Mr Latte - Question?

[RW65]

"I have done crappy drawn layouts, showed and discussed various alternatives to highlight possible advantages/drawbacks. Given you a way to do points/scores to compare possible planned configurations. These it seems you have quickly discarded, well we never really discussed much of that input given. So I can only assume you want to stick with an all wood build, go with your own configuration/ideas and possibly see it as a better alternative in achieving what really are the same goals we both have".

"Whats interesting is your method of 3 LFE and only TST on the CM? In my view this offers much less potential. I would understand more if the costs was a factor but your build by your own admission seems to be setting a high target and costs are not so much the issue. How you fail to see the benefits of dual units puzzles me but welcome you to discuss and explain why you want to go with something different. I cannot come up with a better solution for a layout, to me it is simple, the harder part is cleverly implementing it into a build and utilising Simvibe etc to make the most of it".

..........




ML, yes, you are correct that I haven’t yet fully explained my standing upon these issues & my apologies for not doing so… I hope to address these concerns in the near future & appreciate your patience...

Thanks for bringing them to my attention & cheers for now.

 

[Mr Latte]

Today is a new day and "the wheels on the bus go round n round."

Sorry for the bluntness in the previous @4am post and not realising the metal incorporation but I have other frustrations happening making me currently impatient and rather quick to temper.

Blog Post
For this post rather than me tell you what I think is best, instead I will express why I have chosen to go with the build/configuration that I am implementing.

First to highlight our interests are perhaps rather different.
My build has always been about using lighting/audio/tactile in ways to generate a really entertaining experience.
This is what I see games being, fun, as entertainment, it is the inner kid within me amusing myself. Only now as an adult expressing ways to extend the enjoyment/excitement games once generated as a child combined with past hobbies in home cinema and hifi audio.

I do not buy into the "Realisim Factor" of simulation very much. Berney like people from other companies will often raise this factor to promote their own products. To some extents yes it is right what their simulator offers is added "realism" but for me simulation is a replication process not one of actual reproduction.

Perhaps yourself like others are different of course and in a cockpit build they have an agenda to replicate the true experience. Buying all the high-end hardware they can afford.

Race Driver or Big Kid?
I do not personally think the best possible simulator in the world would still come close to the true sensation of the real experience. The reason being in a simulator you know you are in a simulator. Once the initial thrill wears off it and the feelings/sensations that it produces begin to normalise, it too will lose that edge in sensation, rather than sustaining or building the realism the more you use it.

Let me refer to this as "Roller Coaster Syndrome"
Just a few years ago I went on the tallest fastest RC in Europe, my fast pass quick access in hand jumping to the front of the queue 4 times in a row. In truth by the 3rd go finishing much of the adrenaline and rush had past. Still a thrill yes, but as enthralling no. Like so many things in life as experiences once they have been experienced a few times then the enjoyment or excitement from them diminishes. You then may want more or something greater to fuel again that thrill or excitement.

Become A Tool Or Using One?
I believe you reach a point in a simulator that so much is happening with motion, tactile, powerful wheel, pedals, timing displays, a big screen experience that the concentration levels it requires is an actual skill in itself to master. I believe such simulators are good tools/tests for actual race drivers to use and train with perhaps more than they are ways for "joe average" to think he is experiencing the real deal at home and can be the next Hamilton etc.

My own belief is you cannot achieve the excitement/fear/thrill of the real experience because in the real experience you know you are in potential danger and all your senses are on the limit. Seat of the pants stuff is not something I think can be put down in code and have emulated even though the best software/hardware. Yes the brain can sometimes be tricked or fooled by various methods but true emotion comes from the soul and being their in the moment living the experience.

Not Moved By Motion
I can travel less than 3 miles and hop into a £90,00 (6dof) professional grade simulator and pay a low fee to use, it is the same make installed by Red Bull and other race professionals use. Yet for me it is like a big arcade machine, it might as well say SEGA on the side of it even though the simulator software requires a skill and level of concentration far beyond a PS4. Once the thrill starts to wear off the fun begins to drop and for me it becomes a short lived gaming experience to enjoy as entertainment rather than me thinking I have just been in a rally car etc. Perhaps motion is not a big WOW factor I could enjoy even though it was something I considered in the past. Again my reasons for wanting it were entertainment based not so much for any realism potential factors.

My build is all about entertaining the inner child more than it is of expecting the grown man try to experience a real motor-sport at home or train my skill-set to a level that is useful in the real world scenario of proper racing.

Why $40,000 Simulator & $400 Audio?
Simvibe is of course a good added tool in replicating the car on the track. Looking at many professional simulators you often see them with Logitech type speaker packages or something rather basic. In truth a "racer" does not need the audio experience to be realistic as it does not add to improving the skill-set required or the reactions of the car on the track. Yet the gamer used to loud and exciting audio from games/movies in multichannel surround uses the audio illusion and sound-stage to highlight the on-screen visuals and interaction with the entertainment.

Audio / Steering
I would rather at this moment spend £1500 on a Dolby Atmos capable sound system to add to the cockpit rather than a Sim Xperience wheel/rim set. Why is that, because for me it adds more to the complete package for all the entertainment usages than a wheel limited to only PC which yes is stronger, smoother more direct over a T500 RS.

So once again highlighting my entertainment pref over actual "realism" factors for improved simulation. I do however have an eye for good quality products and appreciate using such which I am sure many others share. Although "Mr Latte" is not wanting to get involved in racing leagues and become some macho race dude. Instead it's the little kid that wants to play sometimes and do so in a big fancy entertaining way. Such perhaps from the micro-chip generation I grew up in as a child and seeing the growth/death of the original arcade industry. Back then when visiting a seaside town for exciting big deluxe arcades in the summer to come home to a bedroom with ZX Spectrum or Commodore based gaming experience, no steering wheel, or pedals, no motion, no big screen and it all in glorious mono sound from a crappy 15" TV. Oh boy arcades were special back in those days!

Escape Capsule?
Perhaps for me, much of the desired magic is replicating that experience again because as children we can be free of worries, full of adventure seeking fun and thrills. Perhaps an adult it is harder to escape such things of life/reality for momentary diversion or entertainment. Yet I believe many could relate to much the same in finding gaming as an escape from daily life issues. We all have an inner child just that depending on your own life experiences different things will bring you back to it.

 

[Mr Latte]

Will reply here soon, back to topic on what/why creates the best Simvibe experience. I may as well entertain myself once more this afternoon.

I think you are over complicating things RW with so many extensions and the "Dedicated Role Idea" with it all at the expense of not ensuring CM is able to produce the most/best possible performance.

You mentioned moving the CM directly to seat/pedals which is good. Yet now you have the plan of using the 3xLFE via EM connected to the Chassis Floor and using these widgets you refer to make contact with the seat. What is the purpose of using the floor section with tactile if the seat and peal sections are isolated? Are you looking to make the floor also some form of tactile resonating space like the chassis of a car?

I seem to be missing the point on the benefits or purpose of this or just how well the tactile will transfer from the point of installation into the desired area of the seat?


PART 1

Mono / Stereo which effects are what matters little to me (even though we have been trying to learn which are what) Each will produce better results by my math/understanding in both scenarios with a CM DR based configuration to your own. Also both are supported if they are either mono or stereo. So again this improves over your current layout of singular mono LFE units. 2 beats 1 my friend be it in dual mono or stereo modes as opposed to only always single mono LFE performance/output.

Multidimensional effects, while these have never been properly listed, that is something WE can do upon the testing phase. The solution I highlighted previously instantly shows in visual reference all used frequencies independently for up-to 16 channels. It would be very simple with it to determine what are mono/stereo or independent multidimensional based. It would be easy to conclude a report on such for ALL SIMVIBE EFFECTS with that hardware/software combination.

We know several effects are such even if the same effects can be down-mixed to a single tactile unit within the software for EM purposes. However again with CM DR by my math/understanding it is a better performing configuration.

Seat Base (LFE/TST) & Seat Back (TST)
I have re-started tests already with game audio to examine potential drawbacks of tactile cancellation and or LFE overpowering TST based tactile. Doing this now within my own seat base and both units on the same channel. Also looking to consider comparing 2-3 installation placements for comparison. Then to incorporate engine for the rear of the seat. Although I know as a direct unit in the back it is not really so much a challenge or issue to implement, just finding the volume balance that is suitable to feel the engine over the other transferring tactile from the seat base.

The objective with DR across CM is that it produces the most detail and impact in both scenarios and exceeds the single unit limitations. You are welcome to challenge this, no need to just take my word for it. Perhaps however I will highlight both with the simplistic but effective scoring system in a simple diagram later for basic comparison.

6 Way = No Way
A Dual Role installation can be applied/installed to a seat much easier than trying to apply/install effectively 6 tactile units all with Individual Tactile Roles and somehow manage to get the same level of performance from all of them flowing into the seat.

I believe you are mixing up the idea of deploying effectively my method of "frequencies of combined effects" split across "more than one unit" into dual installation points to be combined for increased performance. In simple terms separating the workload, using two over one unit and deploying the effects by wider/improved installation with more than one connection placement.

My seat yes will utilise 7 units but removing the rear engine for now is leaving 6 so what's the difference to your idea? I am only using 2 CHANNELS with controlled effects for the rear L/R wheels. Of course the effects themselves in my own seat are split over two TST for both front/back seat regions dispersion per side and the LFE for the low effects on each side/channel for their low end frequencies. So the approach uses the best mounting point options of the seat to disperse the effects much better than a single unit can and ensures the effects within these channels are being maximised with the best hardware.


Your own concept of deploying effectively "tactile units with individual effects roles" all working independently. So yes having six installation points in the desired locations of a small seat surface area too. Yet it is not the same, why? The reason being you are using WHOLE EFFECTS per unit so each unit itself has to be attached in an optimal installation point on the seat. Will a seat offer such? Even though the effects being used in your/my configurations could be the same I believe my own solution utilises the small space of a seat in a better way because of how they will be dispersed into it. 3 units working in harmony with set frequencies per side work better than 3 individual units all doing different things. The method of deploying "frequencies" is a different approach than deploying "effects".

I presume yes EM may be fine for typical situations to highlight a set effect in a set location as most use it for (How HoiHman illustrated impacts) but I do not see it as a proper solution to combine several together especially 3 additional LFE with typical rear L/R and Engine tactile units all in one seat location. The area just is not big enough or suitable in my view to enable this approach to succeed.

Forget Widgets & Chassis Floor?
Yes in both scenarios the tactile effects are all going to the same place but we cannot be overlooking how they get their and how they will operate. I believe your approach is not as simple or will be as effective. One simple reason being the seat will have limited areas that generate the best tactile transfer through the seat itself mainly the (seat internal frame).

Remember this is something I highlighted recently with the leather cushion/padding at the sides of my seats producing a less than originally expected tactile transfer improvement with the side arms on my seat. I am glad I did not just implement them to interact just this way but also into the seat rails and main frame too.

NOTE: A plastic based bucket seat would allow holes drilled within its body at set locations for tactile transfer to specific regions with similar arms or direct installation. (Shown by my previous Cobra seat with TST directly attached to rear and sides) Yet even this approach perhaps allows for 2 units per side

RW you seem determined in setting this challenge for yourself, which I have admired but really you have asked for my advice/help and seem to still be going in this direction. I do not agree with your expectation that 6 installation points for individual TU units will work in controlled symmetry, including 3 of these being high powered LFE with over 700 watts. In my view it is simply too many different channels in operation all from different mounting points and tactile cancellation will become more of a factor in this scenario. When you get to a point of having the tactile you could of course put the theory to test. From my past experience with the inclusion of LFE units and the power they distribute the seat will reach a critical mass and the tactile will likely mesh together to which the whole point of feeling independent channels different effects may be reduced or lost. Just as a tactile unit can only operate efficiently with so many effects, a small location such as a race seat may be limited to how much power and effects can be maintained before performance becomes decremental.


That is a massive task and I think it is not possible with a typical seat. It also just over-complicates the whole basis of not only installation but in the software also. The end result even if it all did work perfectly still will not match the potential output by the method/configuration I recommend which you continue to discard. So you really need to consider things in how you want to proceed with your build.

 

[Mr Latte]

PART 2

Some of my own mission statement factors for my own cockpit.

My Seat / Factors To Achieve
Directional effects from rear wheels and chassis, these may be either multi-dimensional or front/rear based but both are fully supported with LFE power range. All are to be applied with the power and detail exceeding a single units performance and avoiding a single units limitations. Maintains standard Simvibe config but delivers a performance of one combined with typically added EM for low end roles.

"Event Effects"
Transmit high quality engine/gear change effects into the spine/back to help maintain their individuality at a suitable volume. Even though tactile from other units, especially LFE will be felt within the whole seat the "Event" of these effects will be more detectable upon their usage due to their direct location of installation and balanced power/output for easy detection/presence.

"Engine Filter / Low End"
Why use a single dedicated LFE EM for low end engine performance when clever usage of the Simvibe software can highlight the LFE performance of both (2) rear LFE units in a DR CM.

Simple layers applied within "Simvibe Output Mixer" can cleverly be utilised to enhance low engine revs/idle situations. Filtering out at higher rpm/speeds which are higher based frequency TONES any-ways. Outside of the "engine filter paramaters" the role of these units will be fully released back for suspension/bump/impacts and textures only.

Even when the "Engine Filter" is active the suspension would still also be active itself with the TST 429 units that are utilised for upper 40Hz frequencies. Really it would be the LFE units being utilised for sub 40Hz frequencies to enhance the engine low end.

So in this scenario when engine is more satisfying than low speed bumps (from immersion perspective) they have the emphasis on the LFE. Beyond the "engine filter" range that is carefully applied the full emphasis goes back to the LFE/TST combo for multi-dimensional CM effects.

Additionally the "Engine Role" will be transferred more to the back of seats rear EM tactile when the suspension is being fully used at race speeds. Take into account also that this backrest "engine" EM is always active so the engine effects with dual LFE and effectively placed TST unit in the back/spine will produce a very good immersion.

I believe also that the power transfer across the seat during the "filter operation" as rpm increases will be a nice effect as it pans from seat base of the twin LFE units to the seat backrest powered by my TST 329.

In theory this is very much do-able and I believe could be very effective. The main points are making use of the inuke-dsp High Pass Filter for the LFE units work in tandem with the "Engine Filter" frequency range being utilised. This still allows the TST 429 based on the DR installation to still remain handling suspension/textures duties

To me it seems a good solution and one I have put quite some thought into trying to get around the engine/suspension issues. It isn't really that complicated neither and highlights the benefits of the DR once more over using a single unit on a channel.

Software Management
Personally I see it as clever management of the software's capabilities and maximising the installed hardware over a DR configuration that beats other more complicated solutions. If you have 4 extensions, then that is a lot more work to do on the software side too.

These are part of my reasons for validating my configuration preference and how they will be utilised to overcome the issue of constant engine effects and constant suspension effects not conflicting. This being one of the main issues for most Simvibe users but some already utilise set filters and operating conditions for engine effects.

In this application an individual LFE via EM for engine/impacts events is not required if incorporating this method and as highlighted this method can also provide twice the power with two LFE already incorporated into the DR installation.

If you still do not see the benefits then by all means continue with your own approach, it is your own build. I am only highlighting what I believe is the best solution.

"In the Air"
In future as you know I will be able to analyse EXACTLY what frequencies are used independently by both "engine effects" and "suspension effects". Also to do this in real-time during tests to determine the best way to create the engine filters and set the High Pass/Low Pass filters for the inuke amplifiers. This will achieve an ability to limit or avoid suspension effects having much loss of detail if using similar frequencies.

This is one of the biggest drawbacks of Simvibe that it does not highlight what the "effects are doing" in typical audio frequency based terms regards relevant information via display.

So I want to demonstrate the issue(s) has been considered and solution presented, it is not just a hair brain idea. I have shared with you (via PM) regards the additional hardware/software that makes this and many other things possible and to some extents opens some of the mysteries of what Simvibe is doing. Yet this is something nobody else to my knowledge has attempted to do with Simvibe to such extremes. Never mind trying to utilise a "Dual Role" configuration approach to achieve a performance beyond the normal experience.

Plenty To Work With
You have in my mind within this thread been given ideas/solutions that will outperform any Simvibe installation I have seen to date on any forum. Additionally I have stated the importance to consider a test build platform as your first build to determine all the best ways to compare such installation methods/options.

It is within doing that you will find added inspiration or methods to implement things better.
Also I can assure you you will come across issues and factors not even properly considered that require workable solutions. Some will be simple others may be more challenging.

Once that is done then you have the full answers to build a final working cockpit solution to the way you want it to look and addressing any issues discovered from the testing while incorporating the fully tested configuration that works best. So I would not concentrate too much on trying to solve all the assumed issues now and come up with a pre planned "this is it" approach for your build as it is too experimental to pre plan.

Ideally someone doing such could go through all the testing/research to design a cockpit frame. A build that can install the best tactile hardware and deliver the best quality Simvibe experiences. While no cockpit manufacturing companies have tried to do this. Such could be considered by someone to create a few and package it up on a small scale, sell it and have downloadable user profiles for it for different games/cars. Though I see limited market for such as Simvibe does not seem to be as high on everyone's priorities over other hardware. It is too costly with multiple tactile/amps leads, soundcards etc. Also most folk would invest the money in better wheel/pedals etc or indeed motion.

I think however I would be content with just showcasing a personal build highlighting all the work/testing issues discovered and uncovering the "Simvibe Mysteries" to share it with the community for others interested or those that want to follow in something similar.

 

[Mr Latte]

Latest Tactile & Subwoofer Tests
Okay, big post this one. Grab your favourite bevy or brew and some tasty nosh to help your through this one.

I've been doing some testing on my rig with my tactile/subwoofer configuration.
Yes it may only be with game audio "Drive Club" being used a lot, videos of Dirt gameplay and music videos from YT.

Highlighting consoles and music are part of the experience my tactile are used with and what I need to focus on just now. Currently running in a multi-stereo configuration utilising:

Front & Rear stereo subwoofers (Rear -10db as closer for improved balance)
TST 429 Seat L/R (Side of seat / front)
TST 239 Seat L/R (Side of seat / back)
Buttkicker LFE L/R

Gremlins
My DSP 6000 still needs to go back for repair (put it off earlier in year out of warranty) so have been using the 3000 model with the LFE. I am currently powering the 4xTST with a Yamaha AV amplifier RVX4600 and using a Sony AV amplifier 5200ES for input devices (HDMI PS4 & XBOX 1) and powering the 4 Subwoofers while using its PRE-OUT Stereo Output signal for the Yamaha & Behringer amplifers.

The only drawback with this is having no control of the inuke DSP, mainly the PEQ that give the great tuning in how them operate with the Subs & TST units. Currently however they are set to work as full-range with a crossover of 80Hz.

My DSP 3000 after working flawlessly seems to now have a fault, with either its (A) input or amplification section. Channel (B) is working fine. I will recheck the PRE-OUT from the Sony ES 5200 but the TST are working fine with the same PRE-OUT so doubt it is issue with source.
This will limit me to using for now only 1 LFE channel which is rather annoying.

Summary
No doubt about it, as much as I have been enjoying the tactile again with the TST units, the LFE is a monster for the low end. I felt a benefit of running the dual TST sets on the sides compared to just the TST 429 Platinum on its own. When I added the TST 239 (Silver) for the back section of the side it improved the dispersion of their effect and into the spine of the seat as well more than using the more forward positioned TST 429 by its own.

LFE - The Force
When the LFE was also combined it clearly can be felt, (20-45Hz Test) I have tested successfully having it at below the back of the seat as previously shown. So the frequencies go up into the rear supports of the seat mount. Weirdly it is not felt so much in the sides but most detectable in the back and shoulders seems to be were most of the energy is going. A later test will have it placed in a more central location under the seat which may enable it to react differently or more with the base of the seat too.

It produces a very deep/sensation of tactile force much different to the TST units produce, it does what I've said before the low stuff so convincingly, with a sensation of solidity and force no other unit manages to achieve. I have no doubts about it, for someone wanting a high performance on either a EM or CM channel(s) the LFE has to be used for its low end benefits and combined with a secondary unit for additional speed/detail. To have a channel use only a TST unit, so much is lost in the energy and sensation the LFE puts out.

Which Side?
The power of the LFE even at a volume level that produces discomfort (especially in the back/shoulders) clearly I could distinguish it was on the left side.

Even though it was felt in the right hand shoulder and back regions too. What was important is that the force was detectable, easily more from the appropriate position. This is very important for the dual LFE units to work and maintain the stereo transitions and in SIMVIBE to highlight Left/Right rear wheels. Based on this test and installation point it certainly would be okay.


Tactile Timing & Detail
For this part of the test I tried the seat with lots of music videos (ideal source as it covers many frequencies and with various timing) and to try and determine what/if any tactile detail was missing or being cancelled out.

Here the TST show their brilliance again in detail and timing. This is where the LFE does lose out a little. I do sense a slight amount of lag sometimes with music. I guess I am being particularly fussy, but well trained with using tactile hence I notice it. While perhaps this is not so much an issue from a Game/Simvibe source. I believe it is highlighted more with music and with me also using sub-woofers emphasising the same bass frequencies. As you hear it, you expect to feel it and the slight lag is sometimes noticeable with certain music.

The TST clearly were missed when I put the Yamaha amp on mute, so it was good that the LFE was not in some way drowning them out. Point to note however the LFE cannot conflict with the TST detail as the LFE unit is limited to 45Hz so all the detail of the TST is untouched and operating as normal.

Only the 20-45Hz are in this case being used on both types of tactile. I did not feel that the LFE was cancelling out the TST bass in this situation. The TST performance in these ranges is important too. First point, clearly the TST 429 model is much stronger than the TST 239 but having them turned on made a noticeable difference.

With "Racing Games" many effects are happening so rapidly and it is worth noting their improved speed performance is adding to the detail even if their low end impact cannot match the LFE. So with both you get the high energy slam of the LFE but the improved and detailed 20-45Hz each type of unit is sharing. Using them combined with the LFE and the same music tests did help mask the timing lag previously found with the LFE on its own when used with the subwoofers. Although the success was more to using the TST429 with its greater low end grunt than if only the TST239 with the LFE were combined. It did not generate a strong enough low end in the 20-45Hz range to mask the lag as convincingly.

The TST offer of course the added detail with their usage in higher frequencies too but personally I do not like using the LFE or any Buttkickers much above 45Hz to maintain their performance only in the lowest end, its really what they do best. TST on the other hand do not seem to have this drawback with their different design and operate better over wider ranges of frequencies.

The TST in their higher working ranges (This test only upto 80Hz) work so well. With music I would say they need more specific tuning of certain frequencies, mainly reduction on some mid bass frequencies for additional composure and control. With gaming engine detail in particular and with increasing engine revs were highlighted by their presence, along with wind noise and other effects from the audio. Only a few effects in this test felt a little annoying in the mid/bass regions creating a slight amount of excess buzz sensation. Often around the 60Hz regions before the tactile becomes tizzy and after it loses its stronger depth of the lower frequencies.

A secondary installation point of the LFE will be tested to determine if further improvement in the seat base can be achieved while still maintaining the current LFE energy going into the back section of the seat. Or will it bring potential issues in the shared 20-45Hz range.

It is possible however to get a nice balance with the volumes and have the TST pair work well with the low frequency bass/tactile of the LFE. Even though in this current configuration my TST are not being tuned appropriately by inuke dsp. So more tweaking and better performance would be possible with them also using such. This early testing does highlight for me even with standard "Audio Tactile Sources" how well the "Dual Role" configuration works and making the most out of both types of units performances.

Crosstalk & Cancellation
So here is what I did, tried the TST on their own, each pair, then with both pairs and then combined with the LFE. No issues that I can report as drawback or negatives. The 429 didnt seem to be adversely effected by the 239 on the same channel creating less performance or cancelling one another out. More really positives with each addition as the dispersion of the effect is better spread and the energy of it is stronger. Adding the LFE into the mix brings the added benefits of what the TST themselves cannot deliver and again in this situation of 3 units doing effectively the role of normally only 1. It has spoilt me in the sense that personally in what I know is possible and aim to achieve from the cockpits tactile immersion, I would not be satisfied running a single unit in a traditional sense, for all roles/frequencies. Their is no going back in enjoying both the slam and detail that each provide when combined to work together.


Different Approaches / Optimal Performance
This is the area I am in disagreement with RW in how to proceed with a high end build.
I believe going with multiple units on "differing channels" combining several EM with the CM. By using a "limited number of effects" per unit with specific roles is flawed. This is were "Crosstalk & Cancellation" will likely become more of an issue even if the work load on the individual units is low using multiple sets has installation drawbacks.

In this situation you DO NOT have the same symmetry of DR units on a single channel using their "own set frequencies" within that channel working together. Instead you have a mix of units all working independently producing their own timing/effects taking place in multiple points of installation within the same area/seat. Not all of these can be in the optimal position or area of installation to the seat.

When multiple effects are operating together and working at the same time over several tactile units I believe the forces will be harder to differentiate. This approach also relies on the sole performance of single tactile units to deploy whatever effects you are utilising them for. To some extents yes an LFE unit is fine for say impacts role as an EM but a single one for front and another for rear (2) will not operate as well as having (4) units based within a CM configuration built around DR approach. I have tried to highlight in detail the limitations of these factors and again in re-considered comparisons, it has performance drawbacks with more potential issues within installation too.

Dropped 4 Way Seat Idea
I personally dropped the idea of using both front and rear CM effects in the seat with the 4 TST due to this issue of "conflicting/differing effects" within the seat. I decided to try the two sets per-side instead to produce better dispersion and work towards highlighting the directionality of effects more.

Yes from past tests I could detect having rear surround channels in my back and front stereo channels on the sides (same principle as CM) but having a more engrossing performance and better delivery of only 1 set of wheels in the seat is more convincing.

I do not however see RW your proposed LFE configuration for front/rear bump and impacts of effects combined with an engine based LFE unit also working well with dual TST units for rear wheels and an additional TST unit in the back for engine detail. All that fitting onto a single seat and working harmoniously over complicates the goal/purpose.

An LFE for the seat base (bumps) and LFE for the seat back (engine) may work with rear wheel TST units and a TST unit for detailed engine effects in the back. Yet why do this and lose power in L/R directional bumps/impacts the TST would themselves be delivering for rear wheels. Effectively having only a bum/back LFE combination offering limited front/rear capability? In comparison dual LFE on L/R rear wheels (1 per side) not only provides the directional power emphasis for those wheels but for rear based bumps/impacts effects if mono they will be delivered by 2 units instead of 1.

LFE / TST Conflicts
I have tested before with 4 TST units in such configuration with limited success of having full surround sound based (4way) within the seat. (See the early parts of this thread). While not what you RW have suggested for CM it is the same principle of multiple tactile units on differing channels with different roles installed on the same seat area.

The problem is when you start adding single/central non directional LFE units the power of that has an impact on the directional felt effects effectively overpowering the TST units on the chassis. Hence why I believe a well positioned dual LFE working in combination with CM is a better proposition and maintains the directionality but with the benefits of even more power to boot. CM is the most important channels, one tactile unit is limited in what it can do or how it performs. Dual units across the CM is in my view the best solution and go from their to test with other additional EM units for specific roles.


Off To See The Wizard
The current performance I am achieving with this set-up/configuration and the sub-woofers is the best I have had to date in any set-up. Very enjoyable and certainly can see things going along the right road/path, it may not be a "yellow brick" one but the end goal is closer.

More testing is to be done and inclusion of an engine only based TST329 for the rear of the seat to be trialled. I do however believe that will be interesting in how it would combine with the felt effects from the dual LFE within the back of the seat. I do not want to find a situation of feeling the engine more in the back as an independent channel (EM) at the expense of ruining the rear wheel stereo transitions and causing potential crosstalk. Will engine effects be best placed on the CM using appropriate filters, or can a blend of both be possible?


I believe it could be a bumpy one with potholes leading to a dead end...


More to follow in the week...

 

[Mr Latte]

Testing new location for the left hand side LFE.
Now neatly sits directly below the seat, in between the 4 uprights on the left hand set of tubing/tracks.

Working well, adding more of the power into the seat base but it is also felt in the back of the seat across the spine and around/beneath the shoulder areas.

Recap of what is being used on "Left Channel" / "Left hand side" of seat:

• 1x TST 429 Platinum
• 1x TST 329 Silver
• 1x LFE (20Hz-45Hz)

Thankfully effects from the TST units clearly can still be distinguished in the sides and base of seat, even being felt in the forward tubing rails in front of the seat. I was concerned of the LFE tactile diminishing their detail but does not seem to be the case when all are on the same channel producing the same frequencies.

I cut/drilled this attachment for the LFE from an old (Fanatec Wheel Stand) with holes to bolt and align up with the bottom clamps. Just done as a test but could end up being the used solution.


Nicely integrated out of the way.

Vibrations go right through the recline mechanism into the backrest of the seat.

Originally expected to fit from the top, hanging down, it was always just about going to fit


Bolted to main frame clamps and seat uprights.


Simple but effective solution

"Fanatec Wheel Stand" was just about wide enough to support the LFE.


Underneath the seat, left and right hand sides.

 

[RW65]

RE: post #151

G’day ML, long overdue answering some of your questions, thanks for your patience!

……….


Points Score... LFE versus TST429

LFE… the biggest badass there is… thumps & wallops… no compromise.

TST429… Offers thumps & wallops with possibly no other equal but on a smaller scale than the LFE… provides quicker response times & precision.

Yes, the Points Score is pretty handy in the grand scheme of things when crunching the maths, however, it’s only a two horse race with the TU’s I am considering, with their individual characteristics already clearly defined by yourself… also I am attempting to limit, as much as possible, the EFFECTS I plan to deploy, With perhaps as many as only two EFFECTS (three at the most) to each of the TU’s that I plan on using in both CM & EM.

On the financial front, linking an additional TU to the same channel does not make sense in my current situation, as my build is continually getting more expensive as more or new SIM hardware is being added to my wish-list.

A defined line in the sand has to be drawn at some point & as my Simvibe setup with both Amps & TU’s is already at the extreme, presently sitting at $9,000 Aussie (excluding shipping, taxes, customs, cabling & connectors) whereas yourself ML, have already purchased much of the TU hardware already, from previous excursions into tactile exploration, are in an ideal situation to design your Chassis around the number of TU’s you already own… whilst my Chassis Build still warms the bench & is hoping to finally get a couple of kicks on the park some-time soon!

Also, primarily I am restricted to limiting space constrains to add additional TU’s to the Pedal Rigs & especially the Seat Rigs where acreage is in extreme short supply.

Is this Tactile Build an Extreme Expense?

If one were to be able to secure a loan of, say, $10,000 interest free & have the pleasure to use this proposed, high-end hardware that the loan has bought, for a period of 10 years, the actual cost crunches to less than $20 per week… I am sure there are many others who would love to capitalise on this type of extreme hardware at such a reasonably priced weekly expense?

Why 10 Years?

Most hobbies or personal interests will last a lifetime & 10 years is such a short time-frame-cycle in the grand scheme of things. If all goes well & there are no hardware breakdowns then 10 years seems very achievable, perhaps many more years are possible with this hardware, further reducing the weekly cost breakdown?

……….

What is the ‘ULTIMATE’ (Simply Subjective) Simvibe Experience? (part 1)

Yes, my choice in hardware is costly compared to other “cheaper” TU’s & Amplifiers that are offered by other companies, which also provide an adequate tactile experience…

Hopefully, this ludicrous expense to my Tactile Experience will provide strong long term benefits… longer lasting Amplifiers & TU’s as the hardware can still output strong tactile vibrations whilst being “run” below maximum outputs… the iNUKES watts limiter can safely drive TU’s close to their maximum output without destroying them… & the iNUKES themselves, have more than enough commanding power to “run” these high end TU’s at greatly reduced intensities, perhaps at two-thirds of maximum output or less... peace of mind & reduced stress levels wins the day!

Also, not needing to buy my equipment / hardware twice in this “rat-race” of eccentric commercialism… possibly never having to upgrade to newer or even higher performing hardware in the future.

……….

What is the ‘ULTIMATE’ (Simply Subjective) Simvibe Experience? (part 2)

Highlights of your commentary, ML (post #152);

……….


“My build has always been about using lighting/audio/tactile in ways to generate a really entertaining experience”.

“This is what I see games being, fun, as entertainment, it is the inner kid within me amusing myself”.

“I do not buy into the "Realisim Factor" of simulation very much”.

“Perhaps yourself like others are different of course and in a cockpit build they have an agenda to replicate the true experience”.

“My build is all about entertaining the inner child more than it is of expecting the grown man try to experience a real motor-sport at home or train my skill-set to a level that is useful in the real world scenario of proper racing”.

“I would rather at this moment spend £1500 on a Dolby Atmos capable sound system to add to the cockpit rather than a Sim Xperience wheel/rim set. Why is that, because for me it adds more to the complete package for all the entertainment usages than a wheel limited to only PC which yes is stronger, smoother more direct over a T500 RS”.

“So once again highlighting my entertainment pref over actual "realism" factors for improved simulation. I do however have an eye for good quality products and appreciate using such which I am sure many others share. Although "Mr Latte" is not wanting to get involved in racing leagues and become some macho race dude. Instead it's the little kid that wants to play sometimes and do so in a big fancy entertaining way”.

“Perhaps for me, much of the desired magic is replicating that experience again because as children we can be free of worries, full of adventure seeking fun and thrills. Perhaps an adult it is harder to escape such things of life/reality for momentary diversion or entertainment. Yet I believe many could relate to much the same in finding gaming as an escape from daily life issues. We all have an inner child just that depending on your own life experiences different things will bring you back to it”.

……….


ML, what a fabulous post this is… open, honest & more importantly, an awesome expression of being human & recovering the lost child within ourselves.

However, although I openly admit to having love for what you have expressed above & fully appreciate its exploration into your own sovereign consciousness, I have so many differing sovereign views!

These are…

Entertaining Experience versus Realism Experiences Wanted…

Fun, Entertainment, Amusing Myself versus Wanting to Learn a New Craft / Skill Set…

Realism Factor of Simulation versus Simulation of Race Conditions with other Like-Minded Consciousness’s in Real-Time…

Entertaining the Inner Child versus the Experience of Simulation Motor Sport…

Audio System Purchase versus Sim Hardware Purchases Favoured…

Not Wanting Involvement in Racing Leagues versus YES, Wanting Involvement

Finding Gaming as an Escape from Daily Life Issues versus Alcohol, Drugs & Promiscuous Sex…

Just kidding, ML, neither of us are wright or wrong… we both have differing opinions & expressions of interest in what we desire… therefore, I think it is safe to say that we agree to disagree in regards to our subjective views on determining what is the Ultimate Simvibe Setup?

……….


Compare Planned Configurations – Also Why LFE over TST429 & Vice Versa?

Yes, I am pretty much set in my ways in regards to my Planned Configuration.

Just for clarification, 4 x TU in CM… TST429’s… the location of each TU has isolation or separation from each of its CM brothers… also full isolation from the Chassis Floor mounted 3 x LFE’s (note, this has now openly been revised to 2 x LFE plus 1 x TST429).

The 3 x Chassis Floor mounted TU’s in EM are fully isolated from the TU’s in CM… one LFE is solely used for Engine RPM… from idle to 35% of maximum RPM then will cut-off. The tactile vibrations of this LFE go to the Cockpit, Heel Plate & Seat via the Widget & will be thunderous in nature & controlled via iNUKE DSP. This EFFECT is designed to drown out all other EFFECTS whilst the virtual car is in the low RPM range.

……….


As there are officially only three channels available in EM (SEAT, SHIFTER & PEDALS) the SEAT channel will be split to service two TU’s, the second Engine RPM effect going to the TST429 mounted to the Seats fabricated Roll Bar (again, full isolation from the Chassis Floor) this again, will only service one EFFECT, Engine RPM Full-Range.

This TU (SEAT, Engine RPM Full-Range, Seat Roll Bar, EM) whilst working in tandemwith the LFE (SEAT, Engine RPM 35% Cut-Off, Chassis Floor mounted, EM,) to some degree… as the tactile source comes from the same EM channel, the SEAT… will work in polarity to the above mentioned LFE.

By this, I intend such a LOW vibrational Engine RPM EFFECT that this will be consciously unnoticeable… this TST429 will service the entire RPM range & has direct contact with the Seat at shoulder height level. Again, this EFFECT will be adjusted via the iNUKE DSP.

……….


So, taking a step forward in this process & reviewing what (should hopefully) be felt in the Seat alone after the RPM has increased beyond 35% of its maximum range, the 2 x TST429’s in CM (the Seat Rigs, that have LHS / RHS separation from each other & FULL isolation from the Chassis Floor) will deliver at least one or two (possibly three?) ROAD or SUSPENSION EFFECTS at a comfortable experience (not too weak & not too strong) & also have the type of character to be OVERWHELMED by the two remaining TU’s that are Chassis Floor mounted in EM… one TU will be dedicated to the Simvibe SHIFTER channel & the other TU to the Simvibe PEDALS channel.

These two EM TU’s mounted to the Chassis Floor will have a far stronger tactile intensity or volume than the 2 x TU in CM attached to the Seat’s Seat Rigs & are intended to over-power the EFFECTS that are already being felt in the Seat, via the Widget that is mounted to the Chassis Floor that has direct contact with the middle of the underside of the Seat itself.

The source of the CM tactile EFFECTS from the 2 x TST429’s attached to the Seat’s Seat Rigs come from the sides of the Seat… unlike the Chassis floor mounted TU’s in EM that come from the bottom underside of the seat via the Widget.

Sure, to be more precise, these CM & EM EFFECTS will mix & muddle within the Seat itself, as there is no way of separating them, but a noticeable difference will occur… say for example the EM Gear Shift EFFECT or an Impact EFFECT… both of these EFFECTS will change the dynamics of tactile being felt within the Seat itself to some degree… furthermore, the intensity or volume of these Chassis Floor mounted EFFECTS will be much more pronounced or louder than the Seats Seat Rigs TU’s in CM, thus drowning them out to some degree, similar to the Chassis Floor mounted LFE (EM, Engine RPM 35% Cut-Off) will overpower & drown out ALL other EFFECTS.


If I were to prepare an intensity or volume chart, with 10 being the greatest & 0 the softest, it would read like this.


9 – LFE, Chassis Floor mounted, EM, Engine RPM 35% Cut-Off (only one EFFECT)

7 – LFE & TST, Chassis Floor mounted, EM, Gears, Impacts, Vertical Surges, Large Bumps (only two EFFECTS each)

4 – TST x 2, Seat Rigs, CM, Suspension, Road (only two EFFECTS)

4 – TST x 2, Pedal Rigs, CM, Suspension, Road (only two EFFECTS)

1 – TST, Seat Roll Bar, EM, Engine RPM Full-Range (only one EFFECT)


The key will be to experiment & test with what I can achieve with this type of Planned Configuration. Obviously, the least amount of EFFECTS deployed will ensure both the cleanest & clearest tactile experience.

……….

I have recently purchased the Cobra Suzuka Pro GT Seat & have included photos. The small ‘post-it’ notes located on the Seat are where the Widget & Seat’s Roll Bar will have contact.

……….

Sweet photos with your build progress ML, coming along nicely… thanks also for the notes in regards to the LFE not diminishing the TST’s in the Seat… this gives me much greater confidence in my build configuration!

Cheers for now

 

[Mr Latte]

Good to see you back and thanks for the reply and comments...
Congrats also on getting the seat. I expressed my position more as a gamer wanting to be entertained but that does not mean I would not consider incorporating some high end "Sim Hardware". I appreciate a quality product and performance gains or indeed better experience such can bring. The Simvibe and audio experience are my key factors to maximise first.

While I do not see myself participating in regular racing communities or seeking to build a skill set as a dedicated sim racer. My interest lies in getting superb enjoyment from using it all. So our perspectives for usage may indeed differ and we also seem to differ on what is the best solution for a cockpit build regards the tactile.

RE: post #151 Sweet photos with your build progress ML, coming along nicely… thanks also for the notes in regards to the LFE not diminishing the TST’s in the Seat… this gives me much greater confidence in my build configuration!

Sorry but you are forgetting something.
I am using the same channel across all my units, so they are working combined together. It is only that their frequencies for deployment are split to the individual units. I believe you are bound to get cancellation and a tussle between different units to some degree with them all trying to produce their own thing in a seat configuration. I found this the case with a seat using 6 independent units in the past and in the mash of everything you lose detail and it is harder to balance the output for all the channels. Also with having the LFE with a different effect it may overpower the directional CM effects by your TST429 so depends how often it will operate how much it will overpower and diminish the rear wheels multidimensional effects. I still believe your approach is flawed my friend but do commend your dedication.

ML, neither of us are right or wrong… we both have differing opinions & expressions of interest in what we desire… therefore, I think it is safe to say that we agree to disagree in regards to our subjective views on determining what is the Ultimate Simvibe Setup?

People will have different preferences which I agree.
However performance results from actual testing determine what is a "technically better working solution." They also will highlight what the limitations of each are also. Please do understand I do fully intend to do proper Simvibe testing of my planned configuration but it already has been through similar tests over the years to determine if my method holds any water.

I find their is a difference in someone giving a view based on past experiences/testing of product knowledge and forming their views on that information. Yes it may still be opinion and subjective. Yet this is different to someone making assumptions or possible expectations from nothing other than ideas to determine in advance what is best or more suited to their own preferences. In one hand you are discounting a solution that no-one else has really tried but is recommended by someone with a fair amount of experience as an advancement to better performance. Yet writing it off without testing/comparing such yourself.

It seems you are still making lots of assumptions how it will all work before actually doing tests or comparisons. Seemingly ignoring the benefits of the DR and the greater performance scoring it brings. Yes you make a point of cost but I highlighted this before that the cost of the TST 429 is excessive, this is the wrong choice to consider for multiple units and this coming from an owner of all the TST models. You would think I would have some incline to their performances. I am not boasting here, just highlighting a factor that you will find very few owners of all the TST models never mind the TST429 alone that can give such advice. Yet when you get it you still ignore this factor on several occasions, lol (shakes head amusingly).

Pay More For Less Performance
See the cost example below as it highlights what I have recommended long ago as a configuration that i believe will outperform your current plans but it costs almost $1100 less.

So please do not try to tell me the cost as one of your reasons for not considering DR as it is rather invalid and the total opposite. My own example could even have 2x TST429 on the seat for improved rear CM that will still bring it under the excessive cost of your own ideas with 5x TST429.





Anyone Else Baffled?
I am rather baffled that here we are on page 6 and you still seem determined to go with your own original choice and purchasing 5x TST429 as the main component for the build. I am not trying to be ignorant here but I do not see much advice given that you seemingly have taken on board towards my suggestions or examples highlighted. It is falling on deaf ears I feel.

Their is no point me bringing up the issues your build may have again or the performance drawbacks to my own recommendations. You cannot tell me convincingly how your configuration will perform, as you can only at this point imagine such. Yet owning the very tactile you want to use and giving detailed reports on their operation highlighted in my own build recently which I have shared still hasn't convinced you on the limitations of a single unit or combining the slam/detail into all CM channels.

I stated before, your fascination with the TST429 still is not what I would recommend based on my own experience of different units and advising someone what to do in how to spend their budget for best performance.

If that is what I was asked to do, I have done it and if you have concluded after everything in this thread you want to stick with your own original idea(s) ignore the advice then I have to respect that decision.

Test The Theory
What gets me though is how you can make such choices already not having tried a single tactile unit or done any comparisons. Yet you describe how/what effects you will be using on the appropriate tactile units, the best way to do it with only 2-3 effects on each unit and seemingly already know that it will all work as you expect, seriously?

Here I am with the tactile I have and even my past experience with it and I am concerned how a TST unit on the back of the seat will work with the dual LFE. Why because I have never had two LFE on a seat before to pre-determine if the TST unit will be a success or actually spoil the directional effects. You need to test such theories or considered installations man. Pre-determinations of possible performance are worth little, you have to put them into practice just like more than one installation method should be considered. The testing verifies if it is a success or best option.

I have no issues that you may not agree with my opinions or preferred choices but I still am trying to advise you to buy different units and do your own tests to determine the best course of action for your own build and own preferences. Perhaps then as you build your own knowledge from such tests in how the units differ/perform or if you even bother to compare DR with a single unit then we might start to agree more in the best suited direction to proceed.

At least with this you discover your own best method and configuration preference. I very much doubt if you do this you will end up going for your current ideas.

Suited For Their Purpose?
Sorry that I do not agree with buying 5xTST 429 units @ $549 a piece. Then to use them for 2-3 effects as really the much cheaper TST 239 would handle this still rather well. Also with only relying on 2 LFE on a build for low end, come on are you serious, this greatly diminishes the potential performance of the CM. 5x TST 429 is a crazy way to blow your budget. Overkill in one sense and underwhelming in another. All of which totally ignores for me the most important aspect I shared in my views regards the importance of CM performance coming first.

The TST 429 is probably one of the most "musical compatible" tactile units you can buy and you are wanting to purchase 5x of them for the most frequency limited of purposes. Not only that but limit them to only 2-3 effects in using Simvibe. So the benefits it brings are greatly diminished in this role and while yes it still will outperform the other TST units. It is however for this purpose a gross overspending for what it brings and in my view bad management of whatever budget you have.

The LFE on the other hand brings something unique in its low end performance that does deserve utilising having one on each CM channel. It is very cost effective even when taking into account the more expensive amplifier it requires but essentially it is designed for usage in the role of what Simvibe requires. These points have been highlighted several times already yet you constantly ignore them and why is beyond me.

Did I Ever Mention?
It is one thing to plan the best configuration, it is another to then find ways to make its installation work. They are two individual tasks. To me discussing the best Simvibe configuration is one part, determining how to fully utilise it in the best way possible, looking at the various possible alternatives and evaluating their potential.

Once the best layout, based on sheer performance is determined then the next is implementing and incorporating this to the users build/cockpit design. Their cannot be 2-3 or more "Best Simvibe Performance" configurations in the hardware that is to be used and how it is to be used. If your goal was the same as mine then rightly people with such goals should end up with similar Simvibe configurations/layouts/hardware even if their own installation and incorporation differ in their individual builds to each user preferences.

Technical Limitations
LAST CALL
Ensuring that the CM delivers the best performance possible is something no single unit can achieve. LFE does not produce the speed and detail that is possible. TST units bring this but their low end performance falls way below that of the LFE. Their is NO single unit that can in my experience get the best out of Simvibe. Been said lots here, the CM will carry the most range in effects and frequencies requiring high energy bumps/impacts while also high detail from smaller road surfaces/textures all at a high pace of speed.

Maximum depth of whack from(LFE) and speed/detailing from (TST) is the key to the best tactile performance from Simvibe. To ignore this from a performance perspective is a big mistake in my view and anyone dubious should at least test it even on an EM based role to compare.

Not For Everyone
My tests with this DR may be limited within Simvibe but I have no doubts that splitting the source frequency ranges in a controlled manner is the way to go and maximising the best two types of units for lowest and mid range tactile frequencies. The advantages are very clear my friend but it looks like you do not want them and settling with your own theory.

I will not change from this view having extensively tested using two tuned units instead of one on many audio sources covering all possible frequencies Simvibe would utilise. Disappointed that with even going to the bother of showing my own build in progress that this did not help assure or convince you it was the route to follow.

Do wish you the best RW on your build and hope to see it begin next year whatever direction you decide to take and have enjoyed the chats. The rest is really up to you now. It just seems a long way to come to have ended up with pretty much what you had in mind to start with.

Eat well and enjoy the holidays.

 

[Mr Latte]

With all my moaning

I forgot to point out that I will update tomorrow, one of the last things to attempt on my seat.
The issue regards using a TST unit on the back of the seat for engine purposes. While I am limited to just the one LFE on the left side (amplifier issues) each side of the seat will make full use of the 429/239 combo. In some ways this is better as it lets me feel what the LFE is adding on the left side compared to the right without it.

So tests will be done to determine if this interferes with the LFE/TST units on the seat that are in my current case (stereo) but within Simvibe would be for the rear CM multi-directional based effects. This rear TST would of course within Simvibe represent an individual EM for engine role as you are suggesting doing.

I have found a mounting solution that is better than previous ideas to mount this back TST unit. Unlike the previous ones this does not compromise losing the seat slider functionality, nor put strain on the reclining mechanism or leather cushioning. So hope it performs well.

 

[Mr Latte]

Notes on testing later...

First attempt:
Bolts to the underside of the seat with two metal brackets/arms.
Tactile goes through seat into recline mechanism.

Also will try with uprights in contact with back of seat.

 

[Mr Latte]

Going For Gold
Okay so spent several hours dong tests with this seat/back orientated tactile unit, its a "TST 329 Gold". Many cars and different views were tested again in "Drive Club" comparing the output to standard stereo from the TST239/TST429 on the sides and also with just the LFE being used. Then to have the whole lot together compromising 6 of the planned 7 units I want for the seat.

Quite a lot yes but to highlight again this configuration is really only using 3 active channels. These are L/C/R from Dolby Digital and the amplifiers configured as a 3 channel setup. All units were set to LARGE to ensure they received all low HZ and I set a limit with the crossover to 80Hz for all units with only the LFE reduced to using 20-45Hz.

This Test Config:
L/R TST 429 (Front Side Of Seat)
L/R TST 239 (Rear Side Of Seat)
LFE (Left side of seat only)
Centre TST (Seat Backrest)
L/R Sub (Front Stereo)
L/R Sub (Rear Stereo)


Feeling Racey
Okay its not Simvibe and the consoles cannot deliver the same detailed tactile experience but from a game audio based perspective "Drive Club" is very entertaining in tactile. Certainly much more detailed and enjoyable than "Project Cars" audio based tactile. Engines are deep and lively, road detail is limited but "Drive Club" creates an effect that the LFE delivers with superb low end when the tyres are under load which increases with high speed in cornering. This I have found is a cool felt effect in the shoulder regions and down the side of the rear of the seat, certainly more noticeable than in the base of the seat. Hard to explain why it is felt more there even with the newest directly under the seat LFE installation placement shown recently. It does highlight once again that the LFE can produce low end directional energy to a level from effects that other units do not even seem to produce. When the LFE was turned off this particular effect was greatly missed and the sensation was not produced with the TST429/239 combo on the exact same channel.


Try & Try Again
I ran various volume levels and found the main importance to get a balance that tied in well with the stereo units. I found having this unit at a higher level created some issues. With it going directly into the users back and it such a sensitive area. The brain tends to register the bone conduction as an obvious point of focus to an extent your not taking in the detail of the left/right (stereo) tactile from the sides. Maybe it is just me but it seemed to basically grab my attention away from the focus of the other stereo based tactile.

This wasn't an issue with the LFE effects in the 20-45Hz regions mentioned above. With its much deeper/stronger low end and its extra power, when it kicks in you certainly feel it regardless. So the concerns I had with this unit effecting the L/R based LFE detail were not so much an issue. The issue was more degrading to the L/R directional stereo on the TST units.


Balancing Act
Its all about finding the balance and after about 6 alterations I did achieve a good balance with the stereo based L/R TST units. This did bring back the tactile focus that the brain registers them doing their thing yet still have the benefits of this rear mounted unit add its own extra detail and still feel the power of the LFE kicking in when effects are utilising it.

The combination was rather superb even if I was wishing to feel the same low end on the right hand side of the seat that is the only omission from the full seat configuration. Yes this experience will fall short of what will be possible with Simvibe so I can only look forward to the future to make the most out of it.


Installation:
Added some additional uprights from this new frame section that are in contact with the lower ridge of the carbon fibre of the seat. This helps the tactile go directly where I want it to be felt and the plan is with a limited volume it is effective where it needs to be but will not disperse too much into other regions of the seat.

Support bracket. Not the prettiest but simple/effective and enables the seat sliding function.


Bracket is actually more scavenged parts from the "Fanatec Wheel Stand"


The carbon back of the seat, so afraid of scoring this when working at the back.


Still some fixes to do. Though I doubt this will be the final used solution.


Much simpler than previous shown efforts. Seat still reclines to all positions I use it.


Rear section of cockpit yet to be built but it will play a factor in the complete stylisation.



Future Changes
I do want to do some changes to the side mounted TST units and will in future look to try a new installation. Do believe more performance is possible over the current temporary method used. Besides I kinda enjoy trying different options and modify things to I get properly happy with them.

Considering a similar clamp method used in the rear, for improved contact/performance.


Forgot to show this at the time of sharing the new LFE installation.
This was one of the rejected options that I previously discussed and recently tested.

 

[Mr Latte]

Putting words into practice, continued with testing and doing some more refined changes.
Some clamps saved with these changes, so I can get the wheel deck section completed next.

Removed all the side mounted upright connections, in favour of dual horizontal bars to main-frame


Less cluttered looking, performs just as well as most energy is going into the seat mainframe


Simplified rear section also more compact, trialling this with/without added uprights.

 

[Mr Latte]

Last update for the year, wish everyone a pleasant and heart warming Christmas with family,friends and loved ones...
Thanks to those who have followed this merry-go-round.

So with the changes done to the seats side/rear tactile and it re-enabling the usage of the seat-slider functionality again. I was glad to get around that previous compromise.

I mentioned previously in wanting the "wheel deck" also to be on an adjustable seat slider. So went about incorporating an idea, making the most of stuff I had. I love getting a little creative and again its building on the go rather than to set plans. The platform for the "wheel deck" is actually a modified (pedal mounting section) from a GamePod cockpit. It is connected to seat-sliders which is connected to the cockpit tubing.

This allows for approx 3" of forward/back with an adjustable angle and is wide enough to support the wider CSW and T500RS wheel bases too. The TV was raised 1.5" to compensate for the wheel deck addition and this now brings the centre of the screen directly with my eyeline again. It took quite a while to get it all implemented but feels very sturdy and happy with how this turned out.

Hows about a change from the BW with some moody room ambilight colour ones.


The sun is setting and their ain't no budging this thing


Easy adjustability



Hand lever at back to adjust slider function


Max forward position with slight tilt for wheel


T500RS is such a big bodied wheel but loads of room


Easy swap solution for other wheels could be added with their own mounting plates


Pedal section to be built in new year and rest of cockpits outer frame


Substantial but strong


Some tweaking of clamps need centred and positioning finalised


Room at back for other stuff


May it help inspire you RW65 or others.

 

[RW65]

G’day ML, wishing you a merry Xmas & joyful New Year 2016 along with all the other fellas reading this thread… thanks also for your generous help, creative ideas & commitment to feedback over this past year, seriously appreciated.

Your build is awesome man!

Cheers

 

[Carson79]

Merry Christmas

 

[LogiForce]

Merry Christmas guys.

 

[HoiHman]

Merry Christmas guys

 

[Mr Latte]

I had a chance to do some extra bits, thought I'd post it now and wish you all the best for 2016.
Not a big fan of New Years Celebrations really but for those that are, have a good one.

Rear Seat Solution
So finally it has been determined and tested.
This produced the best results of 4 different solutions/attempts. The only thing I will modify is the arms that extend from below the seat with maybe a stronger sheet of metal or wood. With the soft metal used they have bent a little when pressure from the recline function has increased the load on them.

I wanted a better solution that maintained the contact of the tubing for the tactile vibrations. Especially when making adjustments in reclining without it possibly marking the back of the seat. Having a foam/rubber solution over the end of the tubing of course did okay but it never kept the two surfaces in a bonded/fastened contact so performance was being lost in the vibrations with limited contact pressure between the two. It isn't possible with this seat to drill a hole and bolt a TST unit on the back.

I had to do a bit of head scratching and find a new solution. What I discovered was something I never seen used on a cockpit before but also rather handy!

It was worth a go and it worked out rather well too with only minor modification (hacksaw). It is placed into the top clamps and these are only slightly tightened, so when I adjust the recline function and the angle varies they move up/down within the clamp as required.

After a couple of goes in testing a few different heights the result is excellent, placing the vibration effects of this tactile unit exactly where I prefer them.











this

 

[.pixr]

Hello, guys stumbled upon this thread researching Simvibe stuff or my rig.
Had a lot of questions and already answered some of them by reading this topic

I've read everything on the first page and scanned the others for valuable info, regarding placement etc. There's to much to take in at once so i'll probably revisit that sometime later

I have the opportunity to buy 4 used LFE's. (The guy actually has 8 but I made a reasonable offer for 4)
Currently my aluminum profile rig is equipped with 2 Aura shaker under the seat running of an old stereo amp.

The two main things I'm was wondering about the LFE's

• Are the reliable? As I'm buying second hand I'm a little bit scared.
• To fully utilize them 2 iNuke's 6000DSP would be the best choice right? As the 3000DSP doesn't really cut it regarding output.

Hope you guys can help me out. Thanks in advance.


@Mr Latte That rig looks so sexy!

 

[Mr Latte]

Hi .pixr

The inuke DSP 3000 will power two channels okay and still pack quite a punch with the LFE model but yes the 6000 DSP is better suited to handle them and cost is not really that much more. Do register your Behringer products and purchase from an authorised dealer to ensure you get the full warranty.

The bigger LFE Buttkickers do not bottom out as easily as the Mini LFE units but they can still do so. Usually only very high volumes with particularly low HZ with high dynamic range, or overdone bass management. The DSP models do give you more tuning options in how the tactile operates which you may of read about in this thread. I find the LFE feels really good in the 800-1000 (ish) watts each, depends what the source is but it can get overbearing when running in pairs. Of course the source itself, your personal preference, build and installation are all factors to consider.

Thanks for comment on the cockpit, appreciated, still lots more to do before being finished. My plan is to have a New PC during the year to let me continue some advanced Simvibe testing.

I have never had any issues with tactile faults and actually bought several myself second hand with no problems. Normally for me however with second hand I buy through ebay so the purchase is protected if arriving faulty.

 

[.pixr]

Hi .pixr

The inuke DSP 3000 will power two channels okay and still pack quite a punch with the LFE model but yes the 6000 DSP is better suited to handle them and cost is not really that much more. Do register your Behringer products and purchase from an authorised dealer to ensure you get the full warranty.

The bigger LFE Buttkickers do not bottom out as easily as the Mini LFE units but they can still do so. Usually only very high volumes with particularly low HZ with high dynamic range, or overdone bass management. The DSP models do give you more tuning options in how the tactile operates which you may of read about in this thread. I find the LFE feels really good in the 800-1000 (ish) watts each, depends what the source is but it can get overbearing when running in pairs. Of course the source itself, your personal preference, build and installation are all factors to consider.

Thanks for comment on the cockpit, appreciated, still lots more to do before being finished. My plan is to have a New PC during the year to let me continue some advanced Simvibe testing.

I have never had any issues with tactile faults and actually bought several myself second hand with no problems. Normally for me however with second hand I buy through ebay so the purchase is protected if arriving faulty.

Hi Mr. Latte thanks for the quick reply and the insights, especially about the full warranty. I have an option on a second hand 6000DSP w/ presumed warranty, so that's definitely something to keep in mind and check.

My ideal plan is would be to order a 1000DSP, 3000DSP and a 6000DSP and then make the decision between the 3 and the 6 to hear/feel the difference. The 1000DSP would be used to power the Aura's

The thing is that I'm also currently upgrading my OSW FFB wheel to a Kollmorgen servo which already costs a good penny.
So it could be that I just first make a temporary setup with 2 LFE's for the time being and add a second suitable amp later.

I did some quick searching and also found this (budget) amp. http://www.thomann.de/nl/the_tamp_tsa_4_1300.htm?ref=search_rslt_t.amp_325988_14 I know the iNuke's would be preferred, but do you have any experience with this brand/type?

Ps. I'll add some pics of my rig hopefully tomorrow.

 

[Mr Latte]

The 6000 model uses a deeper base/casing and also has dual fans. Many PA type amps can be nosier than typical hifi or AV based amplifiers. You may want to look here to a thread I did that covers some products and aspects.

Currently to my own opinion/knowledge I have not come across a better amplifier range for the money suited to tactile power/performance. It is also a model/brand that is used a lot for home cinema sub-woofer purposes. Recommend addressing the warranty procedures as Behringers own repair/warranty service is not the cheapest. Well in UK I found a cheaper authorised repair centre for a DSP6000 that I have (still) to return that is out of warranty.

The benefit of having much increased wattage/power than needed is ensuring the amplifier itself is operating well within its capacity, you still may not find yourself running at the LFE 1500 wattage that often. Tactile is hard on amplification my friend having an amplifier that can cope better with the demands is a wise consideration.

Operating the LFE at its peak of 1500w will bring the issue of the piston bottoming more frequently too. If you want to follow my own personal recommendations then you will limit the frequency range of the LFE to no more than 45Hz and utilise a different secondary unit on the same channel for the mid-higher frequencies. Their is a person in the Simvibe thread here @ GTP doing so on a modified office chair that has been testing a Simvibe extension with LFE/Aura combined. I have never tested this approach with an Aura having reduced/sold all my family of tactile units to now only owning TST/LFE models having eliminated all but what I found (for me) to be the best.

If you go through this thread, it highlights my own opinions and admittedly annoying persistence in the benefits this "Dual Role" optimisation/method brings with the requirements that Simvibe or indeed game audio puts on tactile devices. You can also ignore it or do your own testing/comparisons for yourself. I can only share what I have discovered and preferred myself. My own build seeks for a technically best performance and no single tactile in my own testing/opinion can bring this as this thread alludes too several times.

The OP @RW65 might enjoy you sharing your build here and certainly anything you can bring in the discussion regards building a rig optimised for Simvibe, its effects, preferred settings or information. We share similar interests/goals but seem to have opposing views in the build/tactile configuration best suited to be used.

Their still to my knowledge has not been a proper investigation/research of the software in describing in detail from testing how/what it does with various effects/textures or all its settings. Plenty has been asked in this thread with few willing or unable to speak up or answer on such matters or specifics.

So much is still uncertain regards it and building a cockpit with appropriate hardware to get the utmost out of it. Certainly if/when my circumstances change from my current financial situation then I intend to continue on this path/journey and have researched further hardware that makes such possible and brings even greater control over the tactile (yet to be shared).

 

[RW65]

G’day guys & happy New Year 2016!

ML, getting my stuff organised at this end & I hope to include a follow-up post sometime in the near future.

.....

Mr Latte - # 172

The OP @RW65 might enjoy you sharing your build here and certainly anything you can bring in the discussion regards building a rig optimised for Simvibe, its effects, preferred settings or information. We share similar interests/goals but seem to have opposing views in the build/tactile configuration best suited to be used.

…..

Howdy .pixr!

Yes, anything you wish to say here is warmly welcomed & I (speaking for us all) look forward to your future posts.

Cheers for now

 

[Mr Latte]

ML, getting my stuff organised at this end & I hope to include a follow-up post sometime in the near future.

Would be nice to have some discussion and updates again from you. Actually itching to get my teeth into Simvibe and start learning things we discussed.

I have had a great time just mucking about with my tactile the other day and doing some additional comparisons between units again and re-evaluating the current immersion performance. (may only be standard audio) but it is still rather thrilling with this amount/level of hardware. Moved the whole front upright section another 2.5" closer as found the wheel still a bit too far away. Have also been doing early tests for the pedal section looking at methods possible (some previously discussed) and in how I would incorporate the LFE/TST units.

Going to start dismantling the T500RS pedals in the near future for the next part of the adventure and look at some possibilities to connect them to the tubing. Still need to get a few more clamps and work up some more creativity for this front section.

My seat is not far from complete, need some components to finalise things and cut/drill the supports for the right hand side LFE for underneath but really it looks like 60% of my build is now complete.

 

[RW65]

Good onya ML, looking forward to posting more, just so tied up at the minute.

Still working on a project I started last November in regards to Simvibe, nothing fancy, just some basic stuff that may be of help to others… to be honest, created it for myself to help get my head around Simvibe’s effects functionality whilst away from the computer… then this unassuming project kind of digressed, split & shape-shifted into a second project (still unfinished, like my first project) that I know will be of benefit to myself…

I hope to post this second project in the near future as well, as other users may find an effects testing standard procedure helpful also. Again, nothing fancy, more of an organizational & documentation system for testing Simvibe settings… plus (perhaps) if well received & both privately & publically exercised, can provide a useful database for newbies like myself.

ML, whilst dismantling your T500RS pedals do you still plan to scrap the clutch? If so, will you replace it with a footrest? Stupid me, what a dumb question… if you do scrap the clutch & don’t replace it with some type of footrest then you will need to ride the brake pedal to experience tactile in the left toes… are you experiencing serious or not so serious space constraints in your pedals area with all your TU’s & SW speakers?

Now that I have my seat in hand I can seriously look at what type of shaped widget I plan to deploy… have re-located the contact point from the underside centre of the seat to the underside rear… from the three types of material I have been considering for the widget, will most probably choose a steel fabrication.

I have already taken my seat’s side mounts to my local machine shop for some grinding & drilling… as I wanted a fixed seat with no recline I have now achieved an optimal (to my liking) back tilt seating position… currently I am taking considerable effort in time working on my personal optimal seat to pedals configuration. Once happy with this I will wooden prototype both my seat & pedal rigs prior to fabrication.

💡 💡 💡
Well, that’s all for now… both Goofy & Daffy are hoping that 2016 will be one hell of a year for us all… these two cartoon characters wish to kindly remind us all to turn on our idiot boxes for the 6 o’clock news… they say we shouldn't be fooled by the smoke & mirrors & the filthy sleight of hand tricks by the All Seeing Eye slash Satanic Illuminati as they reveal their Trump card… Andrew Basiago for both President & full-disclosure all the way… fair dinkum!

Oh, better go… both the Thought Police & GT Planet are smashing down my front door… uh oh, wrong again… just some spook with a rendition order… he kinda glossed over the details but suggested I pack a toothbrush?

Sorry Latte, I guess that I’ve just halved our thread readership… so, just you & me now, buddy… ML, are you still there? ML?
🤬

 

[Mr Latte]

ML, whilst dismantling your T500RS pedals do you still plan to scrap the clutch? If so, will you replace it with a footrest? Stupid me, what a dumb question… if you do scrap the clutch & don’t replace it with some type of footrest then you will need to ride the brake pedal to experience tactile in the left toes… are you experiencing serious or not so serious space constraints in your pedals area with all your TU’s & SW speakers?

I have always played without clutch, usually have my foot on the brake for left foot braking. Its more a case of habbit and personal enjoyment over a want in recreating any actual "realism factor". If building using separate pedal stems/supports it wouldn't be much more difficult to build a configuration with only throttle on it's own isolated "right hand channel effects". Then perhaps both clutch/brake could be receiving the vibrations of the "left hand channel effects".

As for space, I have loads of room as the pedal area below the wheel deck is 26" wide, the space inside each left/right track is 7.5" to build the isolated uprights for each pedal section. It would be easy to cut away the inner tubes for this area if I wanted to go with three independent pedals.

My pedal choice for the future is being influenced by a set of pedals that will work with consoles and PC. "GT Sport" is a title that will be on my future playlist as much as top titles on PC.
At present my options seem to be

• Thrustmaster Pedals
• *Fanatec V3??? (* GT Sport? Sony 1st party titles on PS4 only seem supported by official licensed products)
• Sim Pedals
• Sim Pedals control box or other solution becoming available for console compatibility

Main Performance PC "Sim Pedals" are the only other alternative I have found, as they use a control box that is compatible with current console supported wheels.

Shortage of space isn't an issue.
*Temporary / Gamepod front section simply resting on current tubing.


The Pedal Platform Section
In testing I will look forward to do comparisons and particularly with Simvibe. The build or finished configuration for these will be the one that works best to my preference. So same principle really as for my seat. Certainly do have ideas but need to try different options, bring in creativity upon testing and during comparisons, rather than me build to a planned or assumed configuration already being the best option. This I think is were we differ in our approach my friend, you still are much of the mindset that with "theory" or pre-considered plan for your build in how everything might operate. While I am more of the approach that building by trialling various possible solutions and determining the best with "practical testing" in nothing more than trial and error from comparisons. Here previous experience comes in handy but I still prefer to not rely on a pre-set plan and enjoy having to get creative sometimes finding possible solutions.

I very much want to include comparisons of "DR Combined using EM/CM" to using the alternative approach of EM & CM on individual extensions/channels with their own set effect roles. Their of course is also the capacity to try both together in which I am already doing with the seat having a configuration that supports DR over CM and also an isolated EM on the back of the seat for specific roles/effects.

Make Pedals Same As Seat?
To copy what I have done on the seat is possible. However this would also require finding a volume/blend across all channels in that one is not overpowering or distracting from the other. In truth without testing I am uncertain that it will be as successful because our feet in toes/heels are much smaller regions than our thighs/back/sides. So assuming seat/pedals will operate similar is not guaranteed. I will not rule out the idea of giving it a go and do see some potential advantages of having the DR with CM in the pedals/base but also have an EM solely for "Engine/Gears/Brake Lock effects" across all pedals (2 or 3) used.

ALL TOGETHER NOW?
Positional Engine / Dual Role CM inc Engine + Set Role EM Engine + Subwoofers
As previously mentioned the engine effects could be sent to the DR CM tactile in both pedals/seat (LFE & TST) with clever usage of filters regarding their operation. What about however doing that but also having these work in tandem with different filters for the central EM TST units. Assuming the installation of them being used in both pedals & seat also.

In having engine related EM both for "Pedals/Back Of Seat" to incorporate these accordingly with the application of Front/Rear or Mid engine mounted cars. This could enable positional emphasis or greater strength in front or rear sections depending on the type of car being driven. Also in my own case I could further back this approach up utilising the appropriate sub-woofers "Audible Bass" to enhance either the pedal sections engine based effects or rear of seat engine based effects to the appropriate positional/location of any car. V12 front mounted Ferrari/Mercedes, no problem. V10 rear mounted Lamborghini/Porsche no problem. V10 mid mounted Audi R8 no problems. The audible bass and tactile emphasis will be placed accordingly and utilising both the power and detail of LFE/TST. This includes the added benefits of the TST's own audible sounds helping with adding presence to the high engine rev sounds/frequencies. So they compliment the subwoofers audible low end just as they complement the LFE low end tactile.

Seat Of Pants?
This already works very well with the game audio tests I have been doing so will only work even better with direct control of engine based frequencies that Simvibe offers. For me the subs serve a worthwhile purpose and addition to the total immersion just as the power of the LFE does its thing and the TST produce both additional detailing in tactile response but also with their own audible sounds. I can assure you all these combined are a rather enjoyable immersion/experience especially if punching in around 100db for a big roaring engine seemingly in the front of the cockpit or right behind the users seat exactly where it should be heard and felt.

Own Adventure / Goals
Really though when getting into Simvibe it will open the door for lots of possibilities/options and tests to be done to find the best or most preferred solution(s). What we know now to make decisions on, the likelihood is from testing/learning Simvibes operation, such new found knowledge will present additional inspiration or possible solutions to consider within a build. If I had to rebuild a whole new rig with some new knowledge that presented a better solution then I have no problems with that, my own current build in no way is final until I have done everything within Simvibe that I want to understand or test.


Simple Test
Having matching/corresponding tactile felt in both the a) body regions and b) feet really emphasises the effect by our brains. Consider it like dipping your toe/feet into a hot bath than being submerged in it. Even standard stereo felt in the feet and in the body when combined is enhanced when both are operating, removing it from one (feet or body) reduces the perception of the effect even though of course it is still felt/registered by our brains. I have been testing this again lately. It does make me however rather curious if 4 Way tactile from Simvibe will necessarily be better than having dual sets of front/rear stereo, mmmmm?

End User
I expect also that some people are perhaps more susceptible to tactile than others or in how their body/brain relates to it so results with any given build/solution may bring varied responses. It is one reason I suggest each user does their own testing especially as often so many variables are different from a users hardware/cockpit materials, placement, settings and volume levels.

I have read of people saying the suffer from blurred vision with only a BK Gamer but tactile has never effected my own vision at all.


As for "Illuminati" or those known as the "Enlightened Ones" you can PM me a video or two on it and your opinions of it, I believe I can send you one that will provide plenty of things to consider which you may never of .

 

[Mr Latte]

Simvibe Chassis Mode Testing Possibilities
Noticed I had not uploaded this (before) or at the time of showing the diagram layouts.
So quick explanation of my current thought process for my own testing/build.

With me duplicating the Simvibe Chassis Channels across each (LFE/TST/SUB) for 3 full sets.
All the Output Mixer settings will go across all the different tactile the same as they are a duplicate of the original output.

In my configuration it is ONLY with using the inuke DSP High/Low Pass Filtering on each individual amplifier that will determine what Hz frequencies each tactile unit produces. It is here further tweaking can be done inc PEQ for each specific unit or its own desired usage. I covered this with having different Hz ranges for LFE to the TST units before.

What however this approach also enables me to do is if I want to use NO FILTERING via inuke DSP at all. It would be possible to have the FULL RANGE of tactile frequencies for all effects from the "Simvibe Output Mixer" going to ALL (LFE/TST/SUB) units. This I think would feel rather uncontrolled but what it also enables is very easy way to compare and do for me very important detailed comparisons.

So it would be very easy to have Simvibe configured with an initial set of effects, their intensity tailored with the TONES being used and this could be done with individual effects or with combined sets within the Output Mixer.

Realtime Comparisons
Testing from perceived memory of installing one unit, to then remove it and try another is far from ideal. I want immediate way to do comparisons on the fly.

Once ready regards the Simvibe effects to be tested I can decide what I want to feel them on. So by just muting or powering off the relevant amplifier I have the following configurations available to do immediate comparisons.

All UNITS / No SUBS / Only TST / Only LFE


Really any combination can be powered on/off and matched together down to even testing individual single tactile units.

With doing any fine tuning or comparisons this will give me the ability to feel how the LFE vs TST compare on their own with any effects coming out of the Output Mixer. Of course if needed I can only use "Front" or "Rear" units or as mentioned just a "Single Unit". This also lets me do quick comparison to my preferred combined DR mode that I expect to perform best. So this whole configuration I am using, I do believe it will be useful to discover how each individual unit performs with any set effects or possible roles to the other. It will also highlight for me the strong points and weakness's in each too and help me determine how I should employ the Simvibe settings and match these with the inuke DSP filtering or enhancements with the PEQ for setting the Dual Role configuration. Really it is all about utilising the optimised performance of each individual unit as best possible that is discovered during the testing to have them both working together unified as one.

Engine based effects will need their own similar testing but those will be covered and done in their own as lots of possibilities with the filters and comparing how engines perform mixed with chassis in DR to operating on an isolated unit just for that role. I don't want to assume anything, even if I have my own theories of how things may work, my past knowledge of tactile units or findings from other tests. It is only through the actual testing can I learn more and discover what brings the best performance and one most suited to my own preferences.

Sharing this just to give some insight to how I may go about things but I will be going to great lengths within Simvibe testing/comparisons to try and achieve the most from it.

 

[Dean Ogurek]

@Mr Latte: Hello again, I'm finally catching up a bit on my reading.

I've now swapped out the Aura for a couple of ADX units since they were on sale and added a NU-1000 to drive them. I made brackets for the ADX units from 1/8" aluminum and they seem to work better than the Aura unit. I currently have one for engine-vibes and the other is doing surface detail duties - still in EM.

I tried running the LFE with the NU-3000dsp in bridge mode but, was a bit disappointed with performance; it seems the lower range (below 20hz) works best with my seat configuration for bigger bumps. I am intrigued by your use of dual LFE's for the seat; that might be just what will work on my rig and it can also make better use of the amp.

I do want to add a Clark unit in the seat back to replace the mini-pucks at some point but, overall - the recent upgrades are serving me well. Of course, I don't have tons of experience with all of this yet but, I very much agree with your points regarding use of various transducers for different effects in a more direct arrangement. It's very easy to muddy the waters with too many details and having a variety of transducers with differing strengths seems to be more effective.

I'm having good success using a "Speed-filter" in SC4's road bumps for the LFE; Dirt Rally a good platform for bump effects testing IMO. I've been able to apply lessons learned there to other titles and provide a good baseline vibe setup for most titles.

I had some issues with telemetry being dropped with some games but, it seems I have that sorted now. I moved the Sound-blaster card being used for Audio to a different PCIe slot and it solved the issues; I suspect due to a card-seating issue.

I look forward to reading more of your informative posts.

 

[Mr Latte]

Hi Dean can you upload some new images, certainly can try to help out if possible...

What do you mean about the LFE and effects lower than 20Hz and poor performance.
The amplifier does not go much below 20Hz but should produce very good slam between 20Hz and 35Hz or to even 40Hz.

Are you using any Filter or PEQ from the inuke DSP to enhance the LFE performance with the effects you are sending from Simvibe? Oh and btw the ADX do look real nice too.

* Ive not done anything to my own build recently but excited with the help I have been offering to a member via PM for a couple of months now who has something really special in the works. Out of respect though I will not say or spoil for the member involved but its going to be very high end uses DR and will be innovative too.

 

[Dean Ogurek]

Hi Dean can you upload some new images, certainly can try to help out if possible...

What do you mean about the LFE and effects lower than 20Hz and poor performance.
The amplifier does not go much below 20Hz but should produce very good slam between 20Hz and 35Hz or to even 40Hz.

Are you using any Filter or PEQ from the inuke DSP to enhance the LFE performance with the effects you are sending from Simvibe? Oh and btw the ADX do look real nice too.

* Ive not done anything to my own build recently but excited with the help I have been offering to a member via PM for a couple of months now who has something really special in the works. Out of respect though I will not say or spoil for the member involved but its going to be very high end uses DR and will be innovative too.

I was using the default settings on the amp and wired a new cable for bridge mode; there was a total absence of bumps in the lower Hz range where I get great results in dual mode. The range @20Hz and up were harder hitting for sure but, I lost all of the softer big bumps that work well with the seat suspension. With a more firmly mounted seat - those softer bumps wouldn't be so relevant and the harder hitting ones would likely be more desirable.

Using dual LFE's should be even more effective at providing greater movement for those low-level vibes for a relatively low-cost poor-man's motion setup. I've seen a couple of cases implementing multiple LFE's with scooter shock/spring setups on the seat providing quite a bit of movement and might consider doing something similar in the future.

I would probably start by making a dual-LFE bracket to span all four mounting-points on the seat base with each LFE set near the outer rear corners. That would still allow those ultra-low frequencies to work and provide a wider range of bump effects than what BM can produce IMO. The stereo effects would be better utilized with a 3 or 4-point sprung suspension than the seat's current single-shock system.

Of course, providing free vertical movement while maintaining lateral stability could be a challenge when using scooter shocks so it complicates the engineering a bit but, it's an attempt to go beyond typical sim-vibe setups to get the most bang-for-the-buck. Having multiple shocks with adjustable rates might provide an interesting experiment too.

In the short-term, I am considering turning the seat 180-degrees on the pedestal to take advantage of the integrated tilt-spring but, it will likely raise some balance issues; they may be offset somewhat by the additional weight of dual LFE's though, so it may not be so bad. I'm just trying different ideas to see what can be achieved with what I have to work with.