Tactile Immersion - General Discussion - Hardware & Software

We can get a much more accurate representation of what the effects are generating in frequencies and dB based on the sound card and using proven industry tools that are accurate. So absolutely not, will the approach you guys are discussing going to achieve the same results. Nor is the approach you take IMHO going to let you help create better effects combinations by taking "readings from within the seat itself" and with the highlighted issues I raised.
Its too bad that you, apparently, don't understand the value of systems analysis. Further, you are so closed minded that there is no point in attempting to enlighten you.

You are absolutely wrong about the approach. It is PRECISELY how professional engineers (like me) do this job. You may not understand it, and I'm not going to bother to explain it any further. You clearly don't care. If you change your mind, go read half-a-dozen books on Signals & Systems---or not.

As for how frequencies move/travel in the seat, tell me, who cares? Show me people on these forums that have questions regarding " amplitude and phase plots". So yes I refer to such as fancy talk....

Ultimately, everyone cares--even if they don't know it. Its exactly what controls how the output of the soundcard is felt by someone sitting in the seat.

Quite simply, can the user feel the effects at a high quality, are the different installed tactile being well represented and operating well together? If so is that not enough?

Your's is not the ONE TRUE WAY. Its a way, and it works---no argument. But, there are others...and this IS one---even if you don't get it. You are very unaccepting of alternative approaches....even of people reporting their own work without even attempting to project it onto others. You don't understand it, and you therefore make denigrating comments about it---eg, "fancy talk". That's the opposite of "with respect"---that you claim.

No one owes you any "proof".
 
LOL, I love my 3D printer, but if I had room, I would definitely get a decent sized mill and lathe. A water cutter would be nice too.

Wow! Quite a love fest going on here.
 
Last edited:
Its too bad that you, apparently, don't understand the value of systems analysis. Further, you are so closed minded that there is no point in attempting to enlighten you.

You are absolutely wrong about the approach. It is PRECISELY how professional engineers (like me) do this job. You may not understand it, and I'm not going to bother to explain it any further. You clearly don't care. If you change your mind, go read half-a-dozen books on Signals & Systems---or not.



Ultimately, everyone cares--even if they don't know it. Its exactly what controls how the output of the soundcard is felt by someone sitting in the seat.



Your's is not the ONE TRUE WAY. Its a way, and it works---no argument. But, there are others...and this IS one---even if you don't get it. You are very unaccepting of alternative approaches....even of people reporting their own work without even attempting to project it onto others. You don't understand it, and you therefore make denigrating comments about it---eg, "fancy talk". That's the opposite of "with respect"---that you claim.

No one owes you any "proof".

Tom, feel free to progress with what you or others want to do, how you and others want to do it and build your own effects by whatever methods you wish.

For the record, I have not said my approach "is the only way", what has been said is that a lot of time and effort was put into what has already been achieved by the approaches or things I experimented with or tried.
 
...what has been said is that a lot of time and effort was put into what has already been achieved by the approaches or things I experimented with or tried.

Peace.

I agree that you have put a lot of time, effort and money into it. the work that you've done is outstanding. I, and all the others here, are very appreciative of that....I am sure. Your concept for directly exciting the contact surfaces, is directly on-point.

You've done a tone of work in developing sophisticated effects, and the methods needed for those effects. You're concept for the Racebase isolators is also directly on point. As I said before, you are an exceptional experimentalist. Their design takes into account fundamental physics of wave transmission through dissimilar mediums. It is all the more impressive given that you apparently do not have the theoretical background---moreso that you are able to use most of the language correctly, and have a very good grasp of a lot of it.

The intend is not to take anything away from any of that. We probably wouldn't be discussing these analytical methods in this forum without your work. There's just room for more.

As Tony said, happy racing....it IS all about the enjoyment of racing. A point that sometimes gets lost in these corners of the internets.
 
Peace.

I agree that you have put a lot of time, effort and money into it. the work that you've done is outstanding. I, and all the others here, are very appreciative of that....I am sure. Your concept for directly exciting the contact surfaces, is directly on-point.

You've done a tone of work in developing sophisticated effects, and the methods needed for those effects. You're concept for the Racebase isolators is also directly on point. As I said before, you are an exceptional experimentalist. Their design takes into account fundamental physics of wave transmission through dissimilar mediums. It is all the more impressive given that you apparently do not have the theoretical background---moreso that you are able to use most of the language correctly, and have a very good grasp of a lot of it.

The intend is not to take anything away from any of that. We probably wouldn't be discussing these analytical methods in this forum without your work. There's just room for more.

As Tony said, happy racing....it IS all about the enjoyment of racing. A point that sometimes gets lost in these corners of the internets.

Thanks for that and yes let's tone down the aggression but thank you for sharing/highlighting flaws I have in my own responses and attitude at times.

You have to realise that my own work is based on physical tests, self-learning, and a wide range of experience with different transducers. Tactile is an area not many people have really tried to get their teeth into or really seek to push the boundaries with. Yes, we are at the point that a very high level of immersion and enjoyable tactile can be accomplished and Simhub plays a large part of making that possible too.

As I am so much more focused on hands-on, actual trial and error-based tests. I do not see or can easily accept how it's possible for others to often make assessments on ways something will potentially operate. Can I offer an examlpe and suggestion .....

If you would like to apply some of your expertise then one area if you could consider covering which nobody I know of has shared much light on, is how mechanical leverage applied to one unit may differ from applying DSP/PEQ to a standard mounted unit.

For example, if I take two Earthquake Q10B units and apply one via the additional accessory amplifying bracket. Then attach another but it is mounted by normal installation.

How are frequencies with the unit via the bracket going to be affected, would various frequencies be affected differently, or more/less than others. Or will the gain be increased over them all the same? Lastly, how does this compare to what would be achievable by boosting gain with DSP/PEQ on the standard mounted unit?
 
Last edited:
  • Deleted member 1451080

Deleted
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Deleted member 1451080

Deleted
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Deleted member 197115

That sounds more like vendor promoting product territory that has its own place on this very forum in sticky section.
 
  • Deleted member 1451080

Deleted
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How are frequencies with the unit via the bracket going to be affected, would various frequencies be affected differently, or more/less than others. Or will the gain be increased over them all the same? Lastly, how does this compare to what would be achievable by boosting gain with DSP/PEQ on the standard mounted unit?

:) This is a somewhat complicated thing. The reality is that such a thing is technically a 4th order system. It could also be argued that its a 6th order. But, if we ignore the piston inside the Q10B...then its really a dual spring-mass-damper system...you get 2-orders per spring-mass-damper. The Q10B+lever itself, and the contact surface+seat. First the lever will flex on its own, and second the seat surface will flex. Both the lever and the seat surface will have resonant frequencies. The combined system will have a set of resonant peaks of varying heights that will be a function of how the lever and seat harmonics interact with each other. The closer the two resonances are to each other the worse these effects become. Attempting to describe the motion of a system like this, mathematically, quickly gets very complicated.

You can visualize this as a coil spring#1 connected damper#1, connected to a mass#1, connected to another spring#2, connected to another damper#2, connected to another mass#2. If you are holding onto one end of spring#1, and start to shake it up and down....the question you are asking me is "What does the mass#2 do?"

I'll be quite honest with you and tell you that this class of problems, 4th order (and above) Partial Differential Equations...rarely have symbolic solutions. In other words, we can't derive an equation for the motion of mass#2...we CAN do this for most 2nd order systems. So, typically we solve these problems numerically....ie, plot the response over time, and then take calculate the frequency response (amplitude and phase).

There are a number of variables that will impact a specific answer.

But, in general there are two cases, either the resonant frequencies are near the desired operating range of the transducer or not. If these resonances are well outside the desired operating range then the impact will be minimal. Its important to know that there are harmonics and sub-harmonics which will ALWAYS have an impact. So, in theory it will always be worse than a direct mount. But, from a practical point of view, it likely won't matter.

If that resonance is near (or worse IN) the operating range of the transducer, then YES, it absolutely will affect the response. As the driven frequency approaches a resonant peak, the perceived vibration will increase relative to the driven signal. So, a constant amplitude frequency sweep will be perceived as having the volume knob turned up and down at each peak.

How bad the effect is depends on the properties of the materials in question. The more elastic (technical definition, not lay) the material is, the less "damped" the response will be. Lower damping will cause a much higher peak, but more more narrow (Spring steel, etc). Higher damping will reduce the peak, and spread out the range of impact.

To a degree this can be "tuned out" using PEQ, in audio terms. However, such variation in amplitude output always has an inherent effect. That effect is a phase shift in the frequencies affected (compared to frequencies that are NOT attenuated)...which results in total harmonic distortion (THD...again in audio terms). In other words, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

This was my point earlier in the thread, when I said, it is always better to have a flat amplitude response in the seat than to try and compensate for resonances with PEQ. If you don't care about phase, then PEQ can work. But, if the phases between different transducers are different because of significant differences in PEQ then one tranducer's phase could get near 180* out from another and they would "cancel" each other out. So, instead of A+B you end up with A-B---we call that noise-canceling in other markets.

Anyway, that's a long way round to describe the design considerations for creating a lever based amplifier. That's not to say it CAN'T work. It clearly does for many people. The point is that careful consideration of the constraints and some analysis to ensure the system response is close to linear (free of large peaks) where you care, will provide an effective solution that amplifies the desired frequencies without any significantly undesirable effects. Or you can have a good intuition for these things, and just kinda make the right choices without really knowing "why"....and get "lucky".
 
Last edited:
OK, so while my transducers did arrive but my 4040 extrusion is still stuck wherever I decided to cannabalise the tower I have for my seat belt. I wanted to get the seat back in and I can rebuild the seat belt later.

I never used seat brackets before and the ones I had lying about were no good, I couldnt lean the seat back to its usual position. So I had to modify it to add a section allowing me to tilt it back.

This turned out to be a good thing as it gave me somewhere on the inside to mount some 4040 I could use to then mount a span and the LFE on to. TST mounted on another. Wired it up and tested the speakon connections I added were working. They were so I installed it.

As you can see, the isolators are quite tall ~65mm but the seat is lower than most ever have on their p1.

Now time to get the vacuum cleaner, its a bloody mess :) then see if I can try it for the first time!
s3.jpg

s2.jpg

s1.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Deleted member 1451080

Deleted
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Deleted member 1451080

Deleted
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is tight under the seat indeed......
What do you have there? 1 x BK LFE, 1 TST and 2 BK mini LFE?
its all in there using up a lot of the space :)

Correct, lfe, tst and a couple of mini lfes. I thought about taking them off but here was no where to put them except add another couple to the pedal tray. So I thought if people have a tst/lfe on the seat and there is still room for 4 daytons then there must be some place for the mini's to help out.

now to play with the settings!
 
  • Deleted member 1451080

Deleted
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WOW that's how it looks when Pro look at something! Interesting!
And I never believed that I would be confronted to Partial Differential Equations in my life again ....LOL....
Thanks for the assessment, Tom.

In case the notion arises, that this problem is too hard to solve, a less analytic approach would be to model the setup in a multi-physics simulator and get some results from there…I am pretty sure this would also be the way to go for Tom, if it was a professional problem, as putting up and solving the equations for such a system is indeed not easy to handle. Unfortunately I do not have experience in the mechanical domain, as it would actually be quite fun to set up a simulation and try to get some reasonable results out of it, although modeling the setup can admittedly be quite some work.
 
Last edited:

Latest News

Back
Top