to be as competitive as my developing skills will allow. Hopefully the above two sentences make sense. I don’t want to be a computer hardware/software expert. I want to spend my time and effort learning to drive fast, safely, in a crowd on various tracks. I need to keep the setups reasonably simple. Hopefully you all can provide assistance. I don’t want to be trading paint with you fine folks while I’m trying to pass safely. Neither do I want to hold you up when you’re faster than me. I want you to be able to pass safely. I’m looking forward to racing with you when I graduate from Iracing rookie school.
In any event, there will be a very small delta between 19 and 20%. I will always use the highest number for ULL that is stable, but at the level of control and response the SC2 provides, difference between 19 and 20 are only semantics - or, in this case, placebo indeed 