DiRT Rally Thread

LeMansAid
I'm quite happy with where it's at, aside from the force feedback. The sliders are all adjustable though. Debatable whether or not it's a sim now, but it seems to be what they're ultimately aiming for.

I'd love to get @LogiForce's opinion on the new ffb. I've been avoiding running the game, waiting on the ffb patch. I'll give this build a thorough going over but may end up waiting for another update before playing it (as opposed to testing it).
Click to expand...

Let me finish my coffee and I'll get back to you, mate. I've already been critical about the "force working against you" over on the Steam forums. That sounds like a weight transfer effect, which while for low torque wheels gives extra weight and replaces the lack of communication of peak slip angle by adding in what the rear does. However, for high torque wheels it becomes a handicap as it is often too much force to work against and it feels unnatural compared to the now better communication of peak slip angles at these torque levels. High torque for me is anything T500 and up.

Anyway... will give it a whirl in a minute. I had the throttle response though. The throttle pedal is controlling flywheel RPM instead of throttle body valve position. So you have absolutely no response in the lower range of the throttle pedal, which means you technically have the upper 50% or less to work with.
This little fact sucks already on tarmac, but in a rally offroad situation you use a lot of throttle controle... which is impossible to do naturally with the current simulation.

For me the throttle pedal is the 1st and most important means of input. Without it you are going nowhere and you could just as well hold a steeringwheel in the air and go "vroooom vroooom" like a kid.
So for me it is first throttle, second steeringwheel, third brake, 4th clutch, 5th gear lever, 6th information instruments (gauges, etc).

Ahum... end of jibberish. I'll start the game.
 
LeMansAid
Usually safe to assume the ECCI 7000 over my others. Have you tried your T500 at all? That motor is a little closer in strength to the one in the ECCI.
.
Click to expand...
I will try it probably tomorrow (can't be bothered to swap out wheels tonight).

This is what I ended up using as T300 settings by the end of the day, it's taken from Golanv's post on RD for the T500 and is a nice combination of road, tyre feel with the self-aligning torque about right for the T300. The RD original had SAT down at 48% which is about right for the relative motor power difference between T300 and T500...

self-aligning torque: 60%
wheel friction: 20%
tyre friction: 100%
suspension: 65%
tyre slip: 85%
collision: 70%
soft lock: 100%
(using 75/100/100/0/0 in drivers for the T300, 900 degrees lock)


Manhandling the Escort around Wales with 900 degrees steering lock was a serious learning experience. Paddles on the wheel are not good for that, I think fixed paddles or shifter is pretty essential to really rally with that steering lock :)
 
LeMansAid
Hahaha. Secretly, I just got you in here so I would no longer appear to be the most pompous.

Not true, but it may have that affect none the less.
Click to expand...

I don't care, i'll give my verdict anyway.

I can sum it up in one word right away, and I am sure everyone can guess it in 3 tries or less. Let me explain myself though.

Now first let me say that I am a Lancia Delta owner myself. I own chassis type 836, and type 831 is the famous integrale. Today I just drove some Dutch backroads (the kind from youtube channel "RallyMedia" by Joost Schouten) and even caught a ditch or two whilst I was taking 90 degree corners and tighter. All while avoiding traffic on this small road. It might be a tarmac road, but I did get a sense of the pull you can get in a car.

That set as my background... let's get cracking.

Equipment used: CSWv2 + CShub with 350mm rim + CSS-SQ 1.0 + CSPv2

Event type: Custom Event
Track: Argolis, Greece - Koryfi Dafni
Car: Lancia Delta S4

When I drove this car the car felt completely unresponsive. When combined with the new FFB that follows the contours of the track (it pulls you towards dips/pot holes) the car would still just plow straight ahead even when the FFB indicated the tyres were pulling and rolling into the dip or pot holes. The truth is that this didn't seem to be the case, and caused an immediate disconnect for me between FFB and tyre model, or even between FFB and steering rack.

That thought was further amplified as I started to tweak my SEN values, or soft lock via steering wheel. At first I had soft lock in game to ON and as the changelog of Codemasters suggested the Lancia Delta S4 has a lock of 900 degrees.
When I turned down my lock-to-lock setting from default (AUT (...automatic)) to a reduced value of 540 degrees I noticed that the FFB effect of pulling into the dips and pot holes got more in line with what the tyres were actually doing.
What that means is that if the FFB effect would pull the steeringwheel (the one on your desk/rig) a certain amount of degrees that those degrees of rotation would than turn the front wheels enough towards the right or left to make the tyres respond correctly. Cause remember the position sensor in your FFB steering wheel dictates the direction your front wheels are pointing at, so if FFB and tyre model are not in sync you get the above. A tyre model that doesn't respond and lets the car go straight, all while your steeringwheel's FFB steers you into a pot-hole that doesn't exist for the physical simulation of the tyre.

In fact this is a beautiful example of faulty physics programming.
If it was correctly programmed the physical tyre model would follow the contours of the road surface. If the tyre steers to a direction, this would push a tie-rod. That tie-rod is connected to a steering rack. That steering rack dictates the rotation of the steering wheel, which is exactly what the FFB does as well.
The FFB signal drives your FFB motor that turns your steering wheel. That steering wheel position is than fed back into the physics engine of the game.

What happens in Dirt Rally is that the FFB is dictation the position of the front wheels, which isn't the issue. The issue is that the FFB signal is not derived from the steering rack. In other words it is not derived from the actual movement of the tyre, and thus it is NOT related to the tyre model in any way.

Because the FFB signal is completely faked and not physics based you have this addity where the tyre model is still a model made with 270 degrees of rotation in mind, but the FFB model is now made with 1080 degrees max in mind.
So what happens is that at anything above 270 degrees of rotation in Dirt Rally the cars will feel irresponsive to you the player.
This I varified by setting my lock-to-lock on the wheel to 270 degrees, at which point the FFB came in sync with the tyre model. However, because the forces are completely fake I still did not feel any connection with the car.

The other effects next to the pull felt the same as it did in the past to me. Nothing new to report there.

Also the tyre model is probably an old Brush Tyre Model with a two stage construction. A low speed stage (which is basic in its nature) and a high speed stage (which is the more advanced one). Hence the irresponsive character when taking slow corners like hairpins. This is because the only focus has been the high speed model, but as we all know... with rally you have a lot of slow corners. So this old tyre model is not a good choice for a rally sim where you often quickly transition from high to low speeds to high speeds again. So for a rally sim it would be of the essence to have a advanced tyre model (like pCARS's SETA Tyre Model) that works equally detailed and accurate from standstill till top speed and beyond. This to ensure a consistant and natural response througout the speed ranges.


All in all... for me Dirt Rally is Arcade with the capital A. It should be ashamed of itself to call itself a sim, cause absolutely NOTHING is simulated in this game. Well apart from a tyre model that dates back to probably the ToCA games.

I am sorry, but this is my opinion and my verdict of the game in this stage of development. I read they would stop the early-access before Christmas 2015. With that in mind... god help us, cause they need a miracle to turn this game into a sim if they want it released before Christmas 2015.
 
@LogiForce why don't you copy paste this post on their forum? They are very receptive to feedback and already invited the guy to their studio that made the video that was last posted here. At least it would help them forwards.
 
Really informative posts from everyone about the FFB 👍 I've been holding off getting this game because of that particular issue (a problem that has plagued ALL Codemasters games using the Ego engine). It's a shame that they still haven't managed to fix this. I'm convinced that unless they drop Ego and rebuild a new engine completely the FFB will never be as good as other more established sims. Everything else about this game is excellent, but I'm particularly sensitive to driving feel so without proper FFB it all means squat to me :indiff:
 
LogiForce
Done...

Link: http://forums.codemasters.com/discussion/comment/92401/#Comment_92401
Click to expand...
I'm just curious: since I assume you were testing on your CSWv2, which isn't yet listed as fully supported (http://forums.codemasters.com/discussion/6937/patch-v-04-5-the-one-with-the-force-feedback) I am wondering if there might be a difference in the implementation depending on the wheel. I.e. Bugs but not necessarily for all.

The reason is that while i appreciate your test results, I was finding the SAT to match up better on 540 and 720 degrees cars than you. So either I wasn't paying enough attention to just how accurately the wheel was spinning or I was seeing different behaviour with a supported wheel. Now for safety let's assume the former, but I thought I'd mention it nonetheless.....
 
The V2 was already supported from a previous point. I had wondered the same thing as you, but now I'm thinking it's maybe the extra grunt in some motors that is highlighting issues all the more. It's really strange with mine - most of time there's an incredibly light feel to the wheel, almost as if I'm holding it up from falling to one side or the other, and a bit like a Fanatec wheel with a high drift setting. Then I'll get sudden nonsensical jolts that seem to correspond to nothing or next to nothing where the rubber meets the track. Like I'm stuck in a rut and the wheels are forced to follow. This also makes me think back to the laterally wandering FWD cars. Not sure if anything has changed with that. There are some Bodnar owners that have appeared in DR chat, I'd be interested to know how their beasts are receiving the new ffb.

Oh, and thank you Logi - thorough and generous as always.
 
LeMansAid
It's really strange with mine - most of time there's an incredibly light feel to the wheel, almost as if I'm holding it up from falling to one side or the other.
Click to expand...
That's really strange... I was getting a real workout with the T300. Heavy forces, and the self-aligning torque was throwing the wheel around. What you say about Fanatec drift mode feel is what I felt when I had the SAT too high and it was overshooting, but it certainly was never "light" even when turned down to avoid the overshoot tendencies.

The hill climb cars FFB was set higher than the rally cars: I found cornering forces were giving me clipping on any SAT value above around 60%.
 
Last edited:
skazz
That's really strange... I was getting a real workout with the T300. Heavy forces, and the self-aligning torque was throwing the wheel around.
Click to expand...

It can be brutal, but bordering on randomly so. Most of the time, even when driving straight, I need to hold the wheel centered or it will drift, again randomly so.

Hopefully I'm getting something completely different to others at the moment and my experience can eventually be pulled in to line with the majority with a future patch. I really can't bothered, but should probably set up my GT3RS wheel to test.
 
Last edited:
skazz
I'm just curious: since I assume you were testing on your CSWv2, which isn't yet listed as fully supported (http://forums.codemasters.com/discussion/6937/patch-v-04-5-the-one-with-the-force-feedback) I am wondering if there might be a difference in the implementation depending on the wheel. I.e. Bugs but not necessarily for all.

The reason is that while i appreciate your test results, I was finding the SAT to match up better on 540 and 720 degrees cars than you. So either I wasn't paying enough attention to just how accurately the wheel was spinning or I was seeing different behaviour with a supported wheel. Now for safety let's assume the former, but I thought I'd mention it nonetheless.....
Click to expand...

No, I think you misunderstood. It's not the amount of rotation from the wheel that is the issue. The FFB actually follows the road surface in the game, but strangly the tyres do not respond to match above 270 degrees.
For example if the FFB says that the tyres are pulled into a ditch and the wheel rotates 60 degrees to the right, the tyres should also follow that same line into the ditch, right? However, in the game's case the tyres do not turn into that ditch but they just move about small amount (say 2 or 3 degrees). This doesn't comply with the normal steering ratio you'd expect in a normal car, let alone a rally car.

Now you might think it's just a steering ratio problem. Which can be, but than we're talking about massively slow steering ratio of 20.1 or worse. After all when reducing the steering lock, you rotate the tyres more quickly with less arm movement. The complete tyre rotation is compressed into just 270 degrees of steering lock. So if you'd use a fast 10.4:1 ratio for example the cars in the game would feel too responsive on steering input and you'd be zigzagging across the track.

The only thing why this is possibly not the culprit is because the impact of hitting those ditches and so on is not reduced. The steering wheel still pulls equally as much at 900 degrees as 270 degrees of lock. If the steering rack was faster it should be harder to hold the wheel still as the impacts are stronger and shorter. After all, there is less rotation needed of the steering wheel to move the tyres a certain amount of degrees. It's the same way the other way around.
In Dirt Rally I feel that lock and steering ratio don't matter with how the FFB is responding to lock changes.

So it could still be a steering ratio issue after some thinking over night, but there is at this point in time a disconnect between what the tyres are doing and what the FFB is doing. Of which the main culprit might be initially the aged tyre model that they use. The new FFB system is just a workaround on its limitations as far as I can tell.


Oh, and as LeMansAid says the CSWv2 was one of the first to be supported actually. It has been detected in-game since the start.

LeMansAid
The V2 was already supported from a previous point. I had wondered the same thing as you, but now I'm thinking it's maybe the extra grunt in some motors that is highlighting issues all the more. It's really strange with mine - most of time there's an incredibly light feel to the wheel, almost as if I'm holding it up from falling to one side or the other, and a bit like a Fanatec wheel with a high drift setting. Then I'll get sudden nonsensical jolts that seem to correspond to nothing or next to nothing where the rubber meets the track. Like I'm stuck in a rut and the wheels are forced to follow. This also makes me think back to the laterally wandering FWD cars. Not sure if anything has changed with that. There are some Bodnar owners that have appeared in DR chat, I'd be interested to know how their beasts are receiving the new ffb.

Oh, and thank you Logi - thorough and generous as always.
Click to expand...


The CSWv2 has extra grunt and with the just released FW and driver the latency (lag) got reduced as well, and the response of the FFB motor has improved. It all feels more direct and tighter/more accurate. So it's capable of communicating details a lot better than any of my previous wheels (CSWv1, T500, G25, Wingman Formula Force GP).

I think you are experiencing the same as I do though, but the lack of grunt and maybe higher mechanical drag (don't know what you're on) might make it feel odd.
When you got those nonsensical jolts and the like... what lock setting did you use? Cause "Like I'm stuck in the rut and the wheels are forced to follow" is exactly what I was talking about. The FFB says the tyres are following the rut or whatever it is the wheels follow, but as you look at your screen the physics tell you that the tyres are just making you do some slight cornering... and not pulling you into a rut at all. However, if you reduce the lock from 900 to 270 those jolts as you say suddenly start to fall in line with what the tyres are doing. It's odd.

I really need to ask Niels Heusinkveld sometime to let me try that 23Nm Bodnar, cause I really need to get a sense of how it feels to play sims with even...

11024176_1586897881527328_40894048_n.jpg



It was my pleasure, even when I wasn't happy with what I found. :)
 
I don't understand much of what you are saying @LogiForce but i trust you anyway haha!
ps. On the codies forum there have been some folks objecting to your expertise, not taking it seriously even kind sir! Maybe you can rip them a new one?
 
LogiForce
No, I think you misunderstood. It's not the amount of rotation from the wheel that is the issue. The FFB actually follows the road surface in the game, but strangly the tyres do not respond to match above 270 degrees.
Click to expand...
I guess my comment was about the wrong element for self-aligning torque, sorry for not being more clear.

Self-aligning torque does two things in the game: (1) it should rotate the steering wheel as the front tyres are pushed in a different direction due to ruts in the road (2) it should rotate the steering wheel when the car is oversteering such that the steering wheel is aligned with the front wheels as they maintain the forward direction of momentum of the car (unless they lose grip and no longer follow the direction of momentum in which case one expects the FFB to lighten up as the tyres slide).

Your discussion, as I understand it, is about a mismatch for item (1). I was verifying predominantly item (2), which was absolutely not working properly prior to the patch
 
skazz
I guess my comment was about the wrong element for self-aligning torque, sorry for not being more clear.

Self-aligning torque does two things in the game: (1) it should rotate the steering wheel as the front tyres are pushed in a different direction due to ruts in the road (2) it should rotate the steering wheel when the car is oversteering such that the steering wheel is aligned with the front wheels as they maintain the forward direction of momentum of the car (unless they lose grip and no longer follow the direction of momentum in which case one expects the FFB to lighten up as the tyres slide).

Your discussion, as I understand it, is about a mismatch for item (1). I was verifying predominantly item (2), which was absolutely not working properly prior to the patch
Click to expand...

I see. Number 2 is basically what I mean with steering rack based simulated force feedback.

The thing that happens with two is this. The steering rack housing is attached to the subframe of the car, which bolts onto the chassis. So the steering rack housing is technically one with the chassis of the car.
Now the rack inside the housing moves freely and as it moves it rotates the pinion at the end of your steering shaft to which the steering wheel is bolted.
This rack is able to move freely and is attached to the front wheels via tie-rods and tie-rod ends to the spindle arm of the spindle. On the spindle you have the brake disc and eventually the wheel rim and tyre.
As that rack moves freely with the movement of the tyres and drives the pinion (and thus steering wheel) the steering wheel will always move with self aligning moment of the tyres.
(which is derived from... (mechnical trail+pneumatic trail)*cos(caster_angle)*Fy. Where Fy is lateral force)

So this means that no matter how the chassis rotates (the car's rear steps out) the steering wheel will always point into the direction of the tyres. No matter if it's when it follows a rut in the road or its due to oversteer.

What happens with oversteer is basically that the housing moves over the steering rack, but the grip and self aligning torque of the tyres cause the tyres to keep following their line.
As the housing moves over the rack it's basically the housing moving the pinion over a 'stationary' rack bar in the housing, where the pinion is simply attached to the housing which in turn is attached to the chassis.
So it is the chassis movement that causes the rotation of the steering wheel and not the tyres in this case. Which is EXACTLY the reason why you do not need any weight transfer effects or seat of pants effects added to tell you what the rear is doing, because a steering rack based FFB simulation already conveys this in a better and more realistic (and especially more natural) way to you as the driver.

Now I hope you can see that you can't separate your number 1 and 2, but I also hope that you and other readers realise why it is important to have a good tyre model combined with a steering rack simulation to accurately and true to life simulate and convey how a car would communicate to the driver in real life.
If this is not done you get this disconnect with missing or wrong bits and pieces. When simulating this type of thing there is only one correct way to do this, and that is how I described it above. You can try to fake it, but it will never click with you as it would when you'd step in your own car in real life. Something always would seem off.




Sorry for all the... grilling I suppose. I just hope it will eventually give developers a push in the right direction. It's not to annoy anyone of you.

Btw, if you guys are interested in these vehicle dynamics I recommend this read...

Milliken and Milliken - Race Care Vehicle Dynamics
http://www.millikenresearch.com/rcvd.html
 
Last edited:
Nice write up :)

To me obviously community feedback can help Codemasters in finding bugs. I'm just not sure how much ambition there will be on Codemasters part to go the full mile to truly hit the kind of simulation you would like.

Giving very specific feedback like this has to be put into the broader perspective of the end user experience as a whole before enough of the community will start making enough of a noise for Codemasters to devote valuable dev time to making any further changes. If the new SAT implementation (which is clearly a step forward compared to what there was) delivers in some situations, for some cars, then the big question is: are we seeing only limitations or are there some unintended bugs in there too?

and what can we legitimately expect Codemasters to achieve, given where they are coming from?
 
skazz
Nice write up :)

To me obviously community feedback can help Codemasters in finding bugs. I'm just not sure how much ambition there will be on Codemasters part to go the full mile to truly hit the kind of simulation you would like.

Giving very specific feedback like this has to be put into the broader perspective of the end user experience as a whole before enough of the community will start making enough of a noise for Codemasters to devote valuable dev time to making any further changes. If the new SAT implementation (which is clearly a step forward compared to what there was) delivers in some situations, for some cars, then the big question is: are we seeing only limitations or are there some unintended bugs in there too?

and what can we legitimately expect Codemasters to achieve, given where they are coming from?
Click to expand...

I do reckognize that it needs to get some community backing before Codemasters are willing to look at it, but I am also hoping that if Codemasters reads what I wrote that they are professional and knowledgeable enough to realise "yeah, this is where we should be headed as its technically the more correct approach... let's talk it over as a team".

Not everything needs to be massively pushed for the developers to reckognize the content as good or bad, usable or not. The value of community feedback lies not only in the communal support of one idea, but also in the value that a post can generate in the developers' eye.

There might be bugs, but if they were feature breaking than Codemasters should have already discovered it via their own play through. Adding in my Project CARS development/testing experience as a WMD member I can't reckognize any bugs perse.

What can we expect? If they are planning to release this shortly after the end of early access, so just before Christmas 2015, than... again from my pCARS experience... we can't expect a lot. The game is technically feature complete and only content needs to be added. Plus some small feature improvements can be made (like the small FFB change).
What you can't expect, but what is needed, is adding a whole new tyre model that works as one advanced model from standstil to top speed, with a FFB system that is as described above... etc.
Personally I hope they delay the game's release a year or maybe even two, and as result actually have enough development time to address the aged core of the EGO engine and turn it into a sim racing engine. In the same manner SMS had to transition its Madness engine from its aged Shift way of doing things to a more modern and accurate approach. It took time, it meant bugs... in the end the game result will be better.


Personally I have little gain in this effort I am putting out here. I will get my fill when Project CARS 2 development gets on its way eventually (been asked by the head of the studio, Ian Bell, to stick around). However, both games have a different gameplay experience and as a gamer I too like to see our lovely racing games improve and be able to enjoy different gameplay experience on an equally advanced simulation engine.
In the end as a gamer I just like games and want to enjoy games for the experience they promise, but I do feel that promises and realisations at the end of development have been growing apart a lot more in the past 5 to 10 years.

Whatever happens I won't expect a lot from Codemasters given the timeframe, but I do hope they will make the right decisions and are able to improve the game in the correct direction if they wish to make this a sim game to the core. Currently it doesn't hold to much of a candle against a future Project CARS 2 development, since the new basis of the Madness engine is simply better.



...and it seems I can never write short answers. :dunce:
 
LogiForce
...don't know what you're on....
Click to expand...

Morphine, and an ECCI 7000. So quite a bit of power for them to abuse.

LogiForce
When you got those nonsensical jolts and the like... what lock setting did you use?
Click to expand...

There's no profiler for my wheel so I'm at 900 without option. What I did though was mess around with saturation and softlock on/off, driving the Fiesta. I turned the physical wheel to around 135 degrees (aka 270) and pulled the saturation slider down until that registered as 100% input in game. Low and behold both the virtual hands/wheel and the ffb suddenly matched my real wheel. It seems that the ffb is always processed at 270 degrees, then up scaled to whatever degrees is being used.

So my options for input - processing - output are....

- 270 - 270 - 270 (saturation at 35%, softlock on or off)
- 540 - 270 - 540 (saturation at 100%, softlock on)
- 900 - 270 - 900 (saturation at 100%, softlock off)

All of them feel terrible, but the first is the least of the evils as the values are equal. This, by the way is what CM specifically advised not to do.

It's what I'm feeling anyway. Does is appear to make sense? As in, what I'm reporting - not butchering a game like that.

Edit - I thought that softlock on/off would make no at 270 degrees, but it does. Will continue testing.
 
Last edited:
LeMansAid
Morphine, and an ECCI 7000. So quite a bit of power for them to abuse.



There's no profiler for my wheel so I'm at 900 without option. What I did though was mess around with saturation and softlock on/off, driving the Fiesta. I turned the physical wheel to around 135 degrees (aka 270) and pulled the saturation slider down until that registered as 100% input in game. Low and behold both the virtual hands/wheel and the ffb suddenly matched my real wheel. It seems that the ffb is always processed at 270 degrees, then up scaled to whatever degrees is being used.

So my options for input - processing - output are....

- 270 - 270 - 270 (saturation at 35%, softlock on or off)
- 540 - 270 - 540 (saturation at 100%, softlock on)
- 900 - 270 - 900 (saturation at 100%, softlock off)

All of them feel terrible, but the first is the least of the evils as the values are equal. This, by the way is what CM specifically advised not to do.

It's what I'm feeling anyway. Does is appear to make sense? As in, what I'm reporting - not butchering a game like that.
Click to expand...

Morphine? That's usually a bad sign when they give folks morphine here. Hope you're okay mate. ;)

I never really got around to looking for the torque figures on those ECCI bad boys. Any idea?

I think basically what you are doing via in-game via saturation and what I'm doing with my SEN setting on the wheel are basically ending up doing the same thing.
What the wheel does is compress the FFB signal into a band of rotation lock of 270 degrees. Saturation from how you explain it seems to be doing the same thing, except for the fact that you don't have the softlock endstops that I can enjoy. Both manners seem to be compressing the FFB signal into a smaller band of lock, but the game's saturation way simply makes the extra movement beyond 270 degrees useless for you.

In the end I think we're experiencing the exact same thing. I will have to test your manner tomorrow as I want to get some sleep now, but then we'll be 90% sure of us feeling the same thing I guess. Only the signal processing our drivers/firmware do for our wheel might differ and the torque bands of the motors. (plus maybe the small differences in mechanical drag and so on)
 
LogiForce
Morphine?
Click to expand...

No, just joking. You asked what I'm on.

LogiForce
I think basically what you are doing via in-game via saturation and what I'm doing with my SEN setting on the wheel are basically ending up doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it seemed the simplest way to set up for a 270 degree test, without having a profiler.

LogiForce
I never really got around to looking for the torque figures on those ECCI bad boys. Any idea?
Click to expand...

People throw around all sorts of numbers for all the wheels out there (at the motor shaft, at the rim, etc.), and I struggle to know which ones to take on board. A post I was reading put a CSW V1 at 75mNm, T500 at 150mNm, Bodnar at 16,000mNm. In line with that, it appears that the ECCI with SR1 motor upgrade (which I have) would be somewhere around 3,250-3,500mNm. That may not be the crucial reading though.

Mechanical drag is a little on the high side, but not as high (for example) as a Fanatec Porsche wheel.
 
So I got this at the weekend and I think it's pretty unrealistic. Feels like an arcade game, the FFB is not very good, but not so bad that I couldn't drive it. It didn't help that it crashes all the time and won't save my presets, so I need to set up my controls every time I start the game (which is fairly often with all the crashing).
It won't allow me to use anything as a shifter so it makes almost every car useless besides the 2010 WRC cars which I can't use in career. The gear change is painfully slow when using paddles on a manual car which makes me not want to play the game.The control setup menus are really badly thought out, like having the option to choose what type of gear selection is hidden away in a completely different menu to everything else. I thought it would be obvious to make the gear selection change automatically between cars, depending on what controls you have available.

I hope they fix the large amount of issues, I thought early access they would at least have the controls sorted before they let people try it. The graphics are great but other than that, it feels like a waste of money for now as it will not be played, due to broken control menus constant crashing and not extremely bad but only slightly convincing car behaviour.
 
Last edited:
LeMansAid
No, just joking. You asked what I'm on.



Yeah, it seemed the simplest way to set up for a 270 degree test, without having a profiler.



People throw around all sorts of numbers for all the wheels out there (at the motor shaft, at the rim, etc.), and I struggle to know which ones to take on board. A post I was reading put a CSW V1 at 75mNm, T500 at 150mNm, Bodnar at 16,000mNm. In line with that, it appears that the ECCI with SR1 motor upgrade (which I have) would be somewhere around 3,250-3,500mNm. That may not be the crucial reading though.

Mechanical drag is a little on the high side, but not as high (for example) as a Fanatec Porsche wheel.
Click to expand...

I just tested your way after a weekend of being under the weather. It gives the same result as setting SEN to 270.

Also drove the Audi Quattro on Pikes Peak in the rain. That experience really broke the game for me. It's an experience that is wrong on so many levels on how it drives I do not know where to start. :(
 
LogiForce
Also drove the Audi Quattro on Pikes Peak in the rain. That experience really broke the game for me. It's an experience that is wrong on so many levels on how it drives I do not know where to start. :(
Click to expand...
Oh, it's utterly disastrous. I dialed in some settings, testing in Wales, that made the car feel kind of like it wasn't a complete idiot machine. Then I drove some Pikes Peak tarmac, and sure enough it was a complete idiot machine again.

I preferred the game when it was Shrodinger's cat-like. When the ffb was almost non-existent, and suspended in a state of possibility. But alas I learned the fate of the cat.....



@eight6er For selfish reasons, I'm glad you bought in. The more buyers with discerning taste the better. Would be great if you could give a nudge and a shove every now and then on the official DiRT Rally related forums.

I certainly don't have any issues with the game remembering mappings and settings, or having computer crashes (car crashes, yes).

Are you trying to use an H-shifter? My standalone sequential works fine, but I can't use my H, or clutch at this point. It is indeed very weird where they hid the shifting options.

I think at the moment they may be a bit caught realising how much work doing a real sim is actually going to take. They excited a lot of people with their serious approach, but the honeymoon won't/didn't last long.
 
LeMansAid
Oh, it's utterly disastrous. I dialed in some settings, testing in Wales, that made the car feel kind of like it wasn't a complete idiot machine. Then I drove some Pikes Peak tarmac, and sure enough it was a complete idiot machine again.

I preferred the game when it was Shrodinger's cat-like. When the ffb was almost non-existent, and suspended in a state of possibility. But alas I learned the fate of the cat.....



@eight6er For selfish reasons, I'm glad you bought in. The more buyers with discerning taste the better. Would be great if you could give a nudge and a shove every now and then on the official DiRT Rally related forums.

I certainly don't have any issues with the game remembering mappings and settings, or having computer crashes (car crashes, yes).

Are you trying to use an H-shifter? My standalone sequential works fine, but I can't use my H, or clutch at this point. It is indeed very weird where they hid the shifting options.

I think at the moment they may be a bit caught realising how much work doing a real sim is actually going to take. They excited a lot of people with their serious approach, but the honeymoon won't/didn't last long.
Click to expand...


I should go to the forum to express my views if people who share my opinion are in the minority. I'm not very good with explaining exactly what I feel is wrong, Logiforce seems to describe the things I feel better than I could.

Yes I was trying to use the H shifter, I spent at least an hour trying to make it work, including trying to use xpadder, and messing with the .xml file, but it won't accept anything what so ever as an input for gears. The game knows I'm selecting something, because as soon as I enter whatever key or button it changes from waiting for input to unassigned. I should report all the crashing I'm having too, it's very frequent.
 

Similar threads

merseyxshore
Dirt Rally 3: Rumours, Speculation and Wishlist Thread
Replies
9
Views
4K
warp9engage
warp9engage
PJTierney
Wales Rally: Available now in DiRT Rally 2.0
Replies
17
Views
5K
Roots57
Roots57
PJTierney
VR, DirtFish & Patch Notes: Version 1.7 of DiRT Rally 2.0
Replies
8
Views
2K
gregc
G
tunaphis
Early Access vs DLC
Replies
0
Views
481
tunaphis
tunaphis
MagpieRacer
Dirt Rally 2.0 - One Stop Shop
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
ProjectWHaT
ProjectWHaT

Latest Posts

Back