SimLabs GT1 build log (includes NLV3 motion platform mounting)

[anton_Chez]

It starts.....

5 weeks ago I decided to pull the trigger on a chassis upgrade after building an 'Anthony Room' extension on the bottom level of my house. I ordered a SimLabs GT1 80 / 20 cockpit after hearing so many good things about this type of material for sim racing cockpits.

It arrived this afternoon.

After 50kg's worth of aluminium made its way from the Netherlands to Australia, it still had an hour drive home from work before we could get started.

My games room:

Cleaning up whatever was in the way in the yet to be completed move-in, I made room to begin the build. Half the components of my new build are yet to arrive. As some may know, I also decided that nowhere near enough money was spend on the chassis and decided to upgrade to an OSW direct drive wheel, HE Pro Pedals and handbrake. 2 Buttkicker Mini LFE's will also replace my 4 Aura Bass Shakers used on the previous build. As you can see I was quite eager to try them and 5 weeks is a long wait for anything in sim racing. They are screwed to an old table and I've been running them while driving with a game pad sitting at my PC, in-between them.

It's highly NOT recommended to try and drive with a game pad, FYI.....

Getting on to crack open the boxes now.

Everything was pretty well packed and nothing seems to be damaged. @Mascot was right about the lack of instructions.... None whatsoever. Just knowing what the parts are for would have been enough, but I assume that they all go together a particular way and you would know if a part was wrong as long as you follow a logical build structure. One slightly disappointing thing was that I received the standard, cheaper Fanatec shifter mount (one I originally had in the cart) but I ordered the more expensive, round looking one. I am sure I can make it work. If I get the extra parts that I requested, I'll be happy. Who knows, I may not even need it and just use it as a Buttkicker mount for the rear....

Time to get started.

Bottom frame loosely together to allow for adjustments before I tighten down and pull everything into square. Nice of SimLabs to include the rubber feet of the P1 in my GT1 build. On their site it states you get plastic feet which in the pictures do look slightly higher and obviously a different material to the rubber included in the P1. I appreciate that. I do have some rubber isolation coming for the seat and pedals and planned on using the left overs for the feet. Well they aren't here yet and as @Mascot pointed out, put the feet on before you get too far into the build. I have to change pedals soon anyway and will sort all of the above ground stuff out later. Much easier to get to than turning the chassis upside down once the monitors are on.....

A side note. I was worried how much room this chassis would take behind my desk chair here (my PC is to the left of the chassis in the photo). It's footprint is actually pretty good as you can see. You can measure all you like before hand but nothing is like actually having the item in the place where it's going to be sitting. I think I'll be OK.

A quick look at how the V3 platform fits inside the seat mounting frame. The gap either side of the bottom frame is actually not too bad. Spacers might have worked and allowed me to drop into the frame a bit better than what I have planned. I do have an idea though, and will try that once I get some food into me and continue the build. You can see the absolutely shocking drill out I had to do on the rear of the top frame of the platform to accommodate the seat slider and H frame on the old chassis. These are both gone now and the build will be much better for it. The lower I can get this platform the more options I have when choosing a seating position. I've always wanted to have my feet high and stuck out way in front to simulate being in an open wheeler. Hopefully this chassis and what I have planned for the V3 mount will allow this.

Having fun so far

So, the original (above) brackets I had in mind were a little too long. The platform barely sits above the carpet. Which is great for seating position but not so great for the fan underneath. So, I had some others lying around I was intending on using for Buttkicker mounts, that I don't think I will need. They also look HEAPS stronger, and will also bring the platform up enough for me to be comfortable with ventilation. Very similar to the single piece @Mascot had fabricated but not as nice

Mounting platform now.

So the second bracket option is a no go as well. The bolt heads hit up against the profile because of the different drop in the bracket. I've conceded that for tonight, at least, I am reverting back to plan A and taking it from there. I want to get most of this together tonight and if I spend any longer perfecting the V3 mount I may well have no time for anything else. The V3 does sit a fair bit higher this way, but it's something I can come back to later on without too much fuss, I'd say. With it in front of me I have a much better chance of knowing what will work best.

 

[Mascot]

@ Mascot I tried for ages to find one that was in Australia. One site is completely sold out of EVERYTHING. I even looked there for a DD option and they were sold out of their OSW's, sold out of the HE Pro's, Ultimates, shifters, everything. Another site wasn't even up and running so I got the guys contact through his Facebook page (I never use Facebook) and he reckons around a month and around $380 - $390 AUD depending on exchange rates at the time. So I thought, once I decided to get the pedals and handbrake, might as well get a few and save the shipping on just getting one, and sell them for a slight win.

No one wants them! They're on eBay for now. They'll sell eventually but, anyway...

I see on the eBay Australia site that you can buy a new Heusinkveld seq shifter from the UK for AU$350 with free express delivery. Don't Heusinkveld deliver to Australia directly from Holland then?

 

[anton_Chez]

@Mr Latte haha yeah I am joking around too. I am STILL waiting for my delivery of pedals and handbrake, so the past 2 days I have had off work, while not wasted, have been highly frustrating. In the mean time I have been playing with the tactile placement on the rear, as having no pedals (and still waiting for the mini mounts) doesn't make much sense to dial it in right now at the front.

This is where I have settled on the location of the rear unit. It's attached to the profile you spoke of before, but the front rail, as opposed to the rear one. For now, with the makeshift mount I have, it's the best fit and also, the best feeling. Lower end comes through a bit more, probably more than a bit, and the overall intensity is more than enough even with the amp only on 50%. These SMSL amps seem to power two of these just fine which really surprised me. They can go harder, but you don't really need it and the more you turn it, the intensity vs the heat and power generated is probably not worth it in the long run.

I have isolated the seat with the anti vibration pads, they are pretty good from what I can tell. Pretty hard and a nice square contact patch. Much better than what I had intended, the ones I ordered were WAY too small, it's hard to tell in photos. Where I have the mini mounted, I am not sure if I am getting the best value for money in regards to the isolation (I am still a little uninformed about that area, I probably need more testing on my own setup to understand it a little more).

The mini is still UNDER the pads, but I think this is as close to the seat as I can get before I run into trouble with clearance, mounting options, etc. There is one more spot but I have no way of testing it properly until my spare profile gets here and I feel the there won't be much difference. The only thing is that way, the mini will be ABOVE the isolation, which was what I was aiming for from the beginning, This should work but it remains to be seen how that option transfers the energy and if it's any better that what I already have here. It will definitely look WORSE but if the feeling is way better, I might run with it.

My testing has expired on SSW but just with the stock settings, it does feel pretty good. I had SimVibe running again today with the new location and it seems to feel much better. Running the EQ to remove the troublesome range works pretty good with SimVibe (still need to get it to work with SSW) and it's allowed me to just run with your stock FXXL setting without any modifications from me at all. It seems pretty good to me.

I'll grab a license for SSW and at least that way I can continue to use both. I feel that either one has it's strong points and limitations. Obviously. I do like the overall tone of SSW, and you don't need to mess with anything apart from a tick box and a single slider. The feeling is just a nice smooth transmission of the energy, SimVibe can feel a little unrefined at times but still good overall with FXXL and the EQ active. SSW needs SUPER LOW gain to be usable but once I get the EQ working it will be even better. Looking forward to dropping in some of your files.

 

[anton_Chez]

I see on the eBay Australia site that you can buy a new Heusinkveld seq shifter from the UK for AU$350 with free express delivery. Don't Heusinkveld deliver to Australia directly from Holland then?

If that's the case, that's highly annoying. I get a feeling they have that listed in USD? I looked everywhere (eBay included) and could not find one for under $400, and that was coming from UK too, I think. Nothing local. I'll have to have a look and if that's the case I a) paid too much for my original one and b) need to drop the price of mine to sell them.

Edit: Just checked it now, it's $350 but it's $58 to get it to Aus. Maybe for you it's free postage as it's in the UK?

 

[Mascot]

If that's the case, that's highly annoying. I get a feeling they have that listed in USD? I looked everywhere (eBay included) and could not find one for under $400, and that was coming from UK too, I think. Nothing local. I'll have to have a look and if that's the case I a) paid too much for my original one and b) need to drop the price of mine to sell them.

Edit: Just checked it now, it's $350 but it's $58 to get it to Aus. Maybe for you it's free postage as it's in the UK?

Ah, could be. Sorry mate. I just assumed because I was on eBay Aus that it would think I was located there.

Panic over! Phew!

 

[Ceolmor]

I've suggested this on the forums in other threads but what I think you (8020) guys are doing wrong regards tactile is going off in your own ideas regards mounting, positioning and installing. To me what would make more sense is communicating with each other findings and examples you have already tried. Highlighting what has or indeed hasn't worked and points like you just mentioned regards the alu transmitting mid/higher frequencies better.

I believe us 80/20 guys are sharing our findings and learning from our experiments, much of it based on the excellent guidance from you @Mr Latte. e.g. I have reported my results in my two threads, including my efforts to isolate the seat and pedals from the 80/20 rig. I have found helpful the results and photos posted by other 80/20 owners, including @AntoN_CheZ comments on using the side slot fixings on his Buttkicker instead of the bottom holes. I currently have a steel H plate under the seat but on top of the seat brackets, as recommended by you, and aluminium plates on either side, similar to @signman. I have shared the poor results of my adding Buttkickers to the increasingly popular Heusinkveld pedals and am currently shaing ideas on this with @Balroque.

We know different materials resonate at different frequencies, (we can even address this with EQ) steel is apparently better for low bass and often steel plates may help but I seriously look at some of the equipment and rigs you guys have in wonder. See the money that is spent yet regards improving the tactile installation people do not seem that bothered or willing to spend $100 or whatever on isolation materials/methods to enhance the quality of tactile they get from whatever tactile they own.

Again, I believe many 80/20 owners have spent good money on isolating materials. The problem is that, like everything, there is always something bigger, better and far more expensive just round the corner. Is binning the $60 I spent on 8 Buttkicker isolators and spending $250 on replacements really going to make all the difference?

I have isolated the seat with the anti vibration pads, they are pretty good from what I can tell. Pretty hard and a nice square contact patch. Much better than what I had intended, the ones I ordered were WAY too small, it's hard to tell in photos. Where I have the mini mounted, I am not sure if I am getting the best value for money in regards to the isolation (I am still a little uninformed about that area, I probably need more testing on my own setup to understand it a little more).

View attachment 250466

The mini is still UNDER the pads, but I think this is as close to the seat as I can get before I run into trouble with clearance, mounting options, etc. There is one more spot but I have no way of testing it properly until my spare profile gets here and I feel the there won't be much difference. The only thing is that way, the mini will be ABOVE the isolation, which was what I was aiming for from the beginning, This should work but it remains to be seen how that option transfers the energy and if it's any better that what I already have here. It will definitely look WORSE but if the feeling is way better, I might run with it.

If the isolator is between the seat and the Buttkicker, are you not isolating the source of the vibration from the seat you want it to reach?

 

[anton_Chez]

If the isolator is between the seat and the Buttkicker, are you not isolating the source of the vibration from the seat you want it to reach?

Well this is the thing, Mounting a tactile unit DIRECTLY to the seat of a seat mover is a difficult process and one that would most likely not be possible at all with a bigger tactile unit that Mr Latte is suggesting. So the mini LFE is probably the best you could hope to achieve this result with, and even with that I am having to resort to near enough is good enough. I started out with the best intentions to get that mini into the seat frame, but my seat has been a pain to mount to the V3 platform as it is (once I removed H frame and seat slider from its old configuration), even with the extra profile boosting it as a side effect of needing to bridge the unmatched hole pattern. Nonetheless, I have needed to use those isolation pads for packing the seat slightly higher, and they serve another purpose now, even if it wasn't the intended outcome, it is what it is.

At the end of the day, I have waited 6 weeks for my gear, my pedals still haven't shown up, and I just want to DRIVE! I've been super patient and done everything I can to get organised in the time that I couldn't yet enjoy the new build fully, and now am hoping to actually get some racing in rather than spend another month tinkering.

For what it's worth, where I have it now is the best it's felt from any position I have tried. I get good feedback, there is more juice in the tank (in terms of the amp) to get a little more out of it should I feel the need, and there is basically no rattle or unwanted noise once I EQ out the lower end of the range. I sort of wanted a more simple approach to tactile, hence the removal of 4 units in chassis mode to a 2 unit solution in extensions. Nicer units, more power, less mounting commitment, hopefully better experience. I think I am going to leave it where it is, but I may try one more spot and see how we go.

 

[Ceolmor]

Well this is the thing, Mounting a tactile unit DIRECTLY to the seat of a seat mover is a difficult process and one that would most likely not be possible at all with a bigger tactile unit that Mr Latte is suggesting. So the mini LFE is probably the best you could hope to achieve this result with, and even with that I am having to resort to near enough is good enough. I started out with the best intentions to get that mini into the seat frame, but my seat has been a pain to mount to the V3 platform as it is (once I removed H frame and seat slider from its old configuration), even with the extra profile boosting it as a side effect of needing to bridge the unmatched hole pattern. Nonetheless, I have needed to use those isolation pads for packing the seat slightly higher, and they serve another purpose now, even if it wasn't the intended outcome, it is what it is.

At the end of the day, I have waited 6 weeks for my gear, my pedals still haven't shown up, and I just want to DRIVE! I've been super patient and done everything I can to get organised in the time that I couldn't yet enjoy the new build fully, and now am hoping to actually get some racing in rather than spend another month tinkering.

For what it's worth, where I have it now is the best it's felt from any position I have tried. I get good feedback, there is more juice in the tank (in terms of the amp) to get a little more out of it should I feel the need, and there is basically no rattle or unwanted noise once I EQ out the lower end of the range. I sort of wanted a more simple approach to tactile, hence the removal of 4 units in chassis mode to a 2 unit solution in extensions. Nicer units, more power, less mounting commitment, hopefully better experience. I think I am going to leave it where it is, but I may try one more spot and see how we go.

I agree that there are times when you need to throw the rule book out the window and just rely upon what you backside is telling you. Also, agree you need to get a balance between tinkering with all this stuff and actually driving a sim/car.

 

[Furnace Inferno]

I’m still not convinced by this whole need for isolation, perhaps with more units to get better separation but a two tactile setup I don’t see the need.

I’ve got a BK Thumper mounted on the back of the Sim Lab P1 and it passes plenty of energy into my butt. I then have a BK Gamer 2 mounted directly under the pedals and can barely feel it at all with the Thumper on. I’ve also felt the uprights of the wheel deck and there’s barely any vibration being transferred into those.

Surely to simulate real car behaviour you don’t want to isolate vibrations but be able to feel them move through the rig?

 

[Mr Latte]

I’m still not convinced by this whole need for isolation, perhaps with more units to get better separation but a two tactile setup I don’t see the need.

I’ve got a BK Thumper mounted on the back of the Sim Lab P1 and it passes plenty of energy into my butt. I then have a BK Gamer 2 mounted directly under the pedals and can barely feel it at all with the Thumper on. I’ve also felt the uprights of the wheel deck and there’s barely any vibration being transferred into those.

Surely to simulate real car behaviour you don’t want to isolate vibrations but be able to feel them move through the rig?

Well in this scenario of a front and rear unit you are not going to have to worry about how well stereo effects may come through. That removes quite a bit of the general problems. In SSW we can currently feel the wheel-slip left/right from the steering, this can be combined with Lateral G force also stereo dependant.

Bumps can then also be left/right positional as well as curbs. From my experience, having audio-tactile mixed in with the telemetry tactile can bring further excellent stereo positioning and detail with several curbs or track surfaces that do not have any response from telemetry whatsoever. Some sensations of other cars as you pass or they pass you can also be detected in stereo. Something like the Corvette or some others that have much louder engine/exhausts are noticeable but these can be controlled in titles that enable their own volume (AC does not sure on others).
While not stereo audio tactile can also bring engine detailing and character of the real car. My own goal is to take engines much further than what Simvibe offers.


Front Back Tactile
What you can achieve with this is front/back axis presence with how acceleration and deceleration is used. You can also have engine placed more in the front or rear if desired. With a single unit, we do not have to worry about crosstalk from an opposite channel so much and in a typical rig the front tactile are going to be separated by a much larger distance than L/R units for a seat or pedal section. So you avoid many of the issues. Of course how well the tactile is installed still is a factor because you can limit what other sections of frame it may spread over. If you do this and have its primary energy going to where you want it felt then that is much better use of its energy and efficient. Many units will operate better if not driven so hard and give more detail when they are not pushed to their limits. We have to look at how we are using the tactile also.

If you have no isolation and a good deal of energy is leaking to other sections of the frame then you are not concentrating the max possible detail and energy solely where you want it. In these cases, we will find people run with increased amp volume. Nobody is saying a person will not feel the tactile or lots of it, what I am stating is going about improving what you feel.


I have said this before and recommended to some in the past that in my view two larger BK Advance used front/back could outperform a 4x Mini Lfe installation. The reason being with what the additional low frequencies and energy they can bring, in many ways may improve the general immersion than a user feeling to some degree independent left/right positional effects.

However, those that want to run with 4 units for front/rear stereo pairs then channel separation should be considered if they aim to get the best out of it. I ask what is the point in having two units if the users installation does not produce decent stereo effects anyways.

Many will also come from a Simvibe perspective and tbh it has fewer effects that seem to benefit from stereo or give much in the way of independent channels. Users who switch to SSW and when it has good effects (cough) should begin to feel more of what the car is doing regards the left/right and front/back axis. If we also have improvements coming from Andre that will help bring better "individual wheel" felt sensations then this helps align even more sensation to what the car is doing. Such on a motion rig should also work very well and compliment this detailing and sensory input.


Please keep in mind:
If the telemetry data outputs some data values for a bump from a left curb. Lets say the bump value is 80 but with this, it also outputs a value of 45 to the right channel. Then an installation with good working stereo will produce this and the user feel more sensation where it should be.

Directional bumps are not always a case of ON/OFF it is all generated and determined by the physics of the sim and the telemetry in real time. This is entirely a different situation to a poor installation mixing/blending what should be felt on the left/right.

An installation that has quite bad crosstalk between the channels will not reflect the 80 Vs 45 balance, it will feel more like a single bump. It will not give direct placement of effects positioning for circumstances that do place all or the vast majority of energy on one side neither.

Why Mr Latte?
Simply because the users installation enables the energy from the left side easily to transfer to the right-hand side via horizontal bridges. The user may even have 2 units installed on the same bridge or a single platform with absolutely ZERO channel separation or control.

If placing units on the front corners but then a pedal frame bridging between both L/R sides with all 3 pedals installed on the same horzontal 8020 section is just not the way to do this if you seek the best channel control. Many have this type of build but someone go ahead and test sounds in stereo. Or for example do a "Channel Test" with your soundcard and tactile connected via audio for a moment. Then tell me that you do not feel channel cross talk or approx the same energy in one side of pedals (clutch) as they do the other (gas/throttle). So as an example, do you feel the voice saying "Left Channel" on the (gas/throttle) pedal, I bet many of you do! Likewise also feel "Right Channel" felt in the (clutch) pedal or pedal base.

So this in my view should NOT be if the source itself is ONLY meant to be on one side but such will highlight this issue I raise.

In some cases and situations yes a "mono" bump is used and it can come from both channels or even 3 if using a central channel and we want that effect to operate like this. Yet I have learned to give this "mono" bump its own character and unique sensation to stereo bumps.

I can show people how to have what nobody has properly done that I have seen with 8020 is fully independent tactile in the pedals. Its just a matter of having good separation with the pedal supports and then using (to be determined) what isolation materials or combination works well.

It is foolish to think that a basic single isolator will sustain much/most of the energy and this even moreso if a user upgrades to bigger units. So this idea of a bridge section but then isolators on top is NOT the solution. We also want a pedal section that is independent to have plenty of metal/substance for it to be sustained in the individual pedals (if the tactile is directly connected) to each side. The pedal base plate can be made/used to form some element of channel blending if desired for the heels.

Seriously I think major improvements are not that far of a stretch with some creativity here and willingness to do tests.

Using 8020 to also bridge the seat runners on the VR3 will not be good for stereo.
It would be best to have individual left/right 8020 sections isolated and attached to the VR3 L/R supports.

I have to disagree that bigger or more substantial tactile cant be installed to the VR3 and it work successfully. Of course the main factor is weight but their are different ways to install/mount the tactile that have not yet been tried or that I have seen and maintain a good center of balance.

 

[Hiro Abe]

I'll be testing channel separation at some point. I mount my pedals in a GT format - meaning they are mounted inverted. My heels rest on a 3/4" ply deck. I came across the idea of channel separation a bit too late into my recent rig modding. I had already not driven in a week so I just wasn't willing to rethink splitting the deck and mounting them separately. So, I currently have 2 ADX shakers on the far left and right of my pedal deck AND a TST209 in the middle. I haven't even hooked up my shakers yet so I can't provide feedback on what I'm feeling currently. It will be interesting to note the differences when I do come to splitting my deck in the near future.

 

[Furnace Inferno]

Well in this scenario of a front and rear unit you are not going to have to worry about how well stereo effects may come through. That removes quite a bit of the general problems. In SSW we can currently feel the wheel-slip left/right from the steering, this can be combined with Lateral G force also stereo dependant.

Bumps can then also be left/right positional as well as curbs. From my experience, having audio-tactile mixed in with the telemetry tactile can bring further excellent stereo positioning and detail with several curbs or track surfaces that do not have any response from telemetry whatsoever. Some sensations of other cars as you pass or they pass you can also be detected in stereo. Something like the Corvette or some others that have much louder engine/exhausts are noticeable but these can be controlled in titles that enable their own volume (AC does not sure on others).
While not stereo audio tactile can also bring engine detailing and character of the real car. My own goal is to take engines much further than what Simvibe offers.


Front Back Tactile
What you can achieve with this is front/back axis presence with how acceleration and deceleration is used. You can also have engine placed more in the front or rear if desired. With a single unit, we do not have to worry about crosstalk from an opposite channel so much and in a typical rig the front tactile are going to be separated by a much larger distance than L/R units for a seat or pedal section. So you avoid many of the issues. Of course how well the tactile is installed still is a factor because you can limit what other sections of frame it may spread over. If you do this and have its primary energy going to where you want it felt then that is much better use of its energy and efficient. Many units will operate better if not driven so hard and give more detail when they are not pushed to their limits. We have to look at how we are using the tactile also.

If you have no isolation and a good deal of energy is leaking to other sections of the frame then you are not concentrating the max possible detail and energy solely where you want it. In these cases, we will find people run with increased amp volume. Nobody is saying a person will not feel the tactile or lots of it, what I am stating is going about improving what you feel.


I have said this before and recommended to some in the past that in my view two larger BK Advance used front/back could outperform a 4x Mini Lfe installation. The reason being with what the additional low frequencies and energy they can bring, in many ways may improve the general immersion than a user feeling to some degree independent left/right positional effects.

However, those that want to run with 4 units for front/rear stereo pairs then channel separation should be considered if they aim to get the best out of it. I ask what is the point in having two units if the users installation does not produce decent stereo effects anyways.

Many will also come from a Simvibe perspective and tbh it has fewer effects that seem to benefit from stereo or give much in the way of independent channels. Users who switch to SSW and when it has good effects (cough) should begin to feel more of what the car is doing regards the left/right and front/back axis. If we also have improvements coming from Andre that will help bring better "individual wheel" felt sensations then this helps align even more sensation to what the car is doing. Such on a motion rig should also work very well and compliment this detailing and sensory input.


Please keep in mind:
If the telemetry data outputs some data values for a bump from a left curb. Lets say the bump value is 80 but with this, it also outputs a value of 45 to the right channel. Then an installation with good working stereo will produce this and the user feel more sensation where it should be.

Directional bumps are not always a case of ON/OFF it is all generated and determined by the physics of the sim and the telemetry in real time. This is entirely a different situation to a poor installation mixing/blending what should be felt on the left/right.

An installation that has quite bad crosstalk between the channels will not reflect the 80 Vs 45 balance, it will feel more like a single bump. It will not give direct placement of effects positioning for circumstances that do place all or the vast majority of energy on one side neither.

Why Mr Latte?
Simply because the users installation enables the energy from the left side easily to transfer to the right-hand side via horizontal bridges. The user may even have 2 units installed on the same bridge or a single platform with absolutely ZERO channel separation or control.

If placing units on the front corners but then a pedal frame bridging between both L/R sides with all 3 pedals installed on the same horzontal 8020 section is just not the way to do this if you seek the best channel control. Many have this type of build but someone go ahead and test sounds in stereo. Or for example do a "Channel Test" with your soundcard and tactile connected via audio for a moment. Then tell me that you do not feel channel cross talk or approx the same energy in one side of pedals (clutch) as they do the other (gas/throttle). So as an example, do you feel the voice saying "Left Channel" on the (gas/throttle) pedal, I bet many of you do! Likewise also feel "Right Channel" felt in the (clutch) pedal or pedal base.

So this in my view should NOT be if the source itself is ONLY meant to be on one side but such will highlight this issue I raise.

In some cases and situations yes a "mono" bump is used and it can come from both channels or even 3 if using a central channel and we want that effect to operate like this. Yet I have learned to give this "mono" bump its own character and unique sensation to stereo bumps.

I can show people how to have what nobody has properly done that I have seen with 8020 is fully independent tactile in the pedals. Its just a matter of having good separation with the pedal supports and then using (to be determined) what isolation materials or combination works well.

It is foolish to think that a basic single isolator will sustain much/most of the energy and this even moreso if a user upgrades to bigger units. So this idea of a bridge section but then isolators on top is NOT the solution. We also want a pedal section that is independent to have plenty of metal/substance for it to be sustained in the individual pedals (if the tactile is directly connected) to each side. The pedal base plate can be made/used to form some element of channel blending if desired for the heels.

Seriously I think major improvements are not that far of a stretch with some creativity here and willingness to do tests.

Using 8020 to also bridge the seat runners on the VR3 will not be good for stereo.
It would be best to have individual left/right 8020 sections isolated and attached to the VR3 L/R supports.

I have to disagree that bigger or more substantial tactile cant be installed to the VR3 and it work successfully. Of course the main factor is weight but their are different ways to install/mount the tactile that have not yet been tried or that I have seen and maintain a good center of balance.

The question I’m asking though is why would you want so much separation when there isn’t that much in a real car. You hit something on the left it flows through the car from left to right, you very often find people hit something and then look around the whole car because they can’t workout what or where it was. A big enough impact most of the information will be movement not vibration.

Your brain fills in most of the blanks in a sim because you know the track and where the curbs are so if you hit something you know where it was anyway.

 

[Mr Latte]

The question I’m asking though is why would you want so much separation when there isn’t that much in a real car. You hit something on the left it flows through the car from left to right, you very often find people hit something and then look around the whole car because they can’t workout what or where it was. A big enough impact most of the information will be movement not vibration.

Your brain fills in most of the blanks in a sim because you know the track and where the curbs are so if you hit something you know where it was anyway.

Maybe the question should be why would you not want improved stereo representation?

You missed the point I raised, if the telemetry places energy in both the left/right channels be it front or back then a proper installation with good stereo will maintain this and balance the energy accordingly. Here is your "the energy will travel" coming directly from the physics/telemetry.

However, if the telemetry for a specific effect is ONLY placed to one side, then we should deem to also seek to maintain that. If single channel positioning with tactile badly leaks to another region due to the users build then they could lose the sense of the positioning, which is NOT sustaining what the telemetry outputs.

Simulation is not a real car, why do people keep making such examples. A motion rig system does not move like a real car. It only needs to create cues that fool the senses/brain combined with other senses and inputs we are making in the sim feel convincing.

So if I ask what happens in a motion rig when a user sways the steering left and right down a straight? Well, I would presume that obviously the seat/movement of the motion moves in tandem.
Then explain to me why with a potentially poorly working stereo based installation we don't want to replicate that in tactile but instead say mono is fine. Would we rather not feel a clear and well-executed sensation, with the tactile energy swaying between the left and right tactile channels replicating exactly what the motion is also doing?

Come on, are we saying this is somehow not accurate yet its okay for a product like the GS4 to mimic stereo G forces with paddles and people rave about that? A GS4 does not leak paddle positioning to the other side unless the telemetry has data values to operate both the left/right sides.

So tell me again why with tactile we should not seek to uphold and maintain the positional channel/telemetry output also?

Not only can the stereo tactile enhance the immersion but for me at least, having multiple contact points with additional body regions also increases the immersion and sensation more. My own testing for me anyways is proof of this.

 

[Furnace Inferno]

Maybe the question should be why would you not want improved stereo representation?

You missed the point I raised, if the telemetry places energy in both the left/right channels be it front or back then a proper installation with good stereo will maintain this and balance the energy accordingly. However, if the telemetry for a specific effect is ONLY placed to one side, then we should deem to also seek to maintain that. If single channel positioning leaks to another region due to the users build then they could lose the sense of the positioning, which is NOT sustaining what the telemetry outputs.

Simulation is not a real car, why do people keep making such examples. A motion rig system does not move like a real car. It only needs to create cues that fool the senses/brain combined with other senses and inputs we are making in the sim feel convincing.

So if I ask what happens in a motion rig when a user sways the steering left and right down a straight? Well I would presume that obviously the seat/movement of the motion moves in tandem.
Then explain to me why with a potentially poorly working stereo based installation we don't want to replicate that in tactile. Producing a clear and well-executed sensation, feeling a swaying between the left and right tactile channels replicating exactly what the motion is also doing.

Come on, are we saying this is somehow not accurate yet its okay for a product like the GS4 to mimic stereo G forces with paddles and people rave about that? A GS4 does not leak paddle positioning to the other side unless the telemetry has data values to operate both the left/right sides.

Not only can the stereo tactile enhance the immersion but having multiple contact points with additional body regions increases the immersion and sensation more also. My own testing for me anyways is proof of this.

A simulation is not a real car no but we are trying to simulate the same sensations which is why I’m asking in that context why you’d want isolation. To me it’s no different than adding the fake FFB effects which give more information but aren’t realistic, I know lots of people love and use them though but I don’t personally think that much information is required.

 

[Mr Latte]

A simulation is not a real car no but we are trying to simulate the same sensations which is why I’m asking in that context why you’d want isolation. To me it’s no different than adding the fake FFB effects which give more information but aren’t realistic, I know lots of people love and use them though but I don’t personally think that much information is required.

Its about staying faithful to the telemetry code.
You are mixing the reality that energy in a real car travels from one region to another so then you assume its fine for the tactile in a rig for this also to happen.

Yet this "simulation" is governed by the telemetry. Therefore the transitioning energy you talk of should be generated within the physics and G-Forces based on each operating axis. So if the energy is to be on both (L/R) channels, even with a varying balance of energy or it traverses from one channel to the other, it should be within the telemetry data.

It should not rely on a rig to somehow transfer energy with no sense of control or accuracy as this will vary and is determined by the materials or installation applied. Yet then use this as an example of replicating real-world scenario or improving the immersion when it distorts the very telemetry output we are using.

What your saying in some regards is that with motion its fine for it to operate strictly with the telemetry values but with tactile this is not necessary. Yet the same telemetry is used and instead of motion/movement, we are converting the energy into frequency and vibration. For me, this does not then mean we should just let the vibration go willy-nilly wherever it can or channels mix this energy and deem it then to be more productive or immersive.

In my view and I may be wrong here but I want to maintain the energy to the channels as best possible based on what the telemetry itself is outputting. This way the tactile also can work in tandem with the motion if any is being used.

Not arguing but this is how I see things.
We want to feel and sense the energy where it is supposed to be placed. This is one of the benefits of seeking to isolate or install the tactile in a way that better maintains this..

 

[Furnace Inferno]

Its about staying faithful to the telemetry code.
You are mixing the reality that energy in a real car travels from one region to another so then you assume its fine for the tactile in a rig for this also to happen.

Yet the simulation is governed by the telemetry. Therefore the transitioning energy you talk of should be generated within the physics and G-Forces based on each operating axis. So if the energy is to be on both (L/R) channels, even with a varying balance of energy or it traverses from one channel to the other, it should be within the telemetry data.

It should not rely on a rig to somehow transfer energy with no sense of control or accuracy as this will vary and is determined by the materials or installation applied. Yet then use this as an example of replicating real-world scenario or improving the immersion when it distorts the very telemetry output we are using.

What your saying in some regards is that with motion its fine for it to operate strictly with the telemetry values but with tactile this is not necessary. Yet the same telemetry is used and instead of motion/movement we are converting the energy into frequency and vibration. This does then not mean we should just let the vibration go willy-nilly wherever it can or channels mix this energy and deem it then to be more productive or immersive.

In my view and I may be wrong here but I want to maintain the energy to the channels as best possible based on what the telemetry itself is outputting.

The movement of initial vibration through the chassis wouldn’t be modelled in telemetry though, hence my thinking about not needing to isolate it.

I don’t know, for me in VR directional vibration is not what I feel is missing and having my calves vibrating from tactile seems like madness as they’d never be touching anything in the real thing.

 

[Mr Latte]

The movement of initial vibration through the chassis wouldn’t be modelled in telemetry though, hence my thinking about not needing to isolate it.

I don’t know, for me in VR directional vibration is not what I feel is missing and having my calves vibrating from tactile seems like madness as they’d never be touching anything in the real thing.

See there you go with what happens in real life scenario again yet playing a sim.

Vibration is not being modeled correct, its energy and it cued for direct placement or axis. The telemetry has no bearing on how the energy is being applied. Vibration is only the method of applying or representing the energy just as motion is.

A motion seat getting telemetry data to move to the left, does this, the seat does not move left and right because it can or indeed switch axis and go a bit forward or a bit back. No if the telemetry determines it should just activate the left lateral axis then this is what the motion seat does or the paddle on a GS4 moves accordingly.

So why are you assuming any different with tactile that it's then okay to let the sensation of the "load/energy" via vibration not maintain axis or channel placement? Oh but now because its vibration energy we let it go where it wants, as this is what happens in a real car. Sorry I don't agree with that perspective at all as your then ignoring the importance of maintaining the telemetry output based on the axis/channels used.

Its very simple, we can enhance the clarity, the perception and depth of immersion with tactile by including more body regions. Low frequencies, in particular, feel much better when more of the body is immersed with it. Smaller units don't quite bring this same sensation and anyone that has moved up to bigger units will tell you that the deeper bass sensations are more realistic or engrossing in trying to replicate what we are doing.

Anyone that has went from tactile in seat only to also tactile in pedals will relate to this. It vastly increases the immersion. In simulation, we should do what enhances the simulation yes? Not necessarily say "oh but now, I dont really feel g-forces in my ankles or feet in real life, so I will not use tactile in the pedals" do we?

Increasing the sensation be it spine, knees, or other does not feel odd or weird whatsoever. Can I say this again, this is "simulation" its about heightening the immersion, the sensation of feeling what the car is doing and how it is interacting with the visible action, the audio and the input devices we use.

 

[Furnace Inferno]

See there you go with what happens in real life scenario again yet playing a sim.

Vibration is not being modeled correct, its energy and it cued for direct placement or axis. The telemetry has no bearing on how the energy is being applied. Vibration is only the method of applying or representing the energy just as motion is.

A motion seat getting telemetry data to move to the left, does this, the seat does not move left and right because it can or indeed switch axis and go a bit forward or a bit back. No if the telemetry determines it should just activate the left lateral axis then this is what the motion seat does or the paddle on a GS4 moves accordingly.

So why are you assuming any different with tactile that it's then okay to let the sensation of the "load/energy" via vibration not maintain axis or channel placement? Oh but now because its vibration energy we let it go where it wants, as this is what happens in a real car. Sorry I don't agree with that perspective at all as your then ignoring the importance of maintaining the telemetry output based on the axis/channels used.

Its very simple, we can enhance the clarity, the perception and depth of immersion with tactile by including more body regions. Low frequencies, in particular, feel much better when more of the body is immersed with it. Smaller units don't quite bring this same sensation and anyone that has moved up to bigger units will tell you that the deeper bass sensations are more realistic or engrossing in trying to replicate what we are doing.

Anyone that has went from tactile in seat only to also tactile in pedals will relate to this. It vastly increases the immersion. In simulation, we should do what enhances the simulation yes? Not necessarily say "oh but now, I dont really feel g-forces in my ankles or feet in real life, so I will not use tactile in the pedals" do we?

Increasing the sensation be it spine, knees, or other does not feel odd or weird whatsoever. Can I say this again, this is "simulation" its about heightening the immersion, the sensation of feeling what the car is doing and how it is interacting with the visible action, the audio and the input devices we use.

I mean I still don’t agree with your thought process and only use the effects which would cause vibration in real life rather than trying to simulate other effects with vibration because to me it doesn’t feel right. Anyway let’s agree to disagree and keep our tactile debate in the tactile thread .

 

[Mr Latte]

I mean I still don’t agree with your thought process and only use the effects which would cause vibration in real life rather than trying to simulate other effects with vibration because to me it doesn’t feel right. Anyway let’s agree to disagree and keep our tactile debate in the tactile thread .

Your welcome to disagree, its okay to have a different opinion and it not be an issue. Oh and let me say its not an issue at all. Only perhaps taking the thread in such a direction. So apologies but I enjoy the conversation and analysis of the topic. If anything you won't find this even discussed much probably anywhere or people really sink their teeth into considering it all seriously.

To me you have not made one valid response why we should not seek to improve or maintain stereo activity. Likewise, a further example may be a wind simulator which maintains the telemetry values regards the channel separation or varied distribution between the channels.

I think it is flawed to then say its fine for my tactile to mix together in my pedals etc as this happens in a real car. To some extents we cant fully prevent it but the key is in my view to highlight the stereo or variation of energy in each channel. Yet by mixing and ignoring this factor we then bring no level of control to how much this "channel mixing" should happen or even quite simply how it improves the immersion. Clearly such can ruin and distort the actual telemetry values determined for each channel, so if we enable this blending of channels, really anyone tell me, whats the point of having stereo in the first place?

From my end all I can say is, I spent a lot of time looking into how Simvibe worked, how SSW appears to work and seeking to clarify for myself what the controls used in each do or how we should proceed in creating effects or using frequencies and the channels to bring the best immersion.

My perspective is maybe different to a lot of you. I am building a rig based purely on and for tactile immersion and not adding tactile to a rig. All I can say is from testing if I find something helps enhance the immersion then its a direction to go with for the build.

Having improved stereo separation is a benefit I would be amazed if someone builds a rig and compares both options fully with good effects and then decided that having channels mix with no level of control was the way to go for the greater definition of the actual effects or the general immersion.

 

[Mascot]

How are getting on with the OSW (and the rest of the new toys), @AntoN_CheZ ?

 

[anton_Chez]

About to finalise (for now) my build log. Have all the gear in, just taken a few pics now. Home from work for the weekend now, time to play