Had some discussion with DD and i am very confused.
As i understood it direct lean OFF places the virtual rider in control of the bike and he rides the bike for you based on the limits of the physics model and your steer vector request.
Direct lean 100% overrides the virtual rider steer input and allows you to input whatever you like directly as a steer vector, the physics responding to this possibly exaggerated input.
The bike handling/physics response is very different between these 2 extremes.
I do not want to discuss the merits of each, but what is the 'correct' model for the bike control? I seem to remember from the very early alpha(1?) that direct lean was not an option so i assumed 0% direct lean with full virtual rider control is the full simulation mode. DD assures me that 100% direct lean is the full simulation mode.
Very, very confused as i can only ever see the physics bikes dynamic response being a compromise to satisfy the controller mode at the moment.
Help.....
h106frp
Direct steer with torque (DST) is the full simulation mode.. my 2 cent's..
Agree ;D
But for controller mortals the original question stands
I meant outside of DST BOB.
When I first started using GPB with Alpha7 Pib told me to turn on(in the ini back then) DL(100%) in order to have direct control over the steering as I had a great big dead spot in the center of steering as I dont use a gamepad. Back then it meant that I had only a small amout of control over the bike and the lil guy was doing the rest.
In all the beta's where he made it that you could adjust it in the menu it is the same way round. At 100% I have total control over the movement where as at 0% it is very little.
I did not mean it was more realistic than DST and to be honest, using a gamepad has no way of being anywhere near realistic and how would you know unless you have ridden a real bike using a gamepad.
DD
i think there's some confusion going on between direct-lean and direct-steer.
as long as you don't use direct-steer, the virtual rider will always do the steering for you (you 'only' input relative target lean angles) while the direct-lean setting only controls how quickly/directly the virtual rider reacts to those inputs.
as bob said, direct-steer is the only way to use GPB to it's full potential because then the virtual rider is completely out of the equation and you are in charge of finding the lean angle limit.
the reason why DD has to use 100% direct-lean is that it's the only way the input values will have a fixed, direct relationship to the target lean angle.
if you use lower values for direct-lean, it will basically only control how fast the virtual rider changes the lean angle (and of course in which direction), meaning that when flicking the bike from side to side quickly, your handlebar or gamepad stick might point in the opposite direction of where the bike is currently going/leaning (for a short period of time) and you will have "deadspots" where nothing much is happening.
because of this unchanging, direct relationship between lean angle and "steering" input when using direct-lean 100%, you have to be careful when changing direction because it's impossible for the bike to do it instantly without losing traction (so be smooth when needed).
Quote from: h106frp on May 31, 2016, 07:26:34 PM
Had some discussion with DD and i am very confused.
As i understood it direct lean OFF places the virtual rider in control of the bike and he rides the bike for you based on the limits of the physics model and your steer vector request.
Direct lean 100% overrides the virtual rider steer input and allows you to input whatever you like directly as a steer vector, the physics responding to this possibly exaggerated input.
The bike handling/physics response is very different between these 2 extremes.
I do not want to discuss the merits of each, but what is the 'correct' model for the bike control? I seem to remember from the very early alpha(1?) that direct lean was not an option so i assumed 0% direct lean with full virtual rider control is the full simulation mode. DD assures me that 100% direct lean is the full simulation mode.
Very, very confused as i can only ever see the physics being a compromise to satisfy the controller mode at the moment.
Help.....
h106frp
The direct lean slider only adds an input filter, even at 100%. The physics is exactly the same.
The best way maybe to understand how it acts is that with it at 100% I have no dead zone if I waggle my bars, but if I put it to 0% it is as if I just had a 75% deadzone in the center. You cant really feel it on a gamepad as there is so little amount of movement but with mine it is massive.
So basically, it is like as Pib says a filter of the input, almost like linearity I suppose. So if you have it at 100% the input is more sensitive and at 0% your movement is delayed, A LOT lol.
Best way I can describe its physical effects for input.
DD
An input filter to which parameter?
I agree the physics are constant and that seems to be the problem. A bike with high direct lean can be very unstable particularly when lifting the bike vertical, with a modest direct lean the same model is very stable.
Is the filter just damping the rate of change of the controller input? If so it also appears to prevent overshoot in the steer vector calculation.
@DD I would not expect it work that way as it would not make much sense. I would perhaps expect some sort of integration process on the controller position to control the velocity rather than the absolute dispalcement.
Well I can only say what it actually feels like but I am shit at putting it in words so I am using examples not a definitive explanation of what it is.
To me it is like a big dead spot at 0% in simple terms.
Dont forget it is totally different for gamepad users so my explanation is to try and explain how it would feel to you if your gamepad had a larger movement range.
DD
Wouldn't say it's different for gamepad users, you just don't notice it that much because the movements are much smaller.
But if you carefully compare your gamepad stick input to the bike lean angle (with direct-lean at 0% so that it's obvious) you will see the same behaviour.
Quote from: h106frp on May 31, 2016, 08:15:37 PMA bike with high direct lean can be very unstable particularly when lifting the bike vertical, with a modest direct lean the same model is very stable.
The throttle is your friend here. You have to make the front light and steer the bike on/with the rear tyre.
You basically wait for the rear suspension to compress and push the rear slightly wide, then you start quickly picking the bike up with the front wheel barely touching the ground.
Or better said, the aim is to perfectly time the rear suspension compressing (from the engine power) with standing the bike up. If you pick the bike up a bit too late, you'll get a powerslide (which is sometimes useful for tightening your exit line), if you do it too early, you waste time and/or get wheelies (or in extreme cases: lowsides).
Here is a short lowspeed example at the Suzuka hairpin (notice how I can pick up the bike very quickly without inducing wobbles):
https://www.youtube.com/v/a3UoZB7Ua5U
...could've picked the bike up a bit later.
Edit: Oh and be careful, sometimes the quick steering can make you lowside out of corners like it almost happened to me in this video for example (at 13:40):
https://www.youtube.com/v/mlQdWyLpaZM
...throttle/power saved my ass :D
I should add that all of this works best when you are not using riding-aids (AW/TC) because they will not always allow you to make/keep the front wheel as light as it needs to be.
If I had used AW in the video above, the AW would have cut the engine, making the misaligned frontwheel fall down, which would have made me crash (or at least resulted in a massive tankslapper).
In less extreme cases, TC/AW will create wobbles, so before blaming direct-lean, make sure all riding-aids are at 0.Here is an old example of TC (set to minimum value,
AW was actually off) creating these kinds of problems:
https://www.youtube.com/v/az7S84k5zgE
Edit2: Direct control over the lean angle is not only helpful for accelerating faster (or at least in a more controlled fashion) but also for heavy braking, especially when you like to slide the rear.
It's very difficult to hit the apex when the bike is sliding all over the place because tiny and very quick corrections are necessary to get the bike to go where you want it to.
The delay created by lower Direct-Lean values make this even more difficult to do.
Also, when you are pushing it a bit too far and the rear decides to snap back (either because you hit full steering lock, because you are in a gear that's too tall or because you didn't allow it to start sliding before turning into the corner, as happened
twice in this case) you can save it relatively reliably after some practice:
https://www.youtube.com/v/rX9B5nUlR8c
..ignore the music :D
Quote from: h106frp on May 31, 2016, 08:15:37 PM
I agree the physics are constant and that seems to be the problem. A bike with high direct lean can be very unstable particularly when lifting the bike vertical, with a modest direct lean the same model is very stable.
unless you have a very steady thumb :D with modest direct lean i can make lots of fast corrections with the thumb stick without upsetting the bike too much.. with high DL handling stays the same but the bike follows your thumb precisely. just a good tool for different style of control? my technical explanation ;D
The big mistake is when you get people thinking that 100% direct lean is a total no go area for anyone because it makes the bike unstable because your stick inputs react too quick.........
What level you have direct lean on depends greatly on what controller your using. For me if I'm using a gamepad stick 100% direct lean is very tricky because of the small length of the stick which gives you a super quick response to any movements(probably too quick for the VR to respond properly right now?).
However if your using a controller which has a much longer input arm(like DD at the extreme or joystick users) then you need up to 100% to get the same response that a normal gamepad user would get at probably 50% or less direct lean setting. To me it's as simple as that. ;)
Hawk.
+1000 Hawky
Best explanation. Milestone need this big time.
DD
Quote from: Hawk on May 31, 2016, 09:10:50 PMHowever if your using a controller which has a much longer input arm(like DD at the extreme or joystick users) then you need up to 100% to get the same response that a normal gamepad user would get at probably 50% or less direct lean setting. To me it's as simple as that. ;)
It's not quite as simple as adjusting the direct-lean value proportionally to the movement range of the controller.
If this was true, DD would have to increase it to more than 100% if he decided to make his controller bigger.
The reason, as explained above, is that the lean angle of the handlebar controller always has to be exactly the same as the bike lean angle in-game (otherwise it will feel very weird) and you only get this fixed/constant relationship with DL 100%. Otherwise you are not giving the virtual rider a target lean angle but rather a direction and a "lean angle change rate/speed" to work with (or something along those lines :D).
I wish it was able to go to 150% then I would be really happy.
@Piboso, is it possible to increase Direct Lean over the 100% or rather increase the range?
This would be really brilliant.
DD
For 150%, the virtual rider would have to be able to look into the future :D
Or my understanding of how the VR works is completely off.
Yes but I would still like a bit more control!!!
DD
you won't get more control as long as you are using the virtual rider, there's nothing PiBoSo can do about that.
direct-steer is the only way to have absolute control, which sadly doesn't work with your (single-axis) handlebar controller.
Quote from: h106frp on May 31, 2016, 08:15:37 PM
An input filter to which parameter?
Target lean angle, probably interpreted as -1..0..1, where 0 is zero and +/-1 are the max lean angles the virtual riders thinks are OK for the current conditions (e.g. tyre status, surface type etc).
You need low direct lean only if you unintentionally apply large changes too quickly, which can happen if you're not gentle enough and/or if your input device is too sensitive for your own "skill" (note the quotes, I'm not implying anything here).
If the combo "you + your input device" can be gentle, then you can use high direct lean, else you should lower it.
As for details about what exactly the filter does, Piboso has always refused to detail them (and that's understandable).
As far as I can see, the filter has a totally different effect when leaning compared when picking up, so just for that, it's already non-linear in nature.
For me it's enough to say that at lower direct lean, to
quickly pick the bike up to vertical it's not enough to put your stick in the middle, you'll have to overshoot it.
Example (exaggerating, for illustration): fully leaning left, go vertical
quickly.
With DL = 100% ==> gently move the stick from full left to middle.
With DL = 0% ==> quickly move the stick to the middle and then some more, like half-way right; then once the bike is almost vertical, move the stick to the middle.
I've always found DL=100% more logical, but I'm sure anybody can get accustomed to whichever mode. Just pick what feels better for you and live happy.
No it is not for me vin. I dont get it why can people not except that I know what I want and I dont like DST, it is wrong for a real control system plain and simple.
All I need is a bit more sensitivity of what I have as it feels REAL and not be using something because I am TOLD it will be real as it is in a book because thats how physics are.
DD
DD, as I wrote in the other thread (http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=3427.msg57830#msg57830), the flaw is in your controller because you are steering the bike on the "leaning"-axis, which is not how you steer a real bike.
DST is not wrong, it uses real forces.
Quote from: vin97 on May 31, 2016, 10:05:54 PM
so the slider somehow goes from control over the lean angle change rate (0%) to control over the lean angle directly (100%).
Don't think so: if that was the case, with the bike vertical and DL = 0%, keeping the stick a bit to the right will (after some time) make you lean fully right. It's not what happens.
yeah just checked it, it's only like that in some cases, so the filter is a bit more complex like you said.
You know what vin, tell that to the hundred plus actual bike riders that have used my systems and agree it is correct and feel right and it is not flawed in how it functions.
You have never used it so you can not say. The problem most people have is they cant look past the physics book and actually come up with a design that works as mine does.
One of the biggest problems with this forum is everyone has to over complicate everything. Sometimes you have to ignore what the textbooks say and actually use your own intelligence and come up with a solution that works without all the bullshit.
You want a system that works by the book, good luck on that without spending a shit load of money just to find out no matter what you spend it will be over sensitive and unusable. I can do it but FFS everyone wants a controller for the cost of a gamepad!!!
Before you call my system FLAWED because I use the wrong axis in your mind, its because I KNOW you can NOT use force as a steering input as it would not be controllable, I have tested enough to know, factually, not just in thinking it. So my system is not flawed, it uses the only practical means of having precise control via handlebars in a game or sim.
Sorry mate but unless you have used my system and spent years making controllers in every configuration you can think of, you might be making a statement that is not true.
DD
DD, don't take this as an insult to your engineering skills.
What you have created is awesome and I'm sure it feels great to use.
It's obviously the most practical solution.
I am aware that building a properly working dual-axis handlebar controller is probably quite complicated and since I'm not an engineer I can't tell you how to do it.
But what I can tell you is that you cannot expect "ultimate realism" (which can only be reached in GPB anyway) from a controller that uses the "wrong axis".
In your mind it is the wrong axis because you can not get passed your way of thinking and therefore refuse to listen and think about how my system is actually working.
The reality is, I use a certain axis because it is the ONLY way it can be done in EVERY game/sim. The axis I am using is NOT wrong for the function and feel it is meant for. It is for the lean angle of the bike which is on the exact axis my system is. A real bike leans on the same axis as my handlebars so how is that part of it flawed.
You are expecting to have a set of bars turn on a horizontal axis while not on a bike and NOT be moving in a totally un-natural way which is what happens when you do it that way.
The amount of movement in the handlebars when riding in real life is so minimal if you used only that amount of movement to control a bike in a game you would not make one fucking corner. I know, I have tried it!!! What part of sitting still, turning some bars 5-10 degrees on the horizontal axis represents any leaning or feeling of riding a bike except for feeling your sitting at the start line the whole bloody time.
Most of all, if my system is so fucking flawed how come every biker that uses it finds it perfectly natural to use and NEVER said it is wrong??? OH wait, they cant read a physics book and tell me its wrong....got it, Im so fucking stupid!!!
How is the lean axis the wrong axis? I want to control the lean at the end of the day or not. As long as I am controlling the bike and making it go where I want it to why should it be wrong? Oh I forgot, we have to over complicate it to call it a simulator. My bad bro.
My systems design is to not just control a bike in a game it is to enhance the feeling while staying physically natural to the user plus involve more than just sitting still turning a set of bars a bit and saying" Thats how it is on a bike so it must be right" I dont have FFB because the design utilizes a natural FFB through its movement, but its all bollocks because it is not on the axis you think it should be.
Sorry mate but you dont have a clue
DD
I do think the axis is correct. Just leaning your body from side to side will make the bars countersteer naturally as it does in a real bike
Quote from: Warlock on June 01, 2016, 12:51:53 AM
I do think the axis is correct. Just leaning your body from side to side will make the bars countersteer naturally as it does in a real bike
+ 1 on that one Warlock!
But obvioosly haven't tested it, i can't say anything about the feeling of it, but what i can see and hear from DD it have the right feeling :)
After riding for over 36 years I think I know what feels totally natural and what does not. It is not just me, this design has been tested for years on hundreds of people, most of whom not only ride but race in real life.
I have my system 2 feet in front of a 40" flatscreen and ride in first person only. What I see of the bike is the top of the yolks and the fairing. My bars need to be a bit closer to be positioned realistically but then the screen will fuck my eyes up, which it does as I have cataracts. When I ride, the bike on the screen moves as it would if I was siting on it and the angle of my handlebars matches that of the bike on screen. So............It is looking like I am on the bike, it is feeling like I am on the bike, so how is that flawed in any way???
You also have to remember, I can not build a system that ONLY works in GPB using DST because it would not work in ANY other bloody games!!!
My system is used in the technical University of Selangor, Malaysia for their studies on motorcycle behavior, why would a university use it if it was wrong?
Sorry but it gets on my tits when someone who has never built anything and never tried my system insists it is flawed. Get all your facts right before you go up against me on this.
I have never stated it is 100% perfect because I know it is not, it uses a compromise to cater for the lack of technical possibility. I am working together with a guy from Brazil on a 6DOF motion system that will get far closer to real life but there are and always will be forces of nature you can NOT simulate in a room.
DD
BIG SORRY TO H FOR THE OT BUT IT IS TO DO WITH DL USE ON BIKES IN GPB
Quote from: doubledragoncc on June 01, 2016, 09:17:31 AM
When I ride, the bike on the screen moves as it would if I was siting on it and the angle of my handlebars matches that of the bike on screen.
No, that's not possible. When GPB wobbles, do your bars wobble ? I guess this is what vin refers to.
Not to say your system is not good of course. As said multiple times, I do think it's clever and I have no trouble accepting the feeling using it is great.
Max, seriously? NO they dont wobble because I dont use FFB and thats nit picking. We are talking about the control of the bike with DL.
DD
Quote from: doubledragoncc on June 01, 2016, 09:44:24 AM
Max, seriously? NO they dont wobble because I dont use FFB and thats nit picking. We are talking about the control of the bike with DL.
So how can the angle of your bars match the one of the bike on screen ?
Or maybe you meant that the angle of your bars matches the
lean angle of the bike ?
BTW it's not nit picking: when a bike wobbles and your handlebars do not wobble, the feeling is definitely not the same compared to a real bike.
But again, it's not a critic of your system and it's not a matter of right/wrong: your system is based on a principle and works fine.
What vin is saying is that he thinks a system based on a different principle (true steering axis with ffb + output lean axis) would give better results.
I can't say if he's right or not, but what is sure is that what he proposes tries (tries) to get even closer to reality. After that I don't know, maybe it's not doable or not practical or just bad.
Yes it is the lean angle of the bike because the amount of JUST the handlebars movement is so minimal and that is the whole point. In reality the HANDLEBAR horizontal movement is so fucking small it is almost useless in a controller.
Sometimes the know it all physics book readers need to step back open their minds and think!!! Not ALL things in life are right just because someone writes it in a book.
People actually discover something NEW but everyone points a finger and says its wrong because they cant get their head out of the physics book.
I think about actual movement and situations that are not written in bloody books because nobody has tried something new!
Now can we drop my system and get back to DL in GPB fully as that is what H wants to know and so do I.
Even if it is not realistic, but for control of the bike in GPB better, can the DL be increased?
DD
DD, you're rambling. The way a bike works is written in a book because .. because it's the way it works.
The "amount of JUST the handlebars movement is so minimal", but on a real bike you can use it all right. That's the point vin is trying to make: FFB + steering via bars angle should be (in principle) closer to reality. That's all.
Increasing DL beyond 100%: the request as is doesn't make much sense. Probably what may (may) be interesting is to have no filter at all when DL is set at 100% (or maybe just a lowpass with a fairly high cutoff frequency, just to shave the inevitable "noise" any input device has and the effect of quantization).
You know what?, that is the problem you REFUSE to allow me to actually know what I want and need. I dont give a flying fig what anyone else thinks because your all too bloody stubborn to listen and except that I know what I need. Are you building this or me?
Before the light bulb was invented most were like you, oh it dont exist therefore it cant be!!! Well I found something that works and requires more than a fucking gamepad does. Just because it dont work on a gamepad dont mean it wont work with another controller and if that is what it takes to simulate something then that is what it takes no matter what you THINK!!!
I could do with MORE sensitivity to make the steering even more precise thats all and if I could raise the % of DL it would be a simple thing for me with out all the over-complicated BS everyone seems to love.
So why cant I ask a question without being told I dont NEED IT!!!!
DD
DD you're not reading what I'm writing, too bad. 2nd attempt:
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 01, 2016, 10:24:49 AM
Increasing DL beyond 100%: the request as is doesn't make much sense. Probably what may (may) be interesting is to have no filter at all when DL is set at 100% (or maybe just a lowpass with a fairly high cutoff frequency, just to shave the inevitable "noise" any input device has and the effect of quantization).
I'm saying that something could be done (for your specific need). It's just that it is not as simple as saying "please allow DL to be put to 150%": that makes no sense.
I would like to see counter steering on a handlebar system too! Same movements as DD's rig but with some forward/back motion. So push right or left handlebar away from me 'slightly initially.. Then lean with the rig into the corner.. Would be cool man. No idea if or how it could work but that's not my job ;D
That is what ''I''would like and don't need to be told otherwise.. :D
DD's rig looks fun and the movement ''looks'' natural in relation to the bike on the screen. Would like to try with virtual reality 8)
Didn't H build a rig with all the counter steering and force feedback etc how is that beast going?
BOB if you watch and think about how I am steering I do actually push left to go right.
I also made it so there is a slight amount of movement in the bars so there is horizontal feeling at the same time
DD
DD, visualize what your controller would be doing in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/v/fUc_vdpIzMk
Lean angle alone cannot give you feedback from the tyres.
Apart from the handlebar reacting to the front and rear wheel, a dual-axis controller could also accurately simulate gyroscopic forces, making the bike harder to steer as the speed increases.
Now, this doesn't mean that your system is "bad" or "wrong", just that in theory you could take it a step further (in GPB with DST).
Quote from: doubledragoncc on June 01, 2016, 05:00:02 PM
BOB if you watch and think about how I am steering I do actually push left to go right.
I also made it so there is a slight amount of movement in the bars so there is horizontal feeling at the same time
DD
Errrm im a bit scared to carry on ;D :P I believe you DD but as GPB has DST we need a controller that takes advantage of that too! well we don't ''need'' one.. i would like one should i say.. its like steering wheels, some people are not fussed about having force feedback.. for other's it's an absolute must have!
I do know what you mean BOB and in fact the guy I am working with in Brazil has the motion equipment parts and has been looking into GPB. I do understand and will somehow do the movement like that, BUT not for your average home user it is too expensive and space hungry lol.
This system is ONLY for the average gamer, NOT the hardcore sim rider, maybe that is something I should have pointed out. The Hs2 is purely the start system for gaming and sims. It is for home use and not for out and out simulation.
In order to have a sim system you HAVE to be sitting on a complete system, not on the couch or desktop. It is vital that you can move your whole body in order to get certain movements and also not cause damage to muscles and tendons due to un natural body movement.
DD
i don't really see why simply allowing the handlebar to rotate on it's arm a few degrees (and using this axis as input) should make your system any less ergonomic.
the body movements would remain exactly the same (you said you are already doing the "countersteering motion" with your arms anyway) but you would get additional feedback and control in gpb.
of course the tricky part is to produce accurate force "feedback" on the steering axis while measuring the "input steering force".
and the handlebar arm of your system would probably have to be a big tube so that it can rotate but these are just layman thoughts :D
Vin , this could complicate A LOT the design of the controller. It would need a whole new design for it. Don't think DD is going to give it a go ;D
Quote from: Warlock on June 02, 2016, 05:47:01 AM
Vin , this could complicate A LOT the design of the controller.
+1 on that. I've been contacted by somebody that was trying to do something like that (at professional level, so cost wasn't an issue) but despite endless email I don't think he understood exactly how this could be done in principle. He had all the hardware (real frame with leaning axis, used just for output) plus steering with FFB. I suggested to go with DSA (not DST) because it would be simpler and could anyway be better than DST, but I don't think he managed to go very far, I haven't heard from him lately.
Been following this discussion and decided to do some quick tests with my rig. At 75 DL the "standing the bike up wobbles" were pretty much completely gone. The problem is that the steering feels sluggish and unprecise, like you have an input lag, which is basically what less DL does if I understand it correctly. At 90 DL the wobbles where still almost non-existent, but still the delay feels weird. I guess when you've gotten used to the bike reacting exactly to your inputs it is pretty much impossible to have a good feeling with anything less than 100 DL.
Cheers,
David "Gonzo" Boda #46
i realize that it's not an easy mod (and probably unpractical / too expensive for the average user) but it's still nothing close to the complexity of a full bike rig on which you sit, which DD suggested is necessary for a "full sim system".
my comment was specifically about the ergonomics of the controller, which shouldn't change if you introduce a real steering axis.
max, i'd love to read some excerpts from those emails.
very much interested in the design principle you came up with!
Quote from: vin97 on June 02, 2016, 03:27:47 PM
max, i'd love to read some excerpts from those emails.
very much interested in the design principle you came up with!
There's not much more than what I said: a bike frame that leans left/right as commanded by GPB (i.e. aligning the real frame to the virtual frame in GPB).
After that, the real frame has a steering head with handlebars. The head rotation angle is fed into GPB as steering angle (DSA).
On the steering axis there's a FFB device fed by GPB's FFB signal.
With that setup:
- You dictate the steering angle (handlebars angle) to GPB, which will convert it into a torque that tries to realize the angle you asked (so from that point of view, it's less pure than DST, in which there's no virtual rider at all).
- When GPB bike wobbles, your handlebars will wobble too. More generally, your handlebars will more or less do exactly what GPB handlebars do: they are kind of mutually tracking each other.
- When the GPB bikes leans, your frame leans (this is costly and can have some safety issues). This is optional, you could do without.
If you drop this (lean), then you have a system more or less as ddcc's one, but with a different principle: on the paper, it should be "closer to reality" (note the quotes), but until one builds it it's hard to tell if it will be any better.
I don't expect the tuning of all this to be particularly simple, but hardware-wise and in terms of interfaces, it's not too complex.
i would try to keep DD's original design because I think it's a brilliant way of having accurate lean angle while not requiring you to lean your body (on a movable bike chassis) because the handlebar is doing this movement for you.
meaning using a rotatable, cylindrical arm instead of the current fixed one, controlled by gears.
so if i understand it correctly you have kind of a "feedback loop" on the steering axis, correct?
you have a constant force output (either just because of the gyroscopic force simulation or because the rear is sliding, making the handlebar countersteer in one direction).
if you push against it in one direction, you have a specific resistance and the game can calculate what your input steering force was because it knows what the original force output was and what the new steering angle is.
then GPB does it's simulation thing with this input data and sends the new force output to the controller.
i wonder if delay between steering input and output could cause problems?
Vin you do HAVE to lean your body with my system. When the bike is lent over in say a right curve, my head is no longer in the center of my screen(for reference) it is at the outer right edge and lower down as I am leaning with the bars keeping my body as I would on a real bike. I do not sit just upright and ride, I have to lean as on a bike.
On my sit on systems even though they are static, due to the greater lean angle of the bars compared to a desktop system, I would be actually part off the seat to the right and have my left knee stopping me from falling of by being against the gas tank as basically on a real bike.
DD
ok even better.
you are automatically leaning your body which should change the pressure distribution on your seat. so if you find a reliable way to measure this pressure distribution, you should be able to use it as input for the in-game rider-lean.
oh and i was comparing the amount of required body movement of your system to one without the long arm, which makes the handlebar move "around you" instead of remaining in the same position. so the arm takes enough movement away from your body that the system is ergonomic. btw, is the arm length on your system adjustable?
What people dont realise as they have not tried it, is that if you have the bars moving as on a real bike, when you and are lent all the way over to one side, because you are not actually on the road riding and there are other forces at work, because you are lent to one and not actually moveing, your body wants to fall straight down to the ground and you will find yourself having to hold onto the bars in an un natural way and it causes you to put pressure on the bars in a way that would then just totally turn then in the opposite direction to the corner(counter-steering) BUT ALL the way which would kill you on the road!!!
This means you will lose that control over your input for steering because your whole body weight is going against the handlebar end!!! You now have NO control and have crashed!!! End game.
This is one aspect forgotten by a lot of people and it makes it harder to use the axis as it should.
And yes I tried it and ended up on the floor!!!
DD
that's why i would keep the arm (your general design), although adjusting it's length (and therefore the amount of left-to-right movement the handlebars are doing) could improve comfort for the individual user even further.
Not sure what you mean by ARM but we are OT again and H is gonna sabotage our bikes!!!
David explained it right about how the lower DL% helps wobbles but it is like riding in MotoGP or RIDE where I have to make an anti-dead-zone to have some sort of control over the bikes. This is why, although maybe wrong for other control systems increasing it would be a real help for systems like mine using full potentiometer rotation ranges.
Because I can change the gearing on all my axis I can also tune the throttle to respond better to maybe reduce wobble if need be due to too quick throttle response.
DD
Quote from: doubledragoncc on June 02, 2016, 05:11:27 PM
Not sure what you mean by ARM
(http://i.imgur.com/1Sg9d0E.jpg)
It took a long time to find the right length for my SPSS I will not change it!
Please understand Vin. I did not just come up with a simple idea and make one system. I have put £1000's into this and tried all different adjustments. This is years of work and experiments. If only I had the money for all the parts and materials that never get used again lol.
DD