I went back to iRacing today, changed everything to front/rear, made sure all effects were split, dropped the frequency of the rear and ran each effect by itself, tweaked them individually to see how each worked and then ran them all together.
It is better, but it's just a bit "too much" right now. Same with my DD wheel. I need to drop the power going to the wheel. I was both getting a workout and feeling a bit abused by the transducers. It's a fine line between I can feel it and this is too much and fatiguing. I could feel each effect separately although Road Vibration and Road Impact have some overlap by nature. I suspect how I feel about it will vary from day to day and as I race more I'll probably ramp my DD force back up.
I removed the parametric RPM completely and just have a nice low idle burble, better now that it is split and dialed in appropriately front and rear. I don't want to be distracted by the rpm revving in iRacing. In Dirt Rally I like to feel it more, but in iRacing I want to focus on the track more.
I think for fun an engaging engine is important but when seeking lap times then you want feedback from the activity of the car. So people with fewer units to use for effects are then more restricted in this way.
We can create different profiles for whatever the user's preference is needed. Either more engine focused or chassis focused. You have to discover the intensity and sensitivity of the effect that feels comfortable and achieve a nice blend, regardless of what is installed how and where.
You may have different operations regards the sensitivity threshold for your own 2x bumps layers. Yet each was still using close to peak/common used frequencies. These with two layers are then compounding the amplitude of similar frequencies on this channel. I expect it to feel more on/off punch than progressive in variations for different bump telemetry values?
Options:
Of course, someone with more channels to use is much less restricted. The example given of having exciters also on a seat, such users have more channels to blend how/where or how many of those channels they then dedicate for different effects. A person then has more scope in what effects mix they want. Also the ability to bring more felt detail and balance to suit users' preferences.
I asked myself, why should we settle for one or two effects be used to represent various bump responses with only minor variation in frequency or volume?
What are the best settings to use for the following scenarios and can we have effects for each with different sensitivity controls to determine their activity?
- Small Bumps / Saw Curbs
- Medium Bumps & Dips
- Large Bumps & Sausage Curbs
Two approaches I had previously looked at were monitoring what settings generated the most sensitivity to help give small bumps and saw curbs' better sensations. These also suit having higher based Hz as offering more cycles per second to better react with fast repeated responses. If we seek to offer different bumps then the threshold used is important to define what triggers their response.
Even with some early looks into this, I think more can be done if a specific layer required multiple responses in succession to activate and then apply a specific effect layer for that. Those that are good with the code side of things
@romainrob would know better.
Smarter Effects?
That Brrrr sound that many games have for the audio of saw curbs, IIRC is often well into 300Hz-500Hz.
Monitoring this, we can work backward, reducing down via subharmonic principles to use then tones generated in Simhub that harmonically match the audio that in-game response has. Something I want to look further into in having some effects in profiles work better with specific cars' own audio. We can do the same with engines in creating tones in Simhub that are then monitored to harmonically sync to different cars own generated engines audio. Certainly worth re-looking at.
Beyond Normal Limitations:
In applying 6 exciters on a seat for bumps utilisation here are two options that were briefly looked at.
You cant achieve the immersion this offers with normal single unit installations or with CM based installations.
Intensity Step Approach / Working In Mono Or Stereo:
Small bumps, lighter Hz to shoulders
Medium bumps with mid-Hz to mid-back
Large bumps with peak Hz, increased intensity, at the lower back with accompanying activity from BK.
Combined Output Approach / Working In Mono Or Stereo
Small bumps, lighter Hz to 3 units per side or all 6 in mono
Medium bumps, mid-Hz to 3 units per side or all 6 in mono
Large bumps, peak Hz to 3 units per side or all 6 in mono with accompanying activity from BK.
What is best or more preferred?
Mono or stereo pros/cons?
Who tries such things?
