Here’s the interesting part about motion and lap times (personal opinion only). After getting into (errhhh….watching) racing over the last two years, what impressed me most about the drivers, is their ability to race successfully while ensuring the harsh environment introduced by a motor vehicle barreling along at a high speed.It's amazing that the Gbelt has the effect of reducing lap times, when I found that adding motion had the opposite effect. I'm very happy with my static chassis with Gbelt and a high end tactile system to flesh it out.
I would not know as I have not driven a race car, but that misses the point I was making. The point I was making was that there are many forces imposed on your body when you drive an actual car, which makes driving fast harder - as the driver has to endure the movements, bumps, shaking, gforces, etc. What motion brings to sim racing is an analogous persistent interruption, making sim racing with motion harder than sim racing just sitting still. Hence - the drop in lap times. It doesn’t make you a bad sim racer, it just makes it more challenging.Sim motions are not nearly real-world
Yeah it was a total shock that the G Belt was making me faster, it makes it an invaluable purchase
So much so that I think SimXperience should consider a GS6 seat with the G belt built in or a bundle offer if you buy both at the same time.
The two go together really well, I think those who haven't experienced a GS5 seat and G Belt combo will be surprised at just how much feedback you get from them.
Once you tweak these effects so that they are all subtle and not over exaggerated it makes for a very immersive experience in VR
- There's the obvious G forces through a corner which is amazing in IndyCar ovals
- Braking and acceleration forces, I need to play with this more to get the GS5 braking and acceleration effects to work in tandem better with the GBelt braking and acceleration effects. Some people switch these effects off on the GS5 seat and just use the G Belt effects but I prefer them both on but just haven't decided on intensity combo settings
- Track elevation changes
- Suspension movement heave
- Traction loss coming out of a corner, I have traction loss switched off on the wheel and only use the GS5 seat traction loss for that seat of the pants feeling
- Inertia when braking hard into a corner you can feel the back end begin to step out
- ABS and traction control can also be felt through the belt
Really? Having done both,that misses the point I was making
I think we are in agreement, but speaking to different things. You are talking about sim as tool for real car racers, where learning wrong is bad and the also the premise that motion systems are not necessarily representative of real life. I am merely stating that motion creates a physical challenge for sim racers just as real racers are challenged. So the point is that having zero motion is an advantage for sim racers, as they have no physical challenge to compensate for, which would explain why people report no increase in lap times when using motion.Really? Having done both, I'll agree that one must learn to filter track driving sensations.
That may be relatively easy for "natural" athletes (don't know, not me).
Many, if not most, sim motions feel wrong and (at least for me) much harder to ignore.
Whether attempting to drive well despite incorrect stimulations is entertaining and enjoyable must be subjective. Going further, at least for me, learning to drive in sim while ignoring wrong feedback could impact real driving.
Yep I was meaning that I can feel it through the regular simcommander effectsDid I miss something, or is there ABS and TC-like settings within Simcommander for the G-Belt? Or did you mean you feel these effects within the regular effects of brake, acceleration, cornering, etc? I do feel a little bit of TC coming on as it interrupts acceleration and I have that active within my profile. You get that stuttery feeling of the throttle not picking up smoothly through the belt.
I agree with you to a point.The problem I found with (different) motion systems is that the forces you feel in the sim are not authentic and realistic compared to the real world. Not just talking about G load and the actual amount of force you feel in a real car compared to what a sim can reproduce. Often the limitations of the motion simulator create situations where the car is doing things in the sim that it wouldn't do in real life. Awkward jerky movements due to telemetry readings being interpreted a certain way by the motion controller, the necessity of movement in a sim to replicate forces in the real world car vs actual forces felt on the body in the real world physics, etc. It's definitely a wow moment when you try it for the first time, but the more I drove with it, the more I realised that I was sacrificing my ability to drive the car (somewhat) quickly not because of the forces felt, but because of the type of forces felt.
It's just my opinion after having many devices to replicate real world (wind, G-belt, seat mover motion, full chassis motion, high end tactile system, VR) and I would firmly plant motion at the very end of the list of things I'd rather have when comparing all of those systems.
As a mostly competitive sim racer, it's also worth mentioning that the vast majority of your fellow drivers are not using such systems and I definitely feel that a static chassis makes you better able to focus on lap times. So, while the immersion is great for the most part, I definitely feel that not being bounced around is helping me get that much closer to the pointy end.
Thing is now that I own a G Belt I wouldn't consider it a motion device as such. I think it falls in-between a motion device and a very useful feedback tool. The question is, is it worth $1k for that additional feedback?Here’s the interesting part about motion and lap times (personal opinion only). After getting into (errhhh….watching) racing over the last two years, what impressed me most about the drivers, is their ability to race successfully while ensuring the harsh environment introduced by a motor vehicle barreling along at a high speed.
Therefore, I don’t view motion as reducing lap times, I view it as subjecting the e-racer to simulated real-world conditions.
What do you guys think?
For sure, I also do not consider belt tensioning a motion devicenow that I own a G Belt I wouldn't consider it a motion device
Where would you place the GS5 on the same scale? When compared against the GBelt, would you consider it equivalent, better, or worse with respect to it being a useful feedback tool?Thing is now that I own a G Belt I wouldn't consider it a motion device as such. I think it falls in-between a motion device and a very useful feedback tool.
Although I do not have a motion rig, I also have no real race car experience; I agree with your point about static sim rigs being an advantage for simracing. Being jostled around surely has to be a hindrance when trying to apply precise steering and pedal inputs.I think we are in agreement, but speaking to different things. You are talking about sim as tool for real car racers, where learning wrong is bad and the also the premise that motion systems are not necessarily representative of real life. I am merely stating that motion creates a physical challenge for sim racers just as real racers are challenged. So the point is that having zero motion is an advantage for sim racers, as they have no physical challenge to compensate for, which would explain why people report no increase in lap times when using motion.
I have no real race car experience, but I do drive a car and understand at a high level what types of forces are in play when driving. What I can say is that the combination of dbox with gseat and Gbelt create an awesome experience. I make no claim to how close these systems bring you to a perfectly replicated race car experience.
Cannot argue with that...I also believe
1:1 scaling is not necessary for simulation and the better system vendors have exceptional scaling algorithms. They also don't overdo settings by default. The gseat/belt are tremendous for immersion and usable feedback. Finally, with respect to roll, gseat/belt do a better job than motion alone, but together they rock.Cannot argue with that...
Suppose a motion system with capability for +/-10 degrees of yaw AKA traction loss.
Should that system attempt to simulate more than 10 degrees of yaw?
I can claim with high confidence that attempting
to use it to simulate sustained lateral/rotational acceleration
resulting in more than that 10 degrees of yaw change will feel weird,
even ignoring differences among degrees of front vs rear traction loss,
when actuator limits are reached.
Motion simulation limited to transients within actuator limits,
perhaps even with some non-linear scaling, may not break immersion
for e.g. pavement seams and modest curbs and rumble strips.
Problem is, sim racing games are not designed to sort telemetry
for finite yaw, pitch and heave transients from those involving sustained accelerations.
They could in theory attempt doing so,
given predefined racing lines and predicted driver inputs, but they generally don't.
Beyond that, motion sim vendors seemingly cannot resist
attempting to e.g. simulate sustained accelerations by bogus yaw, pitch and heave cues.
If breaking immersion is not a concern, then totally random distractions may be fine.