The Great Motion-Haptics Debate

[NetLawMan]

Setting up a unique thread to discuss the merits of motion and vibration haptics (a.k.a transducers).

The purpose of this thread is to avoid threads about one type of system from being bogged down by proponents of the other system.

There are lots of opinions about these two systems. So….

What are the merits of each?
Is one type enough?
Do they work well together?
What is each best at?
Who is the ideal user for each?
Do they have any limitations?
What role do they play in our overall experience?

There might not even be a need for posts right away (or maybe the thread will never get used ). But perhaps consider pointing to this thread at times where the discussion in other threads seems to be veering off course.

 

[Mr Latte]

First thing to perhaps do is post and highlight screenshots or videos and all the options each motion system offers. Maybe you should go first with dbox

My interests:
How/what different motion systems offer in specs about their haptics, title support, options, settings, user adjustability and control of the haptics.

My Non interests:
Comparing only what is possible with Simhub and general tactile from the perspective of it being a one Vs other scenario.

Rather instead, offer a discussion about how/what the pros cons of motion haptics are and how/why it can be worthwhile combing motion haptics with...

A) Simhub based effects.
B) Game Audio tactile solutions.

 

[DirkW]

I race solely in VR and both motion and shakers work seamlessly together and give a crazy realistic feeling when driving. If you don't have motion, transducers work pretty darn good already, I would say they give 50% of the motion feel if setup correctly (Simhub). I have to add that I only use a motion seat with two actuators and not too much travel, found out that works best for me in VR.

 

[HoiHman]

There's a lot involved into this discussion.

There are many peripherals out there to achieve maximum immersion and each one has it's own merits.

So here's a list of my personal preference of how maximum immersion can be achieved:

SFX100 : Heave, roll, Pitch, Surge ( brake dive)
Tactile : Engine RPM, Road noise, Impacts, curbs
G-Seat : Lateral G-s simulation, Surge (Acceleration) Surge ( Braking)
Belts: Surge ( braking)
Wind : Speed simulation

The philosophy behind this is let each device do what it does best

People without motion cannot judge what it does for the immersion as people without a G-seat or tactile or belt tensioner can not judge how the perfect combo feels.

Surely this thread can be filled with comments that a G-belt can simulate G-s and the tactile transducers can simulate lateral G-s or deceleration. All good if that's is your thing.

But... if you own a G-Seat, there's no way a tactile transducer or G-belt can make you feel going through a corner like the pressure of the panels themselves. The pressure of a seat belt tensioner under braking cannot be replicated by tactile transducers.

And.... in the same context, the diversity of the available tactile effects can not be replicated by a motion system. So Rodney, when i mentioned you don't need tactile with the SFX100, i was wrong

When you are searching for the truly "suspension feeling" you need to dial in quite some smoothing to achieve a good but also comfortable heave effect. This means you will loose detail. That's where tactile comes in. You can add small road bumps, curbs, road impacts to your liking. Or even go beyond and add things like wheel slip, ABS ect ect.

Engine RPM simulation is best simulated through tactile, even though some motion system can do this to.

Again let each system do what it does best. A motion system that is doing engine rpm will be compromised while doing other heave effects as like a transducer when you are trying to give it too much things to do.

So in my rig to achieve maximum immersion i choose to have each device do what it does best and i have limited the effects of each device, even though they all can simulate other effects to.

One last example of this that my GS-5 seat i have separated the tactile like this:

- Panels : 4 exciters = Engine rpm only
- Back of the GS-5 = Gear shift only
- Bottom GS-5 = Road bumps / Road Impacts only

Personal preference, you can not judge and form opinion of thing you do not own. So i can not judge how a surge slide or rear traction loss actually feels like, without testing it myself extensively in combination will all my other gear.

I can only assume that the pressure of the GS-5 under accelerating is better for me and because i race mainly in VR without motion compensation, surge slides and rear traction loss would not work for me.

Imho the golden combo is : Full chassis motion, G-seat, 4-belt tensioner, good tactile and wind simulation .

It reaches platinum when you are not really sure if the bump, road bump or impact you are feeling is being delivered by the motion system or the tactile transducers

 

[Beef36]

I find adding tactile transducers on the seat and pedals provides a bit of extra oomph to body and feet.

Turning off either the transducers or motion platform (which also includes tactile feedback) is a determent to fun and immersion, but if I could only retain one, I'd keep the D-Box tactile.

However the Buttkickers add a lot of extra fun and thus I prefer to run both motion with tactile (D-Box), plus extra tactile (Buttkickers).

 

[NetLawMan]

I find adding tactile transducers on the seat and pedals provides a bit of extra oomph to body and feet.

Turning off either the transducers or motion platform (which also includes tactile feedback) is a determent to fun and immersion, but if I could only retain one, I'd keep the D-Box tactile.

However the Buttkickers add a lot of extra fun and thus I prefer to run both motion with tactile (D-Box), plus extra tactile (Buttkickers).

View attachment 563324

What is your foot setup? That is unique and I see dbox captive feet.

 

[No Depth]

The analogy I often use is that motion paints a picture, while tactile, wind, etc… fills in the color.

As stated more vividly by others above, they all work in tandem, exceptionally well…even without perfect effect calibration. Just a bit of effort to balance each other so nothing is overpowering(unless desired).

I do notice when something is off and forgotten to flipped on, whether it’s wind, motion, or tactile(also sync lighting). I love it all together.

 

[metalnwood]

@HoiHman covered it all for me.

Often the discussion has been has in terms of one rather than the other when most people who go in to the rabbit hole end up with both.

So there is merit in saying something like 'get the dbox first because you will get motion and some tactile, then bolt on tactile as $$ becomes free.to enhance it.

Tactile from motion systems is limited compared to good transducers, it can't replicate all the different effects the same and it also can't distribute the effects the same.

I know what tactile through motion is like but it's all coming from the rig through the seat mounts to the base of the chair etc. It cant give me the same feeling as my 4 mini lfe's that are mounted direct to the chair, it cant let me dial in zones like have have with the lfe/tst under the chair, the minis mounted direct on to the chair and the tst under the pedals.

So the motion can't compete with that, but as said before, the tactile cannot compete with what the motion does well. The tactile may give me a knock on a sausage kerb but I am more torn in to reality by a pang on the lfe trying to do it with sufficient power while motion only needs a small fast change in roll to make you feel like your seat has hit you in the side. Some things they meld really well for the one effect.. Like rpm, I dont use motion for rpm other than idle and that slight rocking of the whole platform can give you convincing power at the lowest hz that the lfe cannot reach.

Motion has got so cheap over the last few years (I really think that has a lot to do with the SFX project) that you get a lot of bang for your buck when you get a system like that. It is hard to get bad motion with a number of really good choices about.

Tactile is different, you can get so many units that will give you great disappointment up to great satisfaction. The great tactile is expensive tactile and we know people here have spent a lot, thousands on just amps and transducers.

When we are talking motion, we are often talking about a good motion platform as a starting point. When we are talking about tactile, we are often talking about extremes. One person talking about their $300 investment while another talking about $3000. Thats a big difference and very difficult I think for someone with a $300 investment to understand what a $3000 investment can bring.

Motion with $300 tactile is not very balanced so its very easy to get the impression that motion dominates.. But do we all have $6-10k to get both?

 

[Mr Latte]

There's a lot involved into this discussion.

There are many peripherals out there to achieve maximum immersion and each one has it's own merits.

So here's a list of my personal preference of how maximum immersion can be achieved:

SFX100 : Heave, roll, Pitch, Surge ( brake dive)
Tactile : Engine RPM, Road noise, Impacts, curbs
G-Seat : Lateral G-s simulation, Surge (Acceleration) Surge ( Braking)
Belts: Surge ( braking)
Wind : Speed simulation

The philosophy behind this is let each device do what it does best

People without motion cannot judge what it does for the immersion as people without a G-seat or tactile or belt tensioner can not judge how the perfect combo feels.

Surely this thread can be filled with comments that a G-belt can simulate G-s and the tactile transducers can simulate lateral G-s or deceleration. All good if that's is your thing.

But... if you own a G-Seat, there's no way a tactile transducer or G-belt can make you feel going through a corner like the pressure of the panels themselves. The pressure of a seat belt tensioner under braking cannot be replicated by tactile transducers.

And.... in the same context, the diversity of the available tactile effects can not be replicated by a motion system. So Rodney, when i mentioned you don't need tactile with the SFX100, i was wrong

When you are searching for the truly "suspension feeling" you need to dial in quite some smoothing to achieve a good but also comfortable heave effect. This means you will loose detail. That's where tactile comes in. You can add small road bumps, curbs, road impacts to your liking. Or even go beyond and add things like wheel slip, ABS ect ect.

Engine RPM simulation is best simulated through tactile, even though some motion system can do this to.

Again let each system do what it does best. A motion system that is doing engine rpm will be compromised while doing other heave effects as like a transducer when you are trying to give it too much things to do.

So in my rig to achieve maximum immersion i choose to have each device do what it does best and i have limited the effects of each device, even though they all can simulate other effects to.

One last example of this that my GS-5 seat i have separated the tactile like this:

- Panels : 4 exciters = Engine rpm only
- Back of the GS-5 = Gear shift only
- Bottom GS-5 = Road bumps / Road Impacts only

Personal preference, you can not judge and form opinion of thing you do not own. So i can not judge how a surge slide or rear traction loss actually feels like, without testing it myself extensively in combination will all my other gear.

I can only assume that the pressure of the GS-5 under accelerating is better for me and because i race mainly in VR without motion compensation, surge slides and rear traction loss would not work for me.

Imho the golden combo is : Full chassis motion, G-seat, 4-belt tensioner, good tactile and wind simulation .

It reaches platinum when you are not really sure if the bump, road bump or impact you are feeling is being delivered by the motion system or the tactile transducers

Hi again Henk, I don't think I've ever tried to push the idea to "replace" motion-based devices for example a G-SEAT with tactile. Of course, a tactile-based unit cannot place physical load or pressure on the body. This is a good example of how both technologies could be better combined.

Let me share some details I don't think many people here or in other places, regards tactile will mention..

What the tactile offers control for is that it can bring an added sensation to increase the sensory involvement for any G-Load sensations. We can generate tactile-based sensations that with "specific frequencies" and DSP applied to control those frequencies, will literally shake all the way up through your body, even shaking your cheeks/ears/brain. Bringing a different sense of load on the body via deep vibration which a G-Seat will not offer on its own.

A car with high lateral/longitudinal g-load or indeed engine idle, max rpm, increased velocity/engine strain scenarios as examples may have additional chassis/body vibrations or judder. So it's possible to work on deep-felt vibrations that can bring additional sensations I believe none of the motion haptics on the market offer.

Chassis Mode Dellusions
You cant replicate this infrasonic bass which evokes a unique physical sensation with 4x budget transducers or indeed 4x BK mini on corners like applying the older CM-based installations that still today a lot of people do or look to go with. For example, anyone that compares with actual testing will discover that dual large BK (front/back) will easily outperform 4x smaller units. The simple reason is they can output much better lower frequency bass response and 4x BK mini does not equal 1x large LFE never mind 2 units working as front/rear or as dual mono (not the same thing).

The vast majority of (4 Corner) CM owner-based installations are not delivering good stereo representation in either their seat or pedals. The simple reason is they do not maintain the separation before it reaches the users body regions. Also in a real car, you are not going to determine things like left/right wheel slip and my point here is that in some scenarios, what matters more is the "quality and detail" of an effect is more important than if comes from stereo telemetry. Usable dynamic range is the key, and having control of that range is very beneficial. Best immersion is not about having a configuration of units try to poorly represent each wheel or suspension which in its execution fails to maintain or deliver.

Note: From the specs alone the piston weight of the large LFE is 10x heavier than the one in the smaller BK units and this makes a huge difference to what each model can achieve in accordance to the additional energy/bandwidth low-bass infrasonics contain.

For me, the tactile challenge has always been about what sensations can we add or develop which can then work with the various other motion solutions or hardware. To increase the immersion via all our senses with what is happening on a sim rig.

Important Element
I think you are going to find if finally only moving from Simvibe to now go with Simhub that much more is possible.

For G-Seat we have seen some users combine multi-exciters on the panels with large BK to then also enhance additional stereo sensations which I do not think Simvibe offers. Some people are using 4x pairs of stereo exciters, even on a standard seat. You can't do that with larger typical units nor properly achieve the higher frequencies from effects that octaves or 2nd/3rd tier harmonics may require. Espically with units that do not support those frequencies or perform poorly with them and this again relates to what I said about usable dynamic range.

Simhub, however, has several effects that can operate in stereo and these be implemented directly into your back/spine which again no motion system on the market can do and with Simhub we can combine the large BK with whatever effects we want how we want.

One of the crucial differences with Simhub compared to Simvibe and the limitations with the number of effects that a unit can accommodate. IIRC even your own term you have used in the past "less is more" is that we are no longer restricted by that in the same way.

Let me explain, Simvibe offered very little channel control with its "output mixer" capabilities and is very restricted in this way. Simhub has no limitations to the number of channels it offers and users have complete freedom to "map" effects layers to any channels they desire.

A crucial benefit this brings is that with Simhub (if being creative with effects creation) people can learn to develop effects that do not rely on a single unit for the entire effects sensation to be generated. Nor do we now have to rely on the operational performance abilities and indeed performance restrictions of that single make/model of unit.

This is a total game-changer regarding what tactile can offer and what we can now potentially accomplish regards effects design, effects displacement and effects detailing.

 

[blekenbleu]

What are the merits of each?

Haptics, being vibrations, could in theory be quite accurate.
Motion, often attempting to approximate very low frequency forces,
are fairly accurately described by game telemetry.

Is one type enough?

To the extent that any user must learn to associate what are generally NOT
accurate reproductions of stimulations experienced in real life
for simulated cars and tracks,
this question ultimately becomes a personal choice about compromises.

Do they work well together?

If learning to associate distinct artificial cues with corresponding original stimulae is easier,
so that one-to-one associations should be generally preferred, and
both haptics and motion each provide relatively few distinct cues, then more is better.

What is each best at?

@HoiHman addressed this, except e.g. for rear-wheel drive traction loss,
which can be quite well simulated by motion but only hinted by haptics.

Who is the ideal user for each?

Haptics are economically feasible for more players, including desk and wheel stand users.
On which side of the haptics vs motion divide
do steering force feedback, G-belts and G-seats fall?

Do they have any limitations?

• many motion cues cannot be realistically reproduced,
  despite substantial available telemetry
• telemetry for accurate haptic feedback is generally unavailable

What role do they play in our overall experience?

Generalizations about individuals' abilities to sustain immersion and learn to substitute simulation cues for reality are beyond my pay grade. Personally, first experience of Assetto Corsa virtual reality with engine idle haptics via ShakeSeat was credibly immersive,
despite being substantially artificial, as were G-belt cues for braking and cornering.
In other words, these were close enough (for me) to recalled real stimulations
that imperceptible learning was involved.

On the other hand, feeding 30-50Hz white noise into exciters delivering lateral energy into the back of a swivel desk chair is obviously quite unlike actual sensations from rear-wheel drive loss of traction, but was (for me) easy to quickly accept as a substitute, despite awareness that more credible motion effects could also be implemented with modest additional cost and effort.

 

[NetLawMan]

Another OPINION. The conclusion aligns with my own experience, which I will share here in the next few weeks.

 

[Mr Latte]

Another OPINION. The conclusion aligns with my own experience, which I will share here in the next few weeks.

From what I have seen him do or cover with tactile. With respect, it is nothing even close to what many people are doing here.

I ask again can we have links to videos or screenshots of the various motion systems in what they offer regards haptics please.

We.need that to make comparisons of each to each other and then also to what is the current best methods and possibilities with higher end tactile solutions.

 

[metalnwood]

I just watched Karls video and I completely understand where he is coming from.

He has probably been down the similar path that I was with tactile. Four units in chassis mode and then going to a 4 actuator system. The effects that the motion can do are pretty nice. Pretty much any time you are running over an uneven surface, mount a kerb, a sausage, offtrack it can give you motions that tactile can't.

Other effects that tactile is good at motion pulls of probably better, like going down the pitlane bounching off the rev limiter. Motion can compete and is better at a number of effects where there is overlap.. I was doing some laps at montreal and just before the bridge there is a bump at or around the braking zone, it really can unsettle the car and make the braking zone quite bumpy.. You could never replicate that feeling with tactile. You could make it feel like you went over a bump but you would not feel like you are being compromised that you do in motion.

Its been a long time since I have had motion on and not had tactile on so I decided to try it today because of this conversation and a couple others.

I have to say first off that I have toned down some of the things that motion wsa doing because it wasnt needed at a more powerful level in cooperation with the tactile.

So I was a little under enthused with a couple effect but after some tuning it was feeling good and I was reminded how good it can do some things on its own.

I already knew the answer but I wanted to remind myself before I wrote anything down here. I think my original tactile setup was a bit better than Karls and I was mighty impressed with the improvement going to the SFX system which has the same specifications that Karls pt has with same servos/ballscrews etc.

So no doubt I agree with him as far as what he came from.

Where we diverged is that like him I found that my tactile was not so great and wsahed out where it was mounted when motion was running, but I didnt want to give up on it. I ended up mounting them directly on to the seat and they started to deliver. I wanted more... So now I have spent more or less as much on tactile as I spent on my SFX100 system.

In the end I have to 100% disagree with Karl that there is no need for other tactile because motion can replicate it. While I stated all the things that motion is good for above, when I mute my tactile is feels like I am racing on bumpy glass.. Yes there is all the motion, the bumps, etc but when you are not actively going over something things are a bit dead compared to having the tactile on as well. I can go down a straight and have variations in heave while going over bumps etc but the PT system and the SRS software is not creating great road texture, its not creating great rpm other than at idle where is is very good.

I dont think he has tried what I have (at cost). I want both, the tactile really makes the car come alive for the rest of the time that you are not riding things that make sudden changes to the cars orientation.

 

[NetLawMan]

From what I have seen him do or cover with tactile. With respect, it is nothing even close to what many people are doing here.

I ask again can we have links to videos or screenshots of the various motion systems in what they offer regards haptics please.

We.need that to make comparisons of each to each other and then also to what is the current best methods and possibilities with higher end tactile solutions.

I would be helpful to understand what you use tactile for. Most of what I am hearing is “amazing engine sounds and gear shifts”.

To that extent, it would be helpful to understand what people with combo systems use it for.

 

[No Depth]

I just watched Karls video and I completely understand where he is coming from.

He has probably been down the similar path that I was with tactile. Four units in chassis mode and then going to a 4 actuator system. The effects that the motion can do are pretty nice. Pretty much any time you are running over an uneven surface, mount a kerb, a sausage, offtrack it can give you motions that tactile can't.

Other effects that tactile is good at motion pulls of probably better, like going down the pitlane bounching off the rev limiter. Motion can compete and is better at a number of effects where there is overlap.. I was doing some laps at montreal and just before the bridge there is a bump at or around the braking zone, it really can unsettle the car and make the braking zone quite bumpy.. You could never replicate that feeling with tactile. You could make it feel like you went over a bump but you would not feel like you are being compromised that you do in motion.

Its been a long time since I have had motion on and not had tactile on so I decided to try it today because of this conversation and a couple others.

I have to say first off that I have toned down some of the things that motion wsa doing because it wasnt needed at a more powerful level in cooperation with the tactile.

So I was a little under enthused with a couple effect but after some tuning it was feeling good and I was reminded how good it can do some things on its own.

I already knew the answer but I wanted to remind myself before I wrote anything down here. I think my original tactile setup was a bit better than Karls and I was mighty impressed with the improvement going to the SFX system which has the same specifications that Karls pt has with same servos/ballscrews etc.

So no doubt I agree with him as far as what he came from.

Where we diverged is that like him I found that my tactile was not so great and wsahed out where it was mounted when motion was running, but I didnt want to give up on it. I ended up mounting them directly on to the seat and they started to deliver. I wanted more... So now I have spent more or less as much on tactile as I spent on my SFX100 system.

In the end I have to 100% disagree with Karl that there is no need for other tactile because motion can replicate it. While I stated all the things that motion is good for above, when I mute my tactile is feels like I am racing on bumpy glass.. Yes there is all the motion, the bumps, etc but when you are not actively going over something things are a bit dead compared to having the tactile on as well. I can go down a straight and have variations in heave while going over bumps etc but the PT system and the SRS software is not creating great road texture, its not creating great rpm other than at idle where is is very good.

I dont think he has tried what I have (at cost). I want both, the tactile really makes the car come alive for the rest of the time that you are not riding things that make sudden changes to the cars orientation.

I agree with a lot of this myself.

Just this week, I had an unusually late night session where I turned off my tactile and just let my NLR V3 seat mover be used alone. At first it was awkward as I haven’t used it without tactile for a long while, like the rig felt it suddenly lost most of its weight. Sections of track came across much quieter and well hollow.

But after a few minutes I started noticing a lot of the effects, such as bumps and slip and even tuned them up in software more than I had set, all usually dampened by the tactile anyway, and I was really impressed. It’s a different feel, but it’s there, and convincing. Obviously turning on tactile the next day added back all the missing weight and grunt that the 2DoF mover can’t replicate(perhaps actuators are better there). But I actually now want to reconfigure my profiles a bit to see if I can better allow the seat mover SFX to be layered and not so drowned. For what it’s worth.

Oh, and a completely separate note, I watched Dr. Strange 2 tonight in 4DX(D-box mover) and holy crap they needed to turn it down! It felt like the chairs were just maxed out and it spoiled the fun when you are just thrashed at every movement on screen. Reminded me why we scale back our motion when racing. Shame as I would see more films with it, but they need to roll the dial back several notches.

 

[Mr Latte]

I would be helpful to understand what you use tactile for. Most of what I am hearing is “amazing engine sounds and gear shifts”.

To that extent, it would be helpful to understand what people with combo systems use it for.

Last year I made a selection of pretty decent sensations for most effects that Simhub supports, so no it's not only about having just a focus on engines/gear. This year I will replace those with new ones as my own skills and understanding have improved with continued efforts.

However, I have pioneered my own concept for my own rig over the last 2-3 years for tactile as a keen hobbyist. By using a new approach for effects development with a multi-layer effects design to represent the possibility of more powerful and more detailed effects with tactile.

This lets us go beyond the typical methods and limitations that a single transducer on a channel has, including the performance and singular installation point limitations this has as well. Point to note, you cannot achieve the best low/mid/high bass performance from any single make/model of unit in the market. The combination of large BK/TST/EXC units can deliver within a seat a quality of output direct into multiple body locations that far exceeds any tactile solution on the market.

So to work on this hardware, I have developed my own new approach to enable us to build effects that can utilise the full dynamic range of bass from 1-200Hz and beyond. How we apply those effects into the user's body is achieved with this "specifically chosen hardware" that each component brings its individual performance benefits to deliver then a greater combined performance. This is further achieved with multizone contact points on the body (from the exciters) which effect elements can then be routed to how we please.

My own endeavors with this are only possible firstly with the brilliant job that Wotever has done with Simhub Shakeit. Not only does it offer much more creation abilities and control for effects. It goes beyond the limitations of any other "tone generation" software. One of the major benefits it brought is that it offers multi-soundcard support as well as full control of the routing/mapping of effects to any channel we please.


Regards Engines
The engines from an effects creation perspective are one of the more challenging aspects. I am 100% against the mindset that very similar or one group of effects for rpm is good enough or can represent the engine for all cars or all sims.

I have developed methods for generic V4-V12 engines but I wanted to go much further as well. So wanted the character of individual cars to be much better represented to suit that car. This means making individual idle and peak rpm scenarios that align with that car's own audio.

I also wanted to bring much more thrilling sensations over the rpm range. So the icing on the cake with the new approach being undertaken is to make the engines so that they have swappable elements for users to then build their own combos from a library of options offered...

The expression and delight this guy has are in the direction of what I want to achieve in tactile/audio with engines and sim racing. It can bring so much more life and connection to your sim and with the car you are driving. This is why for me, seeking to much better capture and produce the character of the car is an important aspect.

Soon there will be over 100 people that have followed this approach, Applying tactile to seat/pedals not with 4-way but self-isolated pedal/seat areas. Many different types of seat (inc GS5) with owners installing 4/6/8 exciters combined with at least 1 large BK and 1 TST unit. Several of these users have various motion rigs already but they already know the limitations that their "motion haptics" have.

As for Karl, maybe one day he will experience for himself and then change his mind about what he said. I get it that 4-way motion haptics may replace entry-level tactile in 4-way configurations. However not one of the hardware review channels on YT has ever come close to doing with tactile what others or myself are doing with it in the community.

That might change soon and I am very keen to see my own efforts reviewed or compared with other solutions sometime in the future. Until then I continue to improve or develop effects.

 

[NetLawMan]

Last year I made a selection of pretty decent sensations for most effects that Simhub supports, so no it's not only about having just a focus on engines/gear. This year I will replace those with new ones as my own skills and understanding have improved with continued efforts.

However, I have pioneered my own concept over the last 2-3 years for tactile as a keen hobbyist. By using a new approach for effects development with a multi-layer effects design to represent the possibility of more powerful and more detailed effects with tactile.

This lets us go beyond the typical methods and limitations that a single transducer on a channel has, including the performance and singular installation point limitations this has as well. Point to note, you cannot achieve the best low/mid/high bass performance from any single make/model of unit in the market. The combination of large BK/TST/EXC units can deliver within a seat a quality of output direct into multiple body locations that far exceeds any tactile solution on the market.

So to work on this hardware, I have developed my own new approach to enable us to build effects that can utilise the full dynamic range of bass from 1-200Hz and beyond. How we apply those effects into the user's body is achieved with this "specifically chosen hardware" that each component brings its individual performance benefits to deliver then a greater combined performance. This is further achieved with multizone contact points on the body (from the exciters) which effect elements can then be routed to how we please.

My own endeavors with this are only possible firstly with the brilliant job that Wotever has done with Simhub Shakeit. Not only does it offer much more creation abilities and control for effects. It goes beyond the limitations of any other "tone generation" software. One of the major benefits it brought is that it offers multi-soundcard support as well as full control of the routing/mapping of effects to any channel we please.


Regards Engines
The engines from an effects creation perspective are one of the more challenging aspects. I am 100% against the mindset that very similar or one group of effects for rpm is good enough or can represent the engine for all cars or all sims.

I have developed methods for generic V4-V12 engines but I wanted to go much further as well. So wanted the character of individual cars to be much better represented to suit that car. This means making individual idle and peak rpm scenarios that align with that car's own audio.

I also wanted to bring much more thrilling sensations over the rpm range. So the icing on the cake with the new approach being undertaken is to make the engines so that they have swappable elements for users to then build their own combos from a library of options offered...

The expression and delight this guy has are in the direction of what I want to achieve in tactile/audio with engines and sim racing.

Thanks. Can you clarify…your focus is on complex engine and gear shift haptics? Or is it something in addition?

 

[Mr Latte]

Thanks. Can you clarify…your focus is on complex engine and gear shift haptics? Or is it something in addition?

As stated to you no, (my own focus) is on all effects that are worthwhile contributing to the immersion... I believe we can improve and apply better sensations to any effects over what "motion haptics" does. What effects are you seeking more info on?

What I can tell you is people's preferences vary and what they want may differ in what mood or situation they are in. Some want a focus on general immersion as an entertainment aspect, others sometimes seek more emphasis on feedback for the cars handling.


The reason we can improve over "motion haptics" is because we have:

1. Much more control in determining how the effect operates with the given telemetry

2. Control the effect with the options Simhub offers

3. Develop what is generated for the effect by what frequencies and (in my approach) what units are then used to output those frequencies.

4. Greater adjustability. The user can apply their own volumes for specific layers/units within Simhub which then alters the generated output mix of what the combined effects and felt sensations are.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Improving Stereo Sensations:
Please take into account a seat applying my own guidelines or approach of using 2x,3x,4x, sets of stereo exciters. Has the ability to deliver things no other solution on the market currently offers...

Deeper low bass frequencies, due to their added bandwidth easily fill a set of pedals or seat. So it makes it difficult to maintain individual L/R sensations. A well-developed set of effects with a large BK/TST combo can still fool most users they are feeling both deep and detailed bass but also in stereo.

How we do this best, is within the seat as the seat is the largest body region.
We combine these units to work with other effect layers for the exciters.

Advantages:
A) Multi-tier stereo transitions from different points of the seat
B) Upto 4-way stereo transitions into a seat with directly mounted units to body locations
C) Apply up/down vibration sensations within a seat (low/mid/high)
D) Fill a whole seat in scenarios like impacts with much greater detail
E) Apply octaves/harmonics to give effects much more character and felt variation
F) Offering up to 4x the usable dynamic range of budget tactile hardware

One of the key benefits is not just having the 1-200Hz usable range and applying what has been experimented with over years of ownership/testing to discover the best hardware for delivering that.

Having this arrangement brings more options to what the generated sensation is.
For example, sending an effect to a TST beneath the seat that connects with the seat mounts/risers is not necessarily the same in felt sensation, as that effect using the exact same frequencies but with it deployed over 2,4 or indeed 6 exciter units into the users back.

So in my own effects creation and determining "what units do what" regards effects elements, I want to apply. In order to achieve certain sensations how/where what units are incorporated is part of the development I go through the effects I build.

This is also why it is VERY important for me that people seeking to use such effects apply it to the hardware/installation that it is specific for. Only with that can I be certain people experience from it what was intended. You just can't take these effects and run them on your budget transducers.

An owner of such configuration can then if they wish tweak this if they want or run with the effect profiles operating in the way I had them originally intended to output over the different channels.

So a user with no clue about tactile can get brilliant immersion for effects built exactly for the hardware incorporated. With effects painstakingly over hundreds of hours tried/tested/developed for that hardware.

If they wish it can be controlled as simple as single volume controls for each type of effect just like motion haptics. Or for advanced users who want to go deeper, they can individually alter the different effect layers used for each specific effect.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Now will you please clarify:
A) What control do you have for each individual actuator regards the effects
B) How are stereo effects handled and felt over a rig
C) Showcase any sim and options you have with your own motion solution

With "motion haptics" generally we see very little control and in many cases only volumes.

I would expect and you can give your own thoughts on this.....

Is the primary biggest benefit of motion haptics in the power it can bring with certain effects. Mainly, vertical surges and suspension-related events?

 

[OlaGB]

It’s quite easy if you want the best from both worlds;
Let motion do suspension movements, and this also covers some road surface etc, and use a proper shaker system to to rpm, wheelslip, and an additional surface layer that works well with the motion.
This way you let each system do what they are best at, and not mudding thing together or loose any details from the suspension.

But if comparing to only a gamer 2 or acouple daytona bst’s, running standard simhub or iracing lfe, then it doesnt add much on top of a good motion system.

A proper shaker system that really works super good, is expensive and timeconsuming to get right.
And even if some give you numbers and settings, even profiles, you still got to figure out alot of stuff to make it work well.
And on top of it all, even using profiles from people that has done this for years, might not give you the sensation YOU like the best..
This isnt for everyone, and at this point i understand why many rather want to plug n play a motion system instead, as it really is good as well.

Myself i put in the time and money to it, and have gotten to a stage where i dont want to let go of either the motion or shaker system. They belong together.
The same goes to active belts, it really makes both tactile and especially motion shine!

 

[Mr Latte]

A proper shaker system that really works super good, is expensive and timeconsuming to get right.
And even if some give you numbers and settings, even profiles, you still got to figure out alot of stuff to make it work well.
And on top of it all, even using profiles from people that has done this for years, might not give you the sensation YOU like the best..
This isnt for everyone, and at this point i understand why many rather want to plug n play a motion system instead, as it really is good as well.

What If I said, well actually it doesn't have to be that expensive to get into at all.

With the right effects, the immersion 4x exciters on a seat can generate is something that can easily outperform a £300 BK Gamer package and still depending on what amp etc you go with can come in cheaper.

Just as a quick comparison....

What you gain is
4 direct channels on the body
More usable frequency range than what a unit like a BK bolted to the base of a seat can offer
Less restricted to the number of effects able to run at one time compared to a single channel
All the benefits Simhub offers with control/effects operations with additional channels
Expandability to add more EXC units or then introduce higher-end BK/TST

What you lose is
A reasonable level of punch in the 40-50Hz range the BK is not bad at delivering.
Usability with a simple to setup package

As for what "YOU" the user likes best, well clearly "Motion Haptics" does a lot of stuff only okay and offers much fewer options for the user to change how or what sensations an effect can have to make it more to their own liking.

I would go out and say that the 4 EXC option with decent effects used can in several ways add to or improve what a motion haptic solution can bring. Let's be clear, people do not need to spend huge sums of money to bring very nice tactile advantages.

The effects can make all the difference...
Budget hardware with nice effects can be more enjoyable than expensive hardware with a badly configured setup/installation or limited controls/options and quite basic or un-enjoyable effects that can soon become annoying.

You can easily improve things like curbs/road textures over what the haptics offers, as the effects may apply higher frequencies (motion systems are usually limited to 100Hz). With containing much less bandwidth these higher frequencies may not travel that far and still maintain their energy/detail from 4 corners to the user's body.

It makes sense to assume, we can achieve with for example multiple exciters on the back of a seat, directly positioned to specific body regions improved detailing with specifically crafted effects, we do have more control over.

Ive yet to see anyone here even rate how good the individual effects their haptic solution offers.