SimExperience G-Belt or PT Actuator Tension-R

[Deleted member 1066209]

Very nice review @crooksy, it's very reassuring to hear about your G Belt improving lap times!

 

[anton_Chez]

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.

 

[crooksy]

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.

• 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

Once you tweak these effects so that they are all subtle and not over exaggerated it makes for a very immersive experience in VR

 

[NetLawMan]

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.

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?

 

[blekenbleu]

Sim motions are not nearly real-world

 

[NetLawMan]

Sim motions are not nearly real-world

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.

 

[anton_Chez]

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.

 

[anton_Chez]

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.

• 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

Once you tweak these effects so that they are all subtle and not over exaggerated it makes for a very immersive experience in VR

Did 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.

 

[blekenbleu]

that misses the point I was making

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.

 

[NetLawMan]

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.

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.

 

[crooksy]

Did 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.

Yep I was meaning that I can feel it through the regular simcommander effects

 

[crooksy]

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.

I agree with you to a point.

I think the beauty of the GS5 seat and GBelt is that you can turn the effects way down but still get valuable feedback in VR. That's the point I was trying to make.

 

[crooksy]

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?

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?

I'd say yes, anyone with a static rig I think should be getting one of these immediately after a DD wheel and pedal upgrade I reckon.

 

[blekenbleu]

now that I own a G Belt I wouldn't consider it a motion device

For sure, I also do not consider belt tensioning a motion device
and rate it roughly comparable to load cell for braking "quality of life".

 

[Deleted member 1066209]

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.

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?

 

[Deleted member 1066209]

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.

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.

Despite motion being noncompetitive in simracing, I also believe that it can be used as a great training tool for real-life preparation, since - like you've mentioned earlier - it simulates the external forces that real-life drivers must deal with.

 

[blekenbleu]

I also believe

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.

 

[wajdi]

I’m faster and consistent within my motion system and G-belt. It’s all about setting !
When I started with motion 2-3 years ago it was all about setting my motions profiles very harsh and strong and it was very distracting and yes I was slower … but with time I understood that to much motion isn’t good and isn’t enjoyable at all… so I started ti reduce my settings to 90% and it was better and I was getting faster again then I reduce it to 80% then …. Now I have it set to 55% and it’s perfect . Now I have both immersion and being faster and specially I’m enjoying it more and more … and I can extend my actuators life a lot .

 

[NetLawMan]

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.

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.

Of course, none of this will stop someone from ramping up settings to make it a roller coaster ride.

 

[RCHeliguy]

Exactly you want everything working together like a symphony together without anything jumping out at you.

I only have something dialed up so I can play with that effect by itself and once it is doing what I want, I dial it back down so it blends.

You can probably extend your time in the simulator as well because you don't feel worn out as quickly from to much everything.