You seem to be looking for a fight where there is none. I’m not here to discredit what you’ve done I’m simply asking if you had considered what I’ve said because without measurements from real cars I can only go by logic of the physics of a real
car.
No fight here, I just defend what I know or learned or have tested and share my findings openly often. Sometimes people may come with a different opinion and that's fine. Actually their isnt enough interaction. The question is,
"why do you have such opinion regards DSP". What testing or in how was it conducted that brought your own conclusion DSP control is not necessary.
What it seems you are not quite yet grasping is that how different Hz are generated or feel and the amplitude you can use with them is not the same with all frequencies. Your overpowering is coming from Hz your unit has no problems generating. Also I would expect the Hz being output from the effects you are using, may be similar, so these particularly with highly active effects like the ones you have also are boosting the dB usage of those frequencies they share.
I cant go over all you written, but I will share the following views I have or things I have learned.
Measurements From Real Cars
Firstly to my knowledge this doesn't really happen from a track testing perspective for each car. Games developers may approach a 3rd party that can do such track or tyre tests and give actual measurements from a specific car on a track. Maybe something like an X-Bow that can be hired cheap in car/track terms is used.
I presume, the data collected from this may help as a baseline to generate understanding and code for the various axis and cars handling or tyre algorithms used for the sims physics model. However mostly, I think what happens is manufacturers submit data values for a particular car, these are adapted into the sims physics model, yet in reality still, parts of the code used within the sim are probably based on mathematical solutions or algorithms.
So the first part of your accuracy/reality factor problem is the limitations of the physics model and the code that is used is also limited.
Converting Data - Vibration
Next we have the tactile based software, it uses the telemetry code being output from the physics model based within the sim. How the tactile software then uses or allows control of that telemetry may differ.
Simvibe I presume pairs data values to operate within a user-determined sml/large & low/high bass frequency range. So low-high telemetry values work in conjunction with the Hz generated. In the case of SSW again I presume, it uses an audio waveform that includes all the Hz as an audio sample but these increase in amplitude, based on the low/high values of the telemetry data, this time using +/- dB gain for sml-big values.
Here we have two distinct differences between Simvibe and SSW. With Simvibe actually generating tones between a low-high range that the user sets. With SSW I have found it allows more control for the (feel) of the effect by using a "user made waveform" specifically for that particular effects role.
Human Input
It is here we can ask ourselves what should "this effect" feel like, for example with "wheel slip" what Hz should be included to suit that type of tyre slipping sensation, how should the waveform character be? Compared to what sensation then suits "lateral G" and its character? Both can be active at the same time, so how do we give them different energy and character? Each having its own unique sensation yet the two also work well together, to feel at least in some regard natural or as expected. When this is accomplished with good feeling effects. Then you have a working sensation that helps with the user detect the grip and sensing rear traction loss, based on the speed/angles of the steering input for that car to how this feels with the lateral G.
This is one benefit I have found better with SSW than Simvibe but in general SSW seems to bring more sensation to the cars XYZ, Simvibe brings improved bumps options and engine sensations (often very inaccurate engine sensation to the car driven) but it still can feel good.
For example, ask an average Simvibe owner what it actually does for altering a V4 - V12 engine. Most won't be able to technically tell you but some will think its related to data/telemetry from the sim based on the car driven, when in fact it's not. What is happening is how the RPM range is used based on the car as to what Hz the engine uses from idle to its max revs.
Made To Measure Tactile
With SSW I have been intrigued...
Though personally for me I found its not always easy creating an effect that "fits" the role. Then seeking to maximise the "feel" or sensation it brings. For instance, making a +/- change of 5Hz within a waveform can bring a different sensation. So doing such took a fair bit of trial and error and part of the reason there was for good results we had to use Hz that different models could generate well.
Attempting to do this as a 1 effect for all tactile, can bring some compromise over say seeking to find optimal generated effects for either an individual tactile model or group of similar performing ones.
Example: Having a kickass rumble @10Hz bass frequency within an effect and it brings a good deal of weight and energy. This is ideal when used on a BK LFE for "lateral G" as its very satisfying feel of weight shifting from the left-right transducer based on the users steering input. Yet on some models, it won't hardly make any sensation at all, simply because that model just can't generate that level of Hz with much energy.
With more testing, comes more learning or creativity. It was becoming apparent that example effects like "Wheel slip" and "lateral G" need not be the same "waveform" for all cars. It would be possible to use a range of Hz that the effect worked well with the role of the effect but then on a car with larger/wider tyres or one that would generate more cornering speeds. These, of course, will generate higher values from the telemetry. So its possible to then consider "car profiles" to use a modified or stronger feeling waveform and a lesser one for cars with lower values.
More Is Possible
Limited testing was done with this and it can bring variation to help generate different sensations from various types or speeds of cars as the waveform is being, now paired/matched to suit more the physics code values a specific class/type/speed of car may generate. Not just adding amplitude to the same exact waveform. To some extent, a skill could be formed when understanding this better to then help create effects more to what we want or perform well on certain models.
Additional Immersion Possibilities That Have Also Been Trialled
Front / Rear Engine Channel Displacement
Deceleration / Brake Force Channel Displacement
Unique Effect Sensations To Central Installed Tactile
Improving Stereo Bumps
Audio Tactile - Sub Harmonic Extension
Combining Both Audio Tactile With Physics-Based Tactile
Illusion Is The Reality
This (tactile simulation malarky) is not necessarily accurate but what is possible is highly satisfying and enjoyable to the experience. I know how good my own configuration or testing is, yes it is pretty awesome. I have seen friends reactions to it but I can relate right back to ten years ago and what I had in that time, thought or used.
My own aim is trying to progress what we have with the simulation code available. So being experimental and creative with how we can bring more immersion, variation and felt sensation for different cars within a sim. My own push/interest for more takes me to the point of becoming a pest to the developer of SSW in seeking more from what tools it can bring or improve its functionality to let myself or others progress the effects creation/immersion even further. To some extents, I have reached a point my own hands are tied. So with such its time to place focus on an updated build.
Moods & Pref Vs Percieved Realisim
Really though many will not care, sure if they can have different profiles and get a sensation that is perhaps more accurate to that car but think mmmm okay. They may still stick with a profile that feels more to what they like or enjoy the feel of better. So even by seeking more percieved realism could still have users prefer to use a profile for a very different car than the one it was created for based on it feeling more to their like or mood.
Only a few on the forums here have tested the latest files, some brought very little feedback others brought plenty and Im sure some following the saga may even doubt they actually exist.
Those that have them could and should bring more of their own views, or comparisons to Simvibe or how I even showed them examples of taking audio-tactile further and mixing it with SSW. Are they perfect, well no but again I have no problem with honest and backed up opinions.
I am seeking to make a tactile monster of a cockpit but I too would love to see and read more of other peoples own rigs and them sharing their own views opinions openly about tactile.
Currently, I am testing, comparing the Asus U5 vs Soundblaster Omni to determine which is best USB soundcard for an audio-tactile role. I need about pro £180 of cables for how I want to be able to have full mix control for each channel using 5.1 audio-tactile with 6 Channel telemetry based tactile and with how my own configuration uses 2 units per channel. This also brings additional hardware and cables for duplicating the channels.
The adventure continues.....
......... finding your sweet spot is your 'Grail'
