Authorised Vendor DK Sigma Motion System | USA Made

[SigmaMotion]

Hi. I have a question: rather than attaching three big monitors to the rig and having it move with the rig, would it be possible to have the monitors on a structure that moves in concert with the rig? That would alleviate the impact of a number of things like haptics and vibration, and it could be configured to make only certain movements. For example, pitch up and pitch down at an angle, consistent with the rig, but not necessarily the same speed or jerkiness.
Just curious, and just an idea, for a way for future DK6 like systems to work with big triple monitors, although not necessarily at the same speed or jerkiness.

This is actually a good idea.

And strange you say that as we are working on a side project that allows us to push multiple motion streams to multiple motion devices.. ;-) I know I've said this before, but this is another advantage of network transport vs. USB.

 

[vannib]

Also sorry for the late reply. We are working on interesting new features/additions/projects and also still tuning the DK6 as we speak.

Hi,
Any plan to add Vr motion compensation? Any timeframe?

 

[NetLawMan]

This is actually a good idea.

And strange you say that as we are working on a side project that allows us to push multiple motion streams to multiple motion devices.. ;-) I know I've said this before, but this is another advantage of network transport vs. USB.

Cool. Looking forward to future projects

 

[SigmaMotion]

DK2(plus)

 

[NetLawMan]

View attachment 603620
DK2(plus)

How does that bmw wheel feel in hand for gt racing?

 

[FireWithin]

This is our Dynamic Scaling Algorithm that we developed to maximize the full stroke of the motion system. From our website:

"
First, we need to understand, that 1 degree of pitch, will use different amounts of travel, depending on the distance between the front and rear actuators (rig length). Also, 1 degree of roll will use different amounts of travel, depending on the distance between the left and right actuators (rig width). For the examples below, let's use a rig length of 30" and a rig width of 30".

Let's start with the common static allocation for a 3DOF 2" motion system. DK2 currently has four layers of pitch and roll (DK6 has 6 layers) and 1 layer of heave.

Heave: 40% (0.8 inch)
Surge to pitch (highlights pedal and shift inputs): 15% (+/- 0.57311 degrees, 0.3 inch)
Sway to roll (highlights turning roll): 15% (+/- 0.57311 degrees, 0.3 inch)
Environment pitch (real pitch): 15% (+/- 0.57311 degrees, 0.3 inch)
Environment roll (real roll): 15% (+/- 0.57311 degrees, 0.3 inch)
Total allocation: 40% + 15% + 15% + 15% + 15% = 100%
Total travel allocated: 0.8" + 0.3" + 0.3" + 0.3" + 0.3" = 2.0"

The are 2 main issues with this approach:

1) Each of the pitch & roll layer only has a range of +/- 0.57311 degrees, which is too little from our experience. As the rig dimensions get longer and wider, this range will get even smaller! i.e. At rig length of 49", the pitch range drops to +/- 0.35 degrees. To mitigate this, you can use less motion layers but that would be a huge compromise. Our research shows the importance of these four pitch and roll layers. Another approach is to reduce the heave allocation of 40% (0.8 inch). Unfortunately, this is also a huge compromise and we believe 0.8 inch is the absolute minimum for heave.

2) Not all the layers are fully active all the time, thus wasting precious travel space.

Sigma's Solution:

Our research shows that each pitch & roll layer needs an allocation of at least 1 degree. Hence, Sigma uses degrees to allocate travel. This approach also allows the motion experience to be identical regardless of the rig's length and width. i.e. same car, same track, same tuning setting, same braking force applied, will generate the same pitch in the rig, regardless of the rig’s length.

Here is the final allocation of the DK2 system for a rig with 30” length and 30” width:

Heave - 40% (0.8 inch)
Surge to pitch (highlights pedal and shift inputs): 1.00 degree (26.2%, 0.524 inch)
Sway to roll (highlights turning roll): 1.25 degrees (32.72%, 0.6544 inch)
Environment pitch (real pitch): +/- 1.25 degrees (32.72%, 0.6544 inch)
Environment roll (real roll): +/- 1.25 degrees (32.72%, 0.6544 inch)
Total allocation: 40% + 26.2% + 32.72% + 32.72% + 32.72% = 164.36%
Total travel allocated: 0.8" + 0.524" + 0.6544" + 0.6544" + 0.6544" = 3.2872"

In other words, the system is over allocated (164.36%) and is comparable to a system with 3.2872" travel.

If the rig length is increased to 49", and the width stays at 30", here are the allocation results:
The system is over allocated (212.34%) and is comparable to a system with 4.2468" travel.

The dynamic-scaling-algorithm works on the four pitch and roll layers, which shares 60% of the physical travel, while the heave layer gets a dedicated 40% physical allocation. When the four pitch & roll layers exceed the physical space available, each of the four layers are dynamically scaled lower, so they fit the travel space. The result is the illusion of a much longer travel system.

The origin of this algorithm is from Sigma's full motion systems (commercial full-size vehicles) where the amount of travel required to make 1 degree of pitch, or 1 degree of roll, takes up almost the full travel of the system. A static allocation approach simply would diminish the motion experience, and the development of this dynamic-scaling-algorithm was absolutely critical.

"

Hello Sir,

Contemplating buying a motion system, I read all the above but still not sure to understand the principles of the actuator placement?

First, is the 30"x30" footprint in your example actually the c/c of the actuator? Asking, because you keep referring to rig dimension? And is this value to be considered as a sweet spot for the 2" travel system? Or is the algorithm will always compensate, If so I'm sure there is a maximum and minimum value, right? That is, if we go to the extreme.

Secondly, before reading any of this, my logic was to actually have a rig where I could have the actuator the farthest apart to mimic a real car effect suspension. Because, again using the extreme, if I were to have them at 15" apart it would most likely feel unrealistic right away . . seat mover like, right? But going farther apart would bring angle & distance probaly improving perceived feeling, no? What's a typical wheelbase of a car? About 110" long and maybe 60" wide? Obviously, this would have needed to be combined with at least a 4" or better a 6" travel actuator, I doubt a 2" would have had good results. Any thoughts on this? I'm a bit confused, I need clarity

My vision !

Most rig ?

And lastly, what would be your take on weight distribution? My first logical thought would have been to make it 50-50 especially if you're close to the actuator "limits" like the dk2 combine with the big guy & the heavy rig? Looking at 95% of the rigs online, it looks like it sits roughly at a typical 70 rear, 30 front, weight spread. I mean, we imitated what we most see, right?

I'm surprised because I feel like the center to center dimension of the actuator and the weight distribution would have a great effect on efficiency in both durability and physics with minimal cost-effort from the customer end. Any thoughts? FYI, I didn't read the manual yet :0

Thanks &
Regards

 

[FireWithin]

Hello Sir,

Contemplating buying a motion system, I read all the above but still not sure to understand the principles of the actuator placement?

First, is the 30"x30" footprint in your example actually the c/c of the actuator? Asking, because you keep referring to rig dimension? And is this value to be considered as a sweet spot for the 2" travel system? Or is the algorithm will always compensate, If so I'm sure there is a maximum and minimum value, right? That is, if we go to the extreme.

View attachment 605414

Secondly, before reading any of this, my logic was to actually have a rig where I could have the actuator the farthest apart to mimic a real car effect suspension. Because, again using the extreme, if I were to have them at 15" apart it would most likely feel unrealistic right away . . seat mover like, right? But going farther apart would bring angle & distance probaly improving perceived feeling, no? What's a typical wheelbase of a car? About 110" long and maybe 60" wide? Obviously, this would have needed to be combined with at least a 4" or better a 6" travel actuator, I doubt a 2" would have had good results. Any thoughts on this? I'm a bit confused, I need clarity

My vision !
View attachment 605422

Most rig ?
View attachment 605423

And lastly, what would be your take on weight distribution? My first logical thought would have been to make it 50-50 especially if you're close to the actuator "limits" like the dk2 combine with the big guy & the heavy rig? Looking at 95% of the rigs online, it looks like it sits roughly at a typical 70 rear, 30 front, weight spread. I mean, we imitated what we most see, right?

I'm surprised because I feel like the center to center dimension of the actuator and the weight distribution would have a great effect on efficiency in both durability and physics with minimal cost-effort from the customer end. Any thoughts? FYI, I didn't read the manual yet :0

Thanks &
Regards

Hey SigmaMotion, thanks for liking, but what I'd really like is for you to comment .. thanks

 

[SigmaMotion]

@vannib motion compensation will most likely be next year. Getting more and more requests on this and will be more important with DK6.

 

[SigmaMotion]

@NetLawMan No idea on the BMW wheel actually. It's a customer rig build from Allin1Gaming ;-)

 

[SigmaMotion]

@FireWithin working on a proper, well formulated response. This is a good question. ;-)

 

[SigmaMotion]

Hello FireWithin,

Thanks for your interest in our motion system, would be glad to answer your questions. First thing, amazing questions as these are the very fundamental problems we try to solve all the time. Also, the vision you have of replicating the virtual car's chassis dimensions (wheelbase and track) was our goal from day one since 2017. We are currently very close to this vision, as our core focus is on suspension simulation, but we still have some work to do (more on this later).

For the 30"x30" footprint, that is the center-to-center of the actuators. The main reason we ask for rig dimensions is because we control the rig's pitch and roll using degrees. For example, the travel required to move the rig exactly 1 degree depends on the center-to-center distance between the front and rear actuators. The further the distance, the more actuator travel is required, and the closer the distance the less travel (just basic trig). Hence, we recommend minimizing the distance between the actuators to optimize the pitch and roll range of the rig (but not too small as it would throw off the weight distribution). From our recommendations, the length should be around 30" to 37" and the width should be around 25" to 30". Every rig is different, so these are just guidelines. The current range that we support for rig dimensions is 20" to 49" for both length and width.

Getting back to an important point above, there are reasons why we want to control the rig through a standard rotational unit:
1) Game telemetries also use degrees (or radians) to communicate the orientation of the game's virtual chassis.
2) We want to standardize the scaling/intensity for everyone. For example, if the Environment slider is at 5 out of 10, this means 50% of reality for pitch and roll. So if the game vehicle hits a bump in one corner and does 1 degree of pitch and 1 degree of roll, we want the rig do 0.5 degree of pitch and 0.5 degree of roll, regardless of the rig dimensions.

If you notice in the Environment slider example, we have only one slider to control the true pitch and roll of the rig. This goes back to our vision of replicating the game vehicle's chassis orientation. We need the correct ratio between pitch and roll in order to achieve this, so we do not give an option to decouple them. It's perfectly okay to scale the motion down (i.e. 50%) but the scaling needs to be done to both pitch and roll, in order to maintain the correct ratio.

Let's dive deep now to your idea of moving the actuators to match the game vehicle's chassis dimensions (we'll call virtual chassis), which corresponds to your picture of "My vision". This is essentially a perfect match in dimensions between the virtual chassis and the rig chassis. This is a good starting point when thinking about motion simulation. It's absolutely critical to start at this point. When Sigma builds full motion systems (real car's turned to simulators) this model naturally happens so this problem is automatically solved.

Now trying to build a rig with a center-to-center dimension of 110" by 60" (from your example) sounds good in theory but in practice it's not practical because it will take up much more space, weigh more, cost more, rig would have more flex, etc. Also, every virtual chassis has a different dimension, so you don't want a motion system that relies on the physical dimensions of the rig. The answer is to solve this fundamental problem through algorithms, so that the typical 4-post rig that has center-to-center dimensions of around 35" x 27", can replicate the virtual chassis that has a much larger dimension (i.e. 110" x 60"). This requires perfect coordination between pitch, roll and heave, which we have spent five years developing and continuously improving.

There are advantages to this approach:
1) Lower cost, smaller footprint, rig is more rigid, etc.
2) Pitch and roll range of the rig become much larger which helps prevent saturation (running out of travel, #1 nemesis of simulation)

The current DK motion systems will simulate the driver being at the virtual chassis' center (see picture).

As you can see the rig seat doesn't align with the virtual chassis' seat location. This error is usually very low for F1 cars but with any left-hand or right-hand drive cars, the error will be larger. We plan to implement a new algorithm called "Driver Offset" which will help correct for this error. The cost of implementing this algorithm is precious travel hence why we opted not to implement this for DK2. However, with DK6 we have the opportunity to implement it. We just recently released DK6 so this new algorithm is still in R&D and it will likely be sometime next year when it comes out.

For weight distribution of a typical rig, most of the weight is naturally at the rears where the driver seat is located so you are right with the 70 (rears) and 30 (fronts) estimate. Our DK2 system can easily handle this weight distribution as we have put lots of margin on the weight capacity specification (125 lbs per actuator). For heavier rigs, we have DK2+ that can handle 200 lbs per actuator.

Hope this helps clarify our various approaches to motion simulation!

Hello Sir,

Contemplating buying a motion system, I read all the above but still not sure to understand the principles of the actuator placement?

First, is the 30"x30" footprint in your example actually the c/c of the actuator? Asking, because you keep referring to rig dimension? And is this value to be considered as a sweet spot for the 2" travel system? Or is the algorithm will always compensate, If so I'm sure there is a maximum and minimum value, right? That is, if we go to the extreme.

View attachment 605414

Secondly, before reading any of this, my logic was to actually have a rig where I could have the actuator the farthest apart to mimic a real car effect suspension. Because, again using the extreme, if I were to have them at 15" apart it would most likely feel unrealistic right away . . seat mover like, right? But going farther apart would bring angle & distance probaly improving perceived feeling, no? What's a typical wheelbase of a car? About 110" long and maybe 60" wide? Obviously, this would have needed to be combined with at least a 4" or better a 6" travel actuator, I doubt a 2" would have had good results. Any thoughts on this? I'm a bit confused, I need clarity

My vision !
View attachment 605422

Most rig ?
View attachment 605423

And lastly, what would be your take on weight distribution? My first logical thought would have been to make it 50-50 especially if you're close to the actuator "limits" like the dk2 combine with the big guy & the heavy rig? Looking at 95% of the rigs online, it looks like it sits roughly at a typical 70 rear, 30 front, weight spread. I mean, we imitated what we most see, right?

I'm surprised because I feel like the center to center dimension of the actuator and the weight distribution would have a great effect on efficiency in both durability and physics with minimal cost-effort from the customer end. Any thoughts? FYI, I didn't read the manual yet :0

Thanks &
Regards

 

[patrickmmor]

Jumping in here to make my first post on RD. Just ordered a dk2+ system. Absolutely looking forward to getting this system installed and setup.

 

[dval78]

Congrats. You‘ll love them, I know I do. Sigma Intregrale is an amazing company, excellent customer service and support.

 

[NetLawMan]

Do you guys plan on Forza support? I had not played in some time and I forgot how much fun it is with motion. Played horizon 5 for 3 hours straight yesterday . In particular, the sense of elevation, which I feel/experience more in Forza than I do in the sims.

 

[SigmaMotion]

Do you guys plan on Forza support? I had not played in some time and I forgot how much fun it is with motion. Played horizon 5 for 3 hours straight yesterday . In particular, the sense of elevation, which I feel/experience more in Forza than I do in the sims.

Hey NetLawMan.

We have a big project on the go right now, but we will push another update end of the year and next year we will really grow with some new products, features, but first, more game additions. This includes Forza. Adding games is relatively easy for us, 1-2 weeks to get the plumbing nailed down, but still requires a ton of testing, which is really where the delays are. For 2 years now we wanted to implement automated software testing, but setting up these tests is almost as long as running the tests themselves, so we always opted for the just manually testing each release. We have a small but very technical group of Sigma Testers (not beta testers, no betas here, lol) on our Discord group that I think will help us with testing in the future. (We have made some great clients/friends, all over the world, blessed. ;-) )

But we are always trying to add value in some way or another and never standing still. Some interesting things coming next year for sure. Some of the top 5 I can think of:

1) more vehicle games added
2) more flight titles added, with unique layers for flight
3) VR motion compensation addition
4) additional DOF's
5) DK6+ for commercial application, of 1300-1500 lbs total mass

....

 

[SigmaMotion]

Congrats. You‘ll love them, I know I do. Sigma Intregrale is an amazing company, excellent customer service and support.

Thank-you dval78! ;-)

The Golden Rule, do onto others as you would like done onto you. Simple really.

 

[patrickmmor]

Congrats. You‘ll love them, I know I do. Sigma Intregrale is an amazing company, excellent customer service and support.

What is your favorite game/car/track combo to run with your system ?

Lately I've been spending a lot of time in AMS2 either the v10 f1 at Silverstone, or the super karts at VIR.

 

[NetLawMan]

I like the Porsche 991 and the Audio R8 at spa/Monza in ACC. I like any of the F1 at spa/Monza in F1 or AMS2. I like the older Subarus, and newer fords and similar cars in Poland and New England in Dirt Rally 2.

 

[patrickmmor]

Something I have been curious about, does the motion work when watching a replay of the session/race ?
I'm curious if I can essentially do "ride alongs" for people by running replay videos while they're in the seat.

 

[NetLawMan]

@SigmaMotion - will you be supporting WRC generations?

According to this DOC, on page 20 they say it will have telemetry out! This is from the WRCGame website.