Ledfoot's 2DOF simulator project

Hi Niels,

I agree. I'm looking at a few options before I finalize my next project

I tested this rather thoroughly. Unfortunately, Yaw does not provide realistic motion cues except for in the case of complete loss of control and when in a spin. I found far better motion cues when simulating loss of rear grip (what a real driver is monitoring for). If the car is experiencing true Yaw, it's already too late to care about the motion cue. Even drifting cars keep their front wheels planted.

Hi Berney,

In Niel's setup I don't think he's using yaw in the front section but with the right mixing of effects (bumps curbs, accel, braking etc) up front, I can see how this would enhance the feeling. In the existing 2DOF setups, there isn't enough feeling in the front because the pedal are stationary and the steering wheel isn't providing enough feedback. I plan on adding 2 large bass shakers to my setup next week to enhance the engine vibration and road surfaces as a short term solution but long term, I want to build a solution that will enhance the feeling in the front of the sim as well as the rear.

hi,
in my setupi have the same profil for the front and back sektion only a littel tweak
more hills on front.more gforce left right on front and more drift on back.
for bumps and acculation you mast have the same for a symcron feeling.

How? Our systems are based on proprioception (See wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception). So many of these simulators I'm seeing today have what I can only refer to as senseless movements. Somehow we must dispell the myth that more or additional movement is better! If a movement doesn't meet the rules of proprioception then it is likely to be a negative, immersion breaking movement. It will detract from the overall experience rather than add to it. My point - Movement + Additional Movement typically equals less, not more.

Proprioception is scientifically proven to be an additional sense. Manipulation of it is one of the few tools in our arsenal.

Assuming for a moment that proprioception is the goal, then a movement must provide accurately scaled muscle tension or pressures. Think for a moment about braking. Our simulators are able to be more realistc than a JoyRider because we do NOT move the wheel and pedals and therefore apply the appropriate pressures and muscle tensions. Because a JoyRider moves the entire cockpit, it can only create these same pressures if it could create the true G-Forces of the car, which obviously isn't happening.

As I sat here trying to consider what areas of proprioception you would enhance by moving the front end, the only thing I can come up with that makes any sense at all is vertical forces. I think it's possible to devise a method that makes sense and applies appropriate pressures, although I think it can be much more cost effectively achieved by simply adding vertical force feedback via small motors in a FFB wheel mount. Same effect, only two SCN5's cheaper, not that I don't want to sell more SCN5's but I just cant see where this makes any sense.

Movements that are greater than the small amount of movement required to apply the vertical proprioception movements in the wheel mount (I estimate 1 inch at most) would be unrealistic movements. So again, I have to ask why? and to what end would one utilize SCN5's in the front end knowing that more is not necessarily better?

The simulation of rear traction loss on the other hand can create a rather realistic cue in that upper body over hip movement. It's realistic enough that even when I know it's coming, I still get that uh-oh feeling in my stomach when I begin to sense the rear end hop or lose traction altogether. Several inches of travel in either direction is need in this case to create the body over hip movement which to me is what is required to create the gut feel and seat of the pants driving ability.

Perhaps the ultimate solution would be a wheel mount with two small motors (left and right side) that could simulate roll and vertical effets in any wheel; that was mounted to it. Combine that with single SCN5 based rear traction loss and we have a very cost effective solution that can properly meet apply proprioception if I'm not missing something. It is about 2:30am here, so it's possible

I'll add a universal wheel mount with dual motors to my list of projects to test.

Hi Berney,

My goal is not to necessarily add 2 more actuators to the front of the sim like Niels. I have not tested it so I cannot really comment on it's effectiveness. I'm looking to achieve more rear traction loss plus additional road surface feeling in the front of the sim. I still feel that having the pedals move will allow me to give more braking pressure without fighting the seat as it moves forward so I do plan on having both the seat move as well as the front end move. The motion of the base of the simulator will be independent from the seat but I have not yet decided on which actuators I will go with to achieve this.

My design goals for my next project will be:

1) Moving 2DOF seat
2) Able to simulate rear traction loss
3) Base will be elevated so that pedal movement can be controlled
4) Able to simulate good vertical movement
5) Able to simulate road surfaces in the front and rear
6) Good engine vibration feeling at the wheel, pedals and seat
7) Seatbelt tensioner to pull driver back into seat during braking

There are numerous ways to achieve these goals which is why I continue to experiment with my current platform (which I am still very happy with) but there is always room for improvement. :


...Mike

hi mike,
my design make all effects were you are missing.only your point 1 not.
is is correct was bernard say you have only one right point for muskel contraktion.
uf you give more is not a realistic feeling.but now i can make more on the front and i have more feeling and more realistic.with brake the same.
after work with your profil with the slider i have see you have very low
left and right and more drift.i can drive a better laptime with this profil.
but not so many fun.but now i have make more gforce left right and lower drift
on front now i can drive fast and with more fun and realistic.
all effects are better with both sektions.

Hey Mike,

These all look like good goals to me. Actually, they look alot like my new design.

The seat belt tensioning idea works really well. I built one of these quite a few months ago and it's a nice addition. It plays well into the concept of applying similar pressures to various areas of the body in order to fool the brain.

The good engine vibration is just a few buttkickers or vibratory motors away.

True vertical movements will require an entirely new simulator design or a major addition to your current sim.

Differentiating road surface front vs. rear is interesting, but not likely to be well achieved with the data available to us. I think that our best bet is splitting 5.1 sound channels and using Buttkickers or vibratory motors for this as well. At least then we will be creating vibrations in the front that the game developer intended to be in the front.

I suppose it's just as important to define whether or not the goal is simply fun or accurate simulation for training purposes. Of course all simulators are fun, but if the goal is only fun, I think what Niels is doing would be a blast. However, leaning on my side probably isnt the most realistic approach unless I was on a high degree of banking NASCAR track, even if the front end goes with me and creates realistic muscle tensions and pressures.

Too bad we weren't all close enough to have a test day

It's very difficult to desribe things of this nature in a forum post.

bernard:Too bad we weren't all close enough to have a test day
i'm agree.

I'm very impressed with the creativity in this thread. I'm looking forward to seeing the progress of your new build ledfoot, in particular the seat belt tensioner. Bernard, how did you go about making yours? Also, is it possibly to run multiple buttkickers off of 1 amplifer? Any parts you no longer need I would be happy to make an offer on ledfoot .
Thanks,
Brian

Thanks Brian,

I'm not looking to reinvent the wheel on the seatbelt tensioner as it has been implemented before on a few simulators. At this point, I'm taking a look at a number of small items that will help to further enhance what I have been able to accomplish with the existing 2DOF design.

You can find buttkickers in 2ohm and 4ohm versions and the amount of them that you can run will be determined by the amplifier being used. I plan on using a car amplifier that produces 250 watts per channel into a 4ohm load and 500 watts into a 2ohm load. This will safely run 4 - 4 ohm buttkickers but will require a decent power source which I already have. The large buttkicker amplifier is also designed to run multiple buttkickers but I hear they are not the most reliable amplifiers. You can also use higher end home audio amplifiers as most of them can also handle 4 ohm or even lower loads.

I will gladly make any parts that I no longer plan to use available to you . It may be a while though since I am still in the conceptual phase.


......Mike

hi mike,
with more buttkicker is a littel problem.you lose the prezision.i have 2 buttkickers
in my homecinema and in the last time i'm go back to 1 buttkicker.and now i can feel the guns with many more prazition.a buttkicker is for swinging the plattform.
it is a problem with 2 ore more swings on one plattform. any jears befor i have build a cinema with 10 buttkicker for 37 seats.
this wars only 500 kg per buttkicker in my homecinema the buttkicker must move 700 kg but is a many better feeling.what buttkickers do you want by?

As you are still in the conceptual phase Mike, are there any plans for more life-like features such as a real tach, gear indicator or diy handbrake? Also what was the amperage of the wires/switches you used on your leo button box? Is that board capable of allowing the use of LEDs when a switch is on vs off?

Thanks,
Brian

Hi Brian,

I'd like to eventaually have an entire dashboard setup but that's a more long term project. I don't play dirt sims very often so a handbrake is not really in my plans at the moment but it may be something that I implement to finish things off .

As for the button box. The one that I currently have was made from a $9.00 PC game controller. I made this to satisy an immediate need of having more buttons but I do plan on using a Leo or similar controller in my final project.

These switches do not need a high current rating and the wire that I used is about 22 guage.

..Mike

Hey ledfoot,
Any changes or progress with the sim?

b

Hey Mike,

Anything new?

Hi Brian,

Lots of new stuff with the Sim. I've recently upgraded my rig to a SimXperience Stave IV with rear traction loss and the feeling is unmatched by any other simulator that I've tried to date. I've also added a Roso F1 wheel with built in SLI pro as well as 2 large buttkicker LFE's, one under the seat and one attached to front of the rig to provide vibration to the pedals and seat. I'm using a 1200w amplifier to run the LFE's as they are VERY power hungry. I having my GT wheel modded as well so that I can swap between the two via a quick release and the GT wheel will also have an SLI Pro as well as buttons, rotary encoders and paddle shifters. I modified my G25 with the ARC mod and it was a very nice upgrade and has improved the fidelity of the G25. I still would like a high end wheel at some point in the future but I'm waiting until someone comes out with a decent wheel for under $1000.

How are things going with your project?

....Mike

Thanks for the info Mike. The construction of my sim is moving along slowly...expensive hobby. Did you integrate a third actuator into your tslot frame for the rear traction loss or did you use the simxperience frame? Do you have any photos of your new setup?

I'm using the SimXperience frame. I don't have any pics of it in action but Berney has videos of it in action on his website.

Hi Mike,

Could you explain or post a photo of how you incoporated the LFE's into your seat and pedal arrangement. From their website, as I understand, aren't they limited to just being placed under the leg of the component you want to be shook? Could I also ask how much the whole system set you back and what components were needed ?

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Julian