The Great Motion-Haptics Debate
- Thread starter NetLawMan
- Start date
Mr Latte
Premium
Clearly Karl has still a lot yet to experience with what tactile can offer....
Not an attack or criticism at him or his channel as to be fair none of the YT sim channels have (so far) done much content on tactile or sought to delve that deep into it.
We certainly have not seen any of them ever seek to combine the best of both and incorporate hardware or installations aimed at doing such.
Not an attack or criticism at him or his channel as to be fair none of the YT sim channels have (so far) done much content on tactile or sought to delve that deep into it.
We certainly have not seen any of them ever seek to combine the best of both and incorporate hardware or installations aimed at doing such.
Last edited:
In retrospect, it seems amazing how far ahead of the curve was SimXperience in combining motion, vibrations, G-belt and G-seat
I think one of the things that might be helpful is to consider having a matrix of which technology is best for which type of simulated experience. I am currently watching this weekend’s F1 race, and it is clear and amazing how much movement and g-forces are the dominant experience. In real life it must be beyond intense. What about the following:
Turning/Lateral gforces: gseat/belt, then motion roll
Up/down movements: motion (heave)
Braking (inc G-force): gseat/belt, then motion (pitch)
Acceleration (inc G-force): gseat/belt, then motion (pitch/ surge)
Road surface (micro-movements): motion, although tactile can do a decent job of road texture (but not micro movements caused by the car moving over the road surface).
Road Pitch/angle (left to right): motion
Road Pitch/angle (hills- front to back): motion
Bouncing/porpoising/Landing after leaving the ground: motion/ then gseat/belt
Engine/RPM: tactile, but some motion systems can do a decent job
ABS/TC: tactile (including pedal mounted agitators), but some motion systems can do a decent job
Gear shift: tactile; motion (pitch/surge)
Brake lockup: ???
Skidding: ???
Traction loss: motion (sway)
Speed: Wind system (SRS/Motionhouse/DIY)
Such an exercise may help people decide which type of system to pick depending upon which simulated experiences are most important to them.
It might help people who have all systems decide how to allocate experiences across systems. While it is possible for a single system to create a substitute effect for experiences they are inherently incapable of, the point of the exercise is to pick the technology that most closely replicates the actual experience in a car.
My personal experience is that having a single type of system attempt to create all of these experiences results in sensory overload - because I had to learn to interprete a ton of variations of the same effect using a single sensory system. In real life, I would have the benefit of experiences being simultaneously detected and interpreted by multiple senses.
IOW, for me, it has been far more enjoyable to flood as many senses as I can, to bring me closer to experiencing what a driver would during an actual race, with effects that are as close a replica of the real thing as possible. That means a combination of systems - primarily lead by motion and g-force simulation systems.
Turning/Lateral gforces: gseat/belt, then motion roll
Up/down movements: motion (heave)
Braking (inc G-force): gseat/belt, then motion (pitch)
Acceleration (inc G-force): gseat/belt, then motion (pitch/ surge)
Road surface (micro-movements): motion, although tactile can do a decent job of road texture (but not micro movements caused by the car moving over the road surface).
Road Pitch/angle (left to right): motion
Road Pitch/angle (hills- front to back): motion
Bouncing/porpoising/Landing after leaving the ground: motion/ then gseat/belt
Engine/RPM: tactile, but some motion systems can do a decent job
ABS/TC: tactile (including pedal mounted agitators), but some motion systems can do a decent job
Gear shift: tactile; motion (pitch/surge)
Brake lockup: ???
Skidding: ???
Traction loss: motion (sway)
Speed: Wind system (SRS/Motionhouse/DIY)
Such an exercise may help people decide which type of system to pick depending upon which simulated experiences are most important to them.
It might help people who have all systems decide how to allocate experiences across systems. While it is possible for a single system to create a substitute effect for experiences they are inherently incapable of, the point of the exercise is to pick the technology that most closely replicates the actual experience in a car.
My personal experience is that having a single type of system attempt to create all of these experiences results in sensory overload - because I had to learn to interprete a ton of variations of the same effect using a single sensory system. In real life, I would have the benefit of experiences being simultaneously detected and interpreted by multiple senses.
IOW, for me, it has been far more enjoyable to flood as many senses as I can, to bring me closer to experiencing what a driver would during an actual race, with effects that are as close a replica of the real thing as possible. That means a combination of systems - primarily lead by motion and g-force simulation systems.
Last edited:
TBH, I am lost a little bit what the thread is for. Is it to choose one over the other? to see which is better than what? Is there really any debate that motion can create tactile better than transducers? They can't even if they do an adequate job for some people to not want to spend more money.
If its to choose one over the other and someone says they can afford a dbox but not expensive tactile as well ,I will tell them every time, get good tactile and get good motion, just dont get a dbox, problem solved and in budget.
If you want an out of the box solution then you are not going to get the best tactile, I cant help people that dont want to help themselves by getting their hands a little dirty to get the best they can for their $.
There are so many factors in peoples purchasing decisions but just because someone is happy with an off the shelf solution and says they are happy with the tactile it provides doesnt in any way mean they are getting the best experience, they are not. They are getting the best for them within their parameters.
If I have to put my finger on it with tactile.. Its what adds the visceral feeling to the rig. I look at formula e and look back at racing the v10's, 12's of F1 . I know that they are feeling similar over the bumps but one must feel much more alive than the other. Tactile does bring an excitement that motion doesnt have all the time.
Motion flat out does things that tactile cannot as far as feeling, yet it still feels like tactile is more than 50% of the experience.
Once again, I am not talking about a bk gamer on a motion rig, I have an equal investment.
On that note, we do have few people that are investing that much in tactile, mr latte knows a lot more of them than I do but the ones I do know that have also had motion seem to think the same thing so I am mindful that comparing $6000 motion to $500 tactile is a bit of a strawmans argument as no one seems to compare $3000 tactile to a really basic cheap diy seat mover.
If its to choose one over the other and someone says they can afford a dbox but not expensive tactile as well ,I will tell them every time, get good tactile and get good motion, just dont get a dbox, problem solved and in budget.
If you want an out of the box solution then you are not going to get the best tactile, I cant help people that dont want to help themselves by getting their hands a little dirty to get the best they can for their $.
There are so many factors in peoples purchasing decisions but just because someone is happy with an off the shelf solution and says they are happy with the tactile it provides doesnt in any way mean they are getting the best experience, they are not. They are getting the best for them within their parameters.
If I have to put my finger on it with tactile.. Its what adds the visceral feeling to the rig. I look at formula e and look back at racing the v10's, 12's of F1 . I know that they are feeling similar over the bumps but one must feel much more alive than the other. Tactile does bring an excitement that motion doesnt have all the time.
Motion flat out does things that tactile cannot as far as feeling, yet it still feels like tactile is more than 50% of the experience.
Once again, I am not talking about a bk gamer on a motion rig, I have an equal investment.
On that note, we do have few people that are investing that much in tactile, mr latte knows a lot more of them than I do but the ones I do know that have also had motion seem to think the same thing so I am mindful that comparing $6000 motion to $500 tactile is a bit of a strawmans argument as no one seems to compare $3000 tactile to a really basic cheap diy seat mover.
Last edited:
It’s definitely not a “mine is better” thread. And there is plenty of debate elsewhere by some who frame it that way. That said, different technologies are better at different things. It’s a discussion about how different systems either replicate a real world experience or create a substitute, and then how well they do it. Knowledge is power.
I think you are right, pricing is a consideration. That is one of the personal variables people need to take into consideration for themselves. That is also not binary. For example, it not not just a question of $500 vs. $6000. It might be a question of $500 now vs save for $6000. It’s entirely up to the individual. Like for most, money is not unlimited for me. Therefore I prefer to understand all my options before making my initial purchase. I am comfortable with saying I have chosen a particular system, even though there might be a better system out there. The key for me is knowing that fact when I purchased the system, and understanding the pros and cons of all of all possible options.
What I think is most valuable for this thread is to discuss the respective technologies and what each is best at. It’s not binary (all or nothing). People have the option to mix and match systems, based upon their interests and rig objectives, pricing, availability, aesthetics, etc.
Full disclosure - my preference is a “well-balanced” combination of different systems (motion/g-force/basic haptics/wind/soundtrack). After experimentation, I decided that engine sounds and corresponding vibrations (including RPM and gearshift) are important baseline elements that I want to be in the background enough to avoid muddying the other experiences which are more important to me. To that effect, I am fine with a well-done canned gearshift effect, and leveraging a full frequency transducer such as the Clarke synthesis transducer attached to the seat and driven off the soundtrack for creating engine sounds and corresponding vibrations.
Last edited:
Mr Latte
Premium
Simple questions..
Motion haptics, can owners please confirm regards the solution they have...
4 way haptics (1 each corner)
1. Does the same output go to each unit or can it offer stereo haptics
2. Anyone interested to place a microphone or pickup to their actuator to determine what frequencies the effects use
3. What effects do you most enjoy
4. How do the effects differ in feel or with different cars
5. Does one sim stand out as better than others regards haptics
Motion haptics, can owners please confirm regards the solution they have...
4 way haptics (1 each corner)
1. Does the same output go to each unit or can it offer stereo haptics
2. Anyone interested to place a microphone or pickup to their actuator to determine what frequencies the effects use
3. What effects do you most enjoy
4. How do the effects differ in feel or with different cars
5. Does one sim stand out as better than others regards haptics
Last edited:
Just a reminder that servomotors can deliver game road vibration details (low amplitude vibration) as well normal motion mixed, even for games that don't have laser scanned tracks... and this video is 2 years old!
On this video each rotation of the motor axle translates to 10mm stroke on the actuator...
On this video each rotation of the motor axle translates to 10mm stroke on the actuator...
Haptics can be any combination of actuators. As part of the system tool, you can run a test , and feel/hear the sound go around you in a circle.
my understanding is that they typically cap out at about 95hz, but in speaking with the designers of the sigma Integrale systems, that’s all you need for car haptics (note that they design actuators for simulators within real cars, and this is where they started. Check out their website for the science behind their actuator system, as well as the science behind their design decisions)
see my previous post where I outline this in detail and highlight that motion and G-force and wind are most important to me
the motion/haptics very different in different cars. They are also very different depending upon the condition of the car. In other words the damage level of the car affects everything.
i’m not sure how to answer question number five. Generally speaking, the experience or motion/haptics combo is most detailed in a ACC as well as automobilista2. However, it is a blended experience that you can’t separate pure haptics out of - there is no point in doing this. They are a combined experience where motion and haptics are two parts of the same experience. In terms of which titles give you the best experience, even that is difficult. For example dirt rally two doesn’t have the most detsiled haptics/motionengine, but it’s one of my favorite titles.
I guess I would simply like to highlight that when you have a motion system you don’t need the extreme perfection in haptics, because the haptics don’t need to do the job of replacing motion and other affects. Your experience is a result of a combined system, that more closely aligns with driving a car, and feeds multiple senses in your body. The haptic system is relieved of the duty of having to do it all by itself.
By the way, I fully respect the notion of someone who wants to replicate the sound of a particular engine. That is cool. I also think though, that requires a combination of a really good engine sound plus underlying vibration or haptics to support it. I stated in my last post, for me using a full range transducer gives me the underlying vibration I need so long as the title has put effort into having an accurate engine sounds . I also get it that some people are able to achieve this with a sophisticated haptic transducer installation.
Last edited:
Mr Latte
Premium
If we are to seek in comparing what motion systems offer with only their tactile based haptics then that is very relevant to someone deciding if they should go with higher-end tactile solutions and what this may offer.
We see influencers like Karl making quite bold claims, but really he has limited experience with what tactile can really offer. I get it he is being positive about a company's product but I beg to differ with his comments. I would say that no motion system on the market appears to be achieving with tactile what the true potential with it is. I don't think we have even achieved the true potential yet either.
Is that a bold claim?
Does it even matter, if not, why not if the combined immersion is the goal?
So for me, there is an interest to actually try to get owners of motion just focus on that for a moment. Yet it seem impossible to actually find detailed videos or user accounts of the operation of tactile with such motion systems.
What you seem to keep doing is talk about the importance of "both" combined and I agree with that, it is an important element. However, you seem to play down what the benefits from having high-end tactile solutions combined with the motion may actually offer over what the motion-based tactile can bring.
No one here is saying it's of no use or fun but we are trying to determine what its limitations are as well as its best usage in effects are.
You said the following:
"I guess I would simply like to highlight that when you have a motion system you don’t need the extreme perfection in haptics, because the haptics don’t need to do the job of replacing motion and other affects. Your experience is a result of a combined system, that more closely aligns with driving a car, and feeds multiple senses in your body. The haptic system is relieved of the duty of having to do it all by itself."
Here again, you appear to put emphasis on tactile competing with or replacing motion. Not how we seek to increase the quality or performance of the combined immersion..
I could ask why then do we find many owners of different motion systems actually reducing the tactile effects or indeed turning them off when they are using specialist tactile solutions and with effects, others or indeed myself spend a lot of time trying to develop.
Game audio-tactile, can be a mixed experience, to get the most out of it, requires the user to modify the output to help work better with tactile transducers. Yet it has its own benefits and drawbacks. I've developed one approach quite a bit into incorporating it with Simhub/telemetry-based tactile effects. It's possible to do things that just make both amalgamate better together if the user wants that. Choice and preference has a big part to play into it as well.
As for sigma, well I don't think vibrations in a real car stop or max out at 95Hz and they certainly don't with engines, exhausts, or transmission felt sensations or sounds. It reads more like, our hardware supports similar to d-box 100Hz and therefore anything above these frequencies is not important or any benefit to immersion.
We see influencers like Karl making quite bold claims, but really he has limited experience with what tactile can really offer. I get it he is being positive about a company's product but I beg to differ with his comments. I would say that no motion system on the market appears to be achieving with tactile what the true potential with it is. I don't think we have even achieved the true potential yet either.
Is that a bold claim?
Does it even matter, if not, why not if the combined immersion is the goal?
So for me, there is an interest to actually try to get owners of motion just focus on that for a moment. Yet it seem impossible to actually find detailed videos or user accounts of the operation of tactile with such motion systems.
What you seem to keep doing is talk about the importance of "both" combined and I agree with that, it is an important element. However, you seem to play down what the benefits from having high-end tactile solutions combined with the motion may actually offer over what the motion-based tactile can bring.
No one here is saying it's of no use or fun but we are trying to determine what its limitations are as well as its best usage in effects are.
You said the following:
"I guess I would simply like to highlight that when you have a motion system you don’t need the extreme perfection in haptics, because the haptics don’t need to do the job of replacing motion and other affects. Your experience is a result of a combined system, that more closely aligns with driving a car, and feeds multiple senses in your body. The haptic system is relieved of the duty of having to do it all by itself."
Here again, you appear to put emphasis on tactile competing with or replacing motion. Not how we seek to increase the quality or performance of the combined immersion..
I could ask why then do we find many owners of different motion systems actually reducing the tactile effects or indeed turning them off when they are using specialist tactile solutions and with effects, others or indeed myself spend a lot of time trying to develop.
Game audio-tactile, can be a mixed experience, to get the most out of it, requires the user to modify the output to help work better with tactile transducers. Yet it has its own benefits and drawbacks. I've developed one approach quite a bit into incorporating it with Simhub/telemetry-based tactile effects. It's possible to do things that just make both amalgamate better together if the user wants that. Choice and preference has a big part to play into it as well.
As for sigma, well I don't think vibrations in a real car stop or max out at 95Hz and they certainly don't with engines, exhausts, or transmission felt sensations or sounds. It reads more like, our hardware supports similar to d-box 100Hz and therefore anything above these frequencies is not important or any benefit to immersion.
Last edited:
Frank Denneman
Premium
Here are my two cents,
I own a rig with both Motion and Tactic, and both compliment each other so much that I can't drive without having them both on at the same time. It's like having a 75" TV with a 7.1 system Dolby Atmos attached to it. Yeah, you can watch the movie with the sounds coming out of the TV speakers, but once you get used to the 7.1 system, every other experience keeps on feeling "thin".
I'm building my rig to explore all kinds of levels of immersion, and both provide different experiences. The main question it needs to answer: Does the rig allow me to drive the car with the seat of my pants? The motion system clearly does that. Oversteer, understeer, and all the ups and downs are nice for crazy youtube videos, but those short jabs, the slight change of yaw, help you determine what your car does. But Tactic makes your car feel alive, simply because you feel the engine! You don't have to watch your dashboard. You don't have to glance over to check when to shift. You feel it. Yeah, you can hear it. But nothing, nothing beats that vibration of the engine rushing through your body, letting you know when to shift at that exact right moment. Is one better than the other? No! certainly not. I hear Motion people dismiss Tactic, and I hear Tactic people dismiss Motion. And both sides are missing out.
I ask myself if I would start over, would I do it differently? I think so. I would start with Tactic first. Smaller investment, a significant gain from just a static rig with wheels and pedals. After exploring all the effects and the combinations, I would pursue motion.
I own a rig with both Motion and Tactic, and both compliment each other so much that I can't drive without having them both on at the same time. It's like having a 75" TV with a 7.1 system Dolby Atmos attached to it. Yeah, you can watch the movie with the sounds coming out of the TV speakers, but once you get used to the 7.1 system, every other experience keeps on feeling "thin".
I'm building my rig to explore all kinds of levels of immersion, and both provide different experiences. The main question it needs to answer: Does the rig allow me to drive the car with the seat of my pants? The motion system clearly does that. Oversteer, understeer, and all the ups and downs are nice for crazy youtube videos, but those short jabs, the slight change of yaw, help you determine what your car does. But Tactic makes your car feel alive, simply because you feel the engine! You don't have to watch your dashboard. You don't have to glance over to check when to shift. You feel it. Yeah, you can hear it. But nothing, nothing beats that vibration of the engine rushing through your body, letting you know when to shift at that exact right moment. Is one better than the other? No! certainly not. I hear Motion people dismiss Tactic, and I hear Tactic people dismiss Motion. And both sides are missing out.
I ask myself if I would start over, would I do it differently? I think so. I would start with Tactic first. Smaller investment, a significant gain from just a static rig with wheels and pedals. After exploring all the effects and the combinations, I would pursue motion.
Last edited:
My2.5 cents... all I see is people with tactile trying to convince everyone that is all you need...
Many of the rigs from customers with motion, have tactile add-ons, forced fan addons, visual aids, etc... anything to enhance the immersion as possible
Btw, the AASD servos support low amplitude haptic frequencies up to 150hz... of course when available by the motion software or the simulation game source. We use only real data, not canned effects
Many of the rigs from customers with motion, have tactile add-ons, forced fan addons, visual aids, etc... anything to enhance the immersion as possible
Btw, the AASD servos support low amplitude haptic frequencies up to 150hz... of course when available by the motion software or the simulation game source. We use only real data, not canned effects
Last edited:
Mr Latte
Premium
My2.5 cents... all I see is people with tactile trying to convince everyone that is all you need...
Many of the rigs from customers with motion, have tactile add-ons, forced fan addons, visual aids, etc... anything to enhance the immersion as possible
Btw, the AASD servos support low amplitude haptic frequencies up to 150hz... of course when available by the motion software or the simulation game source. We use only real data, not canned effects
Who said anything like that, please show me?
As for motion haptics, will you highlight/link info on all the options and settings that are available? Seems others can't be arsed or show what the system they choose has. I had to even try looking on YT but still not much in detail.
Who has done a comparison of different motion systems in what or which offer the better tactile and software support as a packaged system?
That alone is a question that seems very little information is being offered or shared here, to even give potential buyers of a motion system something to aid perhaps what they buy. Yet all the different motion systems go on about how good their own is....
One of the points being raised with motion-based tactile is that they do not enable anywhere close to the control and options that Simhub makes possible with effects, creation or deployment of them with additional tactile.
Nobody mentioned canned effects, that I am aware of either and I would assume its the same telemetry from a sim the different motion options use.
Last edited:
What you ask is impossible at the moment... let me give you an example or two:
When you are looking to buy a car you can compare thousands different specs on cars, performance charts, safety charts, or just spent hours comparing the looks of each car... that is until you go to the car dealership to actually test drive that car that caught your attention. You may love it, or you may hate it...
Now do the same exercise with the VR headsets. If you are lucky you may have a friend that could let you check his headset. For you will be the best thing in the whole world (if you don't get sick by it). But still can't tell if others can work same for you, if they are better or worse. No way to easy get hold of all of them to decide. Even if they are relatively small devices and can be shipped around for demo purposes, their higher price can't justify possible damages. Maybe at an arcade shop? But usually they will just use one heatset type, not really easy to compare either.
For motion systems, one of the same, but way more difficult because of size a weight, usually is a permanent installation somewhere. And to get to a place similar to car dealership, that you could test drive and compare same easy is just out of question. Again, all arcade shops I seen with motion systems, usually have the same system for all its rigs, or variations of the same.
Until the demand for motion systems becomes mainstream (see META) physical locations for motion sim rigs dealerships are just not feasible. Not yet anyway.
As for the tactile systems, they are just audio systems derivatives that have been around long and are easier to find anywhere (even at Walmart)... all you need is an audio card and a large amplifier with enough juice to power the electromagnets in the transducer (just like LFE voice coil without the membrane).. like you said, it up to the software (simhub etc), to create a proper audio envelope to recreate as vibration... not far from what we do for servomotor actuators with motion cues and low amplitude wave envelope inserts
When you are looking to buy a car you can compare thousands different specs on cars, performance charts, safety charts, or just spent hours comparing the looks of each car... that is until you go to the car dealership to actually test drive that car that caught your attention. You may love it, or you may hate it...
Now do the same exercise with the VR headsets. If you are lucky you may have a friend that could let you check his headset. For you will be the best thing in the whole world (if you don't get sick by it). But still can't tell if others can work same for you, if they are better or worse. No way to easy get hold of all of them to decide. Even if they are relatively small devices and can be shipped around for demo purposes, their higher price can't justify possible damages. Maybe at an arcade shop? But usually they will just use one heatset type, not really easy to compare either.
For motion systems, one of the same, but way more difficult because of size a weight, usually is a permanent installation somewhere. And to get to a place similar to car dealership, that you could test drive and compare same easy is just out of question. Again, all arcade shops I seen with motion systems, usually have the same system for all its rigs, or variations of the same.
Until the demand for motion systems becomes mainstream (see META) physical locations for motion sim rigs dealerships are just not feasible. Not yet anyway.
As for the tactile systems, they are just audio systems derivatives that have been around long and are easier to find anywhere (even at Walmart)... all you need is an audio card and a large amplifier with enough juice to power the electromagnets in the transducer (just like LFE voice coil without the membrane).. like you said, it up to the software (simhub etc), to create a proper audio envelope to recreate as vibration... not far from what we do for servomotor actuators with motion cues and low amplitude wave envelope inserts
Not sure what your issue is. You seem determined to derail every thread by opposing and challenging anyone who has not come to your same conclusion. I will reiterate what I said above:If we are to seek in comparing what motion systems offer with only their tactile based haptics then that is very relevant to someone deciding if they should go with higher-end tactile solutions and what this may offer.
We see influencers like Karl making quite bold claims, but really he has limited experience with what tactile can really offer. I get it he is being positive about a company's product but I beg to differ with his comments. I would say that no motion system on the market appears to be achieving with tactile what the true potential with it is. I don't think we have even achieved the true potential yet either.
Is that a bold claim?
Does it even matter, if not, why not if the combined immersion is the goal?
So for me, there is an interest to actually try to get owners of motion just focus on that for a moment. Yet it seem impossible to actually find detailed videos or user accounts of the operation of tactile with such motion systems.
What you seem to keep doing is talk about the importance of "both" combined and I agree with that, it is an important element. However, you seem to play down what the benefits from having high-end tactile solutions combined with the motion may actually offer over what the motion-based tactile can bring.
No one here is saying it's of no use or fun but we are trying to determine what its limitations are as well as its best usage in effects are.
You said the following:
"I guess I would simply like to highlight that when you have a motion system you don’t need the extreme perfection in haptics, because the haptics don’t need to do the job of replacing motion and other affects. Your experience is a result of a combined system, that more closely aligns with driving a car, and feeds multiple senses in your body. The haptic system is relieved of the duty of having to do it all by itself."
Here again, you appear to put emphasis on tactile competing with or replacing motion. Not how we seek to increase the quality or performance of the combined immersion..
I could ask why then do we find many owners of different motion systems actually reducing the tactile effects or indeed turning them off when they are using specialist tactile solutions and with effects, others or indeed myself spend a lot of time trying to develop.
Game audio-tactile, can be a mixed experience, to get the most out of it, requires the user to modify the output to help work better with tactile transducers. Yet it has its own benefits and drawbacks. I've developed one approach quite a bit into incorporating it with Simhub/telemetry-based tactile effects. It's possible to do things that just make both amalgamate better together if the user wants that. Choice and preference has a big part to play into it as well.
As for sigma, well I don't think vibrations in a real car stop or max out at 95Hz and they certainly don't with engines, exhausts, or transmission felt sensations or sounds. It reads more like, our hardware supports similar to d-box 100Hz and therefore anything above these frequencies is not important or any benefit to immersion.
“my preference is a “well-balanced” combination of different systems (motion/g-force/basic haptics/wind/soundtrack). After experimentation, I decided that engine sounds and corresponding vibrations (including RPM and gearshift) are important baseline elements that I want to be in the background enough to avoid muddying the other experiences which are more important to me. To that effect, I am fine with a well-done canned gearshift effect, and leveraging a full frequency transducer such as the Clarke synthesis transducer attached to the seat and driven off the soundtrack for creating engine sounds and corresponding vibrations.”
”I fully respect the notion of someone who wants to replicate the sound of a particular engine. That is cool. I also think though, that requires a combination of a really good engine sound plus underlying vibration or haptics to support it. I stated in my last post, for me using a full range transducer gives me the underlying vibration I need so long as the title has put effort into having an accurate engine sounds . I also get it that some people are able to achieve this with a sophisticated haptic transducer installation.”
Any possibility of a cease and desist on your part, when it comes to being so aggressive with anyone who doesn’t “Drink The Kool-Aid”, or should I say “Drink the Latte”
Last edited:
What is your deal? You asked decent questions (1 to 5). I answered and you go right back to your same old song. why bother asking the questions.If we are to seek in comparing what motion systems offer with only their tactile based haptics then that is very relevant to someone deciding if they should go with higher-end tactile solutions and what this may offer.
We see influencers like Karl making quite bold claims, but really he has limited experience with what tactile can really offer. I get it he is being positive about a company's product but I beg to differ with his comments. I would say that no motion system on the market appears to be achieving with tactile what the true potential with it is. I don't think we have even achieved the true potential yet either.
Is that a bold claim?
Does it even matter, if not, why not if the combined immersion is the goal?
So for me, there is an interest to actually try to get owners of motion just focus on that for a moment. Yet it seem impossible to actually find detailed videos or user accounts of the operation of tactile with such motion systems.
What you seem to keep doing is talk about the importance of "both" combined and I agree with that, it is an important element. However, you seem to play down what the benefits from having high-end tactile solutions combined with the motion may actually offer over what the motion-based tactile can bring.
No one here is saying it's of no use or fun but we are trying to determine what its limitations are as well as its best usage in effects are.
You said the following:
"I guess I would simply like to highlight that when you have a motion system you don’t need the extreme perfection in haptics, because the haptics don’t need to do the job of replacing motion and other affects. Your experience is a result of a combined system, that more closely aligns with driving a car, and feeds multiple senses in your body. The haptic system is relieved of the duty of having to do it all by itself."
Here again, you appear to put emphasis on tactile competing with or replacing motion. Not how we seek to increase the quality or performance of the combined immersion..
I could ask why then do we find many owners of different motion systems actually reducing the tactile effects or indeed turning them off when they are using specialist tactile solutions and with effects, others or indeed myself spend a lot of time trying to develop.
Game audio-tactile, can be a mixed experience, to get the most out of it, requires the user to modify the output to help work better with tactile transducers. Yet it has its own benefits and drawbacks. I've developed one approach quite a bit into incorporating it with Simhub/telemetry-based tactile effects. It's possible to do things that just make both amalgamate better together if the user wants that. Choice and preference has a big part to play into it as well.
As for sigma, well I don't think vibrations in a real car stop or max out at 95Hz and they certainly don't with engines, exhausts, or transmission felt sensations or sounds. It reads more like, our hardware supports similar to d-box 100Hz and therefore anything above these frequencies is not important or any benefit to immersion.
RCHeliguy
Premium
FWIW, I agree with those who want both.
As a VR user I noticed that visitors stopped getting nauseous when I added motion. The motion was enough to dramatically improve this situation for almost everyone.
I also think that motion for rally and flight is a big deal. Having the rig move while you are moving the collective stick of a helicopter or the stick of a plane absolutely can not be reproduced with tactile.
I remember driving the MX-5 in iRacing with a stick and having my motion system buck me when I dropped the clutch suddenly. I laughed, but loved how that motion felt like a real car.
In terms of immersion, tactile very much sells the idea that "you are in the car" experience. It makes the car feel alive. How you get that tactile seems to be the point of debate here.
I believe that some tactile effects can be done well with both actuator driven haptic and transducers.
However there there are limitations in every system.
Neither a transducer or an actuator can give you perfectly detailed vibration of many amplitudes across a reasonable frequency range. Sure you can feed a complex signal to both, but that doesn't mean squat in terms of what you actually feel. Some signals will overpower others and some are too fine to be produced on a chassis wide basis. You just can't move 400lbs of weight at a high frequency.
With a good tactile system the effects are spread across different types of transducers that are positioned locally to where you want to feel the effects. As an example exciters are capable of putting higher frequencies directly into the seat that would have trouble making it through a chassis.
With a chassis based system there are some considerations.
1. Your entire rig is going to be shaken violently, which means your dash, button boxes and everything on the chassis needs to be bolted down very rigidly or possibly dampened.
2. Ideally you are located in the basement or on concrete vs a wooden floor with people or family below you. Actuator based tactile effects in order to be effective need to throw a LOT of weight around very quickly.
With a tactile system there are also considerations.
1. Additional complexity to your rig. Adding seat and pedal deck isolation, mounting transducers, running speaker cable, amplification, DSP's
2. Managing tactile Profiles in another software package. This is a can be a positive because it also allows you are lot of flexibility, but it is one more thing to manage.
As an example this is some Stream Deck functionality that Peter Winkle recently put together to drive SimHub and tweak effects. This is by no means showing all the effects that can be controlled and many of these effects are many layers deep.
However, this is pretty cool in that you can easily tweak how something feels in game.
As a VR user I noticed that visitors stopped getting nauseous when I added motion. The motion was enough to dramatically improve this situation for almost everyone.
I also think that motion for rally and flight is a big deal. Having the rig move while you are moving the collective stick of a helicopter or the stick of a plane absolutely can not be reproduced with tactile.
I remember driving the MX-5 in iRacing with a stick and having my motion system buck me when I dropped the clutch suddenly. I laughed, but loved how that motion felt like a real car.
In terms of immersion, tactile very much sells the idea that "you are in the car" experience. It makes the car feel alive. How you get that tactile seems to be the point of debate here.
I believe that some tactile effects can be done well with both actuator driven haptic and transducers.
However there there are limitations in every system.
Neither a transducer or an actuator can give you perfectly detailed vibration of many amplitudes across a reasonable frequency range. Sure you can feed a complex signal to both, but that doesn't mean squat in terms of what you actually feel. Some signals will overpower others and some are too fine to be produced on a chassis wide basis. You just can't move 400lbs of weight at a high frequency.
With a good tactile system the effects are spread across different types of transducers that are positioned locally to where you want to feel the effects. As an example exciters are capable of putting higher frequencies directly into the seat that would have trouble making it through a chassis.
With a chassis based system there are some considerations.
1. Your entire rig is going to be shaken violently, which means your dash, button boxes and everything on the chassis needs to be bolted down very rigidly or possibly dampened.
2. Ideally you are located in the basement or on concrete vs a wooden floor with people or family below you. Actuator based tactile effects in order to be effective need to throw a LOT of weight around very quickly.
With a tactile system there are also considerations.
1. Additional complexity to your rig. Adding seat and pedal deck isolation, mounting transducers, running speaker cable, amplification, DSP's
2. Managing tactile Profiles in another software package. This is a can be a positive because it also allows you are lot of flexibility, but it is one more thing to manage.
As an example this is some Stream Deck functionality that Peter Winkle recently put together to drive SimHub and tweak effects. This is by no means showing all the effects that can be controlled and many of these effects are many layers deep.
However, this is pretty cool in that you can easily tweak how something feels in game.
Super helpful insight! There are so many variables to consider, it really is personal. You are right though, Motion helped me overcome nausea in VR.
Maybe someone would just invent a full body suit with thousands of smaller transducers that could give more directed way to feel the simulated environment... something more than just to simulate spider's kiss:
Last edited:
RCHeliguy
Premium
LOL! There is no spider's kiss here.
What's funny about that statement is that if you have your tactile systems setup right, you have an abusive amount of tactile energy on hand that you have to dial back quite a bit. I tend to play with a specific effect up a bit while I work it out. Once I have it behaving as I like, then I drop it back down so it becomes part of an immersive symphony that helps you feel what the car is doing, but isn't beating you up.
In order to have an abusive amount of power on hand, you need powerful transducers, powerful amplifiers and good isolation so the transducers are only putting energy into your contact areas, or your seat and pedal deck and not trying to move the whole chassis. The smaller isolated areas allow you to feel a larger frequency range.
Last edited:
