'SimShaker - Wheels' support thread

[=Andre=]

Here you can get help with "SimShaker - Wheels" issues and questions.

SimShaker - Wheels is a mediation software between a supported car simulation game and Gametrix JetSeat or well known Buttckicker hardware to provide immersing event driven vibration FXs (special effects).
Currently supported PC titles: iRacing, Assetto Corsa, Automobilista, rFactor 2, DiRT Rally, Project CARS, Project CARS2, ETS2, ATS, F1 2016/2017 and RRRE.
Currently supported console titles: F1 2016.

 

[dave kirk]

Sorted it with a fresh install

 

[=Andre=]

Looks like the version was not most recent .

 

[Mr Latte]

Andre can you please remove the link within SSW to previous SSW files I uploaded to be shared.

Those while done during my own early learning/understanding with Audacity and SSW are flawed.
I do not want those being mistaken with other much better and more recent effects that have been tried with myself and others in recent private testing.


Some Of My Own Testing /Conclusions
I have done a lot of testing and monitoring recently regards "Bumps" output.

At present these are really limited between either having good activity response (low or no threshold) and operation in mono over all channels. Or losing the activity with threshold @70% offering pretty good stereo activity.

I can easily and may later show videos of this highlighting the "channel activity for all 4 wheels" and using the "suspension track" available for Assetto Corsa as an excellent tool for such tests.

Here is a snapshot...

Bump Threshold 20%

Why do we have left wheel activity here at 2mph of almost equal strength for a right-hand side small bump? We are getting a mono based tactile experience to all 4 main channels from this.


Bump Threshold 70%

Notice at an even higher speed (7mph) we now have only very minor activity on the left for a right-hand side bump. This seems more realistic. Yet the higher speed or I presume higher (bump value) the more it will then also be in strength on the opposite side/channel. It seems too sensitivite in the current form.



When compared to the stereo activity from "audio tactile" SSW really could be improved here with some tweaking. It still seems even small bumps can transverse over to the opposite channel.

Can we achieve something that enables us to have the good bump activity yet still produce excellent stereo for each wheel/channel?

Also in having "stereo bumps" operating if using both "audio" and "SSW tactile" together. Then we have "mono bump" response from SSW mixing with "stereo bump" activity in audio. Which can be distracting and odd.

Ideally, I think we need something that is similar to "Roadbumps" in Simvibe for the "mono bump activity" for smaller bump values. These can give the general tarmac sensation but keep this separate from "stereo bump" activity possibly using larger values.

When currently setting the threshold to approx 70% to get the stereo activity working better. Then anyone can feel how much activity is lost. Its a real bummer....

Front & Rear Bumps Issue?

1. Here is an approach to a medium sized bump at 18mph


2. Front wheels make contact we see them in the air.

This is just prior to showing the activity on the audio monitoring. It can be seen below in next image.

3. Rear wheels seem to show a high level of activity yet have not yet even touched the bump.

If I am not mistaken in these tests. It appears front sensitivity for suspension and rear suspension are not fully independent between "Front" & "Rear" stereo channels. Look again at the first image, it also shows rear channel activity on both sides of equal strength for a front right suspension at 2mph.



Please see such as constructive conversation and sharing as part of the level and time-consuming effort being put in with testing. This is not moaning......

How much you want to try to improve this, if at all or how important you see it as necessary is your own decision. Just trying to help improve things...

 

[=Andre=]

Mr Latte, if you don't want to share your old samples anymore, of course, I will delete those links.
I could place your new better samples instead of the old samples, if you wish.

Regarding your regular complaints about stereo separation.
Let's take into account that SimShaker - Wheels doesn't generate bumps itself, the software reacts on game telemetry. If suspension in Assetto Corsa travels the same way at the both sides of a car, I cannot change that. I would recommend you to try out SimShaker - Wheels with other games, with, may be, more accurate physics, like free to play RRRE, for example.

 

[Mr Latte]

Mr Latter, if you don't want to share your old samples anymore, of course, I will delete those links.
I could place your new better samples instead of the old samples, if you wish.

Regarding your regular complaints about stereo separation.
Let's take into account that SimShaker - Wheels doesn't generate bumps itself, the software reacts on game telemetry. If suspension in Assetto Corsa travels the same way at the both sides of a car, I cannot change that. I would recommend you to try out SimShaker - Wheels with other games, with, may be, more accurate physics, like free to play RRRE, for example.

Thank you...

Mmmmmm, Im aware of the telemetry...
What is being queried is if you can filter the data in a better way to improve it?

I noticed the same L/R stereo issue in Simvibe with the same title when monitoring it over a year ago.
However, reducing the "Sensitivity" value in the settings for the effect improved the stereo bump accuracy. I seen and recorded it in the same way. Just as your threshold is doing so, yet it then kills the activity.

However, still Simvibe has a feature to represent "Roadbumps" and have mono response over all channels and high activity. I query why you do not seem interested in seeking such... Clearly its possible as the same telemetry is used.

Im aware having recorded lots of videos watching the car from internal/external views that often a right wheel can have an effect on the rear of the car. We see this in how the body/chassis moves depending on the bump/speed/g-force etc. As this is obviously happening based on the telemetry. The key surely is controlling the sensitivity between channels?

For those with motion cockpits, what happens with such examples, do they get proper stereo bump motion, representation for the side of the bump or a mono only response? Also for front and rear bumps is it identical?

I can easily at a later time compare RRRE in the future, if you think its greatly improved or more accurate?

 

[=Andre=]

>>What is being queried is if you can filter the data in a better way to improve it?
I'm not sure I can do that. I'm not ready to get down to that now, working hard on other SimShaker part.

>>However, still Simvibe has a feature to represent "Roadbumps" and have mono response over all channels and high activity. I query why you do not seem interested in seeking such... Clearly its possible as the same telemetry is used.
I think you can make the same, or something pretty similar, by customizing the samples. Try to set both (if stereo mode selected) channels filled in samples for left and right bumps.

 

[Mr Latte]

>>What is being queried is if you can filter the data in a better way to improve it?
I'm not sure I can do that. I'm not ready to get down to that now, working hard on other SimShaker part.

>>However, still Simvibe has a feature to represent "Roadbumps" and have mono response over all channels and high activity. I query why you do not seem interested in seeking such... Clearly its possible as the same telemetry is used.
I think you can make the same, or something pretty similar, by customizing the samples. Try to set both (if stereo mode selected) channels filled in samples for left and right bumps.

Andre, you offer 6 channel support. Those that have spent quite a lot on such investment for all the hardware on a cockpit will seek more from it. It is pointless to have all bumps operate in mono with the same .wav on each channel then producing a response on the opposite channel.

Thats pretty much what is happening anyways, even with stereo placed .wavs and low % threshold as demonstrated.


The person may as well have a single much larger/more power tactile unit if not gaining good stereo representation.

If you sat in my own seat and I illustrated the feeling/sensation differences with the units I have then you would be keen to make the most of having a good working stereo immersion.

You state I "regularly complain" but you fail to see the importance in the potential immersion felt in this working efficiently. Perhaps this is the difference with you having one single unit and not perhaps able to experience it fully and with higher level of hardware. I am trying my best to represent those that want a very high level of tactile immersion and on really good hardware. If I have to push you to consider at the expense of being deemd a moaner. Then well call me a complainer by all means.

Consider Please:
In the beta at some point, in the future.
Let people test and report back on the following general idea.....

If possible like you improved the engine on similar request and "moaning"...

1) Add ability to control the % on a slider for min/max values in what determines a "small bump". (Possibly upto 50% max range value?).
2) Give the user control of the Threshold % for this "small bump"
3) Incorporate individual volume/gain control for "small bump".

4) Add the ability to control the % on a slider for min/max values in what determines a "big bump"(Possibly from 40%-80%)
5) Give the user control of the Threshold % for this "large bump"
6 Incorporate individual volume/gain control for "large bump".


What this will let us do is then have "small bump" values operate as currently with a low % threshold. Feel similar to "Roadbumps" in Simvibe and give good road detailing.


However with individual control by splitting the "large bump" values or even helping to determine them we can set these to 70% or high threshold. This should then give improved stereo operation with the more robust and stronger felt bumps.


I believe this would GREATLY improve whats possible with the same. wav being shared/used for small/large bumps.

 

[=Andre=]

Oh, man, you asked me for mono operation, I gave you a suggestion how to achieve that, and you are not satisfied yet again Did I take you wrong?

Well, if I add another FX, let's say "Road Surface", along with its own gain, threshold and its own samples, targeting small bumps, what is going to be changed in terms of immersion? That's not going to improve stereo separation by itself. What would be your plan, Mr Latte?

There is another problem. That seems to be pointless for JetSeats, which is my main focus in 2018.

 

[Mr Latte]

Oh, man, you asked me for mono operation, I gave you a suggestion how to achieve that, and you are not satisfied yet again Did I take you wrong?

Well, if I add another FX, let's say "Road Surface", along with its own gain, threshold and its own samples, targeting small bumps, what is going to be changed in terms of immersion? That's not going to improve stereo separation by itself. What would be your plan, Mr Latte?

There is another problem. That seems to be pointless for JetSeats, which is my main focus in 2018.

Yes, I think you are not properly understanding.
Your patience is appreciated but I also have helped the sale of many of your software and continue to promote it. Any improvements you make, are also towards achieving future sales.

With 6 Months of testing and creating files for SSW. Hundreds of hours put into that. I feel before any of my newer custom files should be shared. We need to improve the bumps.



I think we need to have both of the following:

1) Active "Small" bump sensation in MONO (low threshold % value seems to do this)
2) Accurate "Large" bump sensation with STEREO placement (high threshold % value seems to improve this)


Comparison Example:

Simvibe offers "Road Bumps"
I know for a fact, these operate in MONO fashion. They give a nice activity for the road surface.
It is fine that these are MONO.

Simvibe includes "Suspension Bumps"
These work well in STEREO giving feedback per wheel.

In SSW we cant have both at present, by altering the "Threshold %" it seems to be affecting how much "Bump Activity" a user gets or "Better Stereo" bump placement.

As Simvibe is using "Tone Generation" it requires the user to determine the Hz used for both "Small & Large" bump values.

You will be aware but I presume likely, it either uses a pre-determined (bump range value). Or it reads the (telemetry bump values) to determine what a "Small" and what a "Large" bump is. Then it will generate the "Tone" from the users set Hz values defined by the user that represent "Small & Large" bumps.


How does SSW improve over this?
What is being asked by Mr Latte?



Overview:
1) Add the ability to have 2 bump features, "Small" & "Large". No longer as a single bump control.

2) Let the user have controls to determine "Threshold" & "Gain" but also what the (max bump value) can be for a "Small" bump. This can then determine also what is a "Large" bump.

For an example, lets assume a user sets 40% of the (max bump value) as the limit for a "Small" bump.
Then, we know values over 41% would be "Large" bumps.

3) If you can, allow to have an entirely different .wav for "Small" bumps and another for "Large" bumps. This would be awesome and very much appreciated. It could bring a greater variety to the feel of "Small" and "Large" bumps.


So in layman's terms:

If a user can:

• Determine what represents "Small" & "Large" bumps operation
• Alter controls for each independently
• Including "Threshold" control
• Including "Gain" control
• Including individual "Small" & "Large" bump ".wav"

 

[asteroulis]

I haven't been participating in your research @Mr Latte, but indeed what you are suggesting are points I felt that need to be addressed.
So much potential in this software, but still early stage.

@=Andre= I do get that there is only so much time to spend on SSW and you have both transducers and getseat in mind. Just consider our suggestions here for when there is time.
Thanks!

 

[Mr Latte]

I haven't been participating in your research @Mr Latte, but indeed what you are suggesting are points I felt that need to be addressed.
So much potential in this software, but still early stage.

@=Andre= I do get that there is only so much time to spend on SSW and you have both transducers and getseat in mind. Just consider our suggestions here for when there is time.
Thanks!

I know for tactile this will bring a benefit, yet even for the Jetseat surely its users would like the ability to have such controls. With greater variation in the feel of the bumps or to be able to have more focus on "bump activity" in mono or improved "stereo bump" positioning.

Its a vital part of the whole immersion.

Out of just learning and general interest. I would appreciate your feedback from being a user of Gecko motion seat how stereo bumps and front/rear bumps are defined with your motion.

 

[Ryan Robbins]

While I appreciate all that Mr. Latte has done, I do Not think the current custom files should be deleted and not be replaced by new ones? How does this help anyone, all new users would be using default files again.

Love the Jetseat, it gets better and better. Must be frustrating to deal with constant updates.of the different sims.

Also, whose to say that when you are in a car and you hit a bump with your right wheels that you do not feel some vibration on the right side of your seat, I think you would...unless i misunderstand the discussion.

 

[Mr Latte]

While I appreciate all that Mr. Latte has done, I do Not think the current custom files should be deleted and not be replaced by new ones? How does this help anyone, all new users would be using default files again.

Love the Jetseat, it gets better and better. Must be frustrating to deal with constant updates.of the different sims.

From memory the files uploaded/shared had issues with acceleration/deceleration. Those were done very early on as well. Much more was learned and accomplished with the newer files. I'm sure much better could be done for Jet seat.

If Andre wants to send me a Jet Seat I will gladly put the time in to learn and help develop better effects specifically for it. I would not, however, buy one as do not need it for my own immersion.

It is possible multi tactile users could add a Jet Seat to their cockpits and it bring some benefits.
I asked about this in the Jet Seat thread a while ago if anyone was doing such or their opinions but it got no responses.

* I agree some bumps we should get a lesser but active response on the opposite side. However not an identical strength at a speed as low as 2 mph used to illustrate the issue. This also was not at 0% but 20% Threshold.

If we can control the "Threshold" individually for "Small" and "Large" bumps then it would let the user better determine how each combined will be operating on the channels.

 

[Ziggy972]

Andre congratulations for your work!!!!!!!

I have been using Gametrix with SimShaker for 4 weeks and i'm very happy. If you will be able to improve one thing will be perfect (at least for me). That thing are the bumbs.

I play iracing, and previously i used Sim Vibe. With Sim Vibe when my left wheels went over a kerb, mainly the left bass shaker vibrated, when my right wheels went over a kerb, then mainly left bass shaker vibrated, Playing road races that is a great sensation because you are continually touching the kerbs. I hasn't been able to acheive the same result with SimShaker. I have a 'Bumbs & Buffets' Filtering Threshold of 98 because with less than 98 when i went over a kerb at the right also vibrate very much the left side of the Gametrix Seat giving a unrealistic feeling, and even with 98 you have sometimes vibrations at the opposite side of the kerb and also i have to say that the vibration with a 98 value is much less intense that with Sim Vibe.

If you were able to improve that, you would have the best software of the market (in my opinion). Continue with the great work!!!! Thank you.


Edit: I'm using two bass shakers behind my pedals and the Gametrix JetSet and as i said the sensations are great, Overall an improvement respect using only bass shakers and Sim Vibe, I am only missing the Bumbs. With better Bumbs would be great and clearly a much better experience (at least for me).

 

[=Andre=]

Andre congratulations for your work!!!!!!!

I have been using Gametrix with SimShaker for 4 weeks and i'm very happy. If you will be able to improve one thing will be perfect (at least for me). That thing are the bumbs.

I play iracing, and previously i used Sim Vibe. With Sim Vibe when my left wheels went over a kerb, mainly the left bass shaker vibrated, when my right wheels went over a kerb, then mainly left bass shaker vibrated, Playing road races that is a great sensation because you are continually touching the kerbs. I hasn't been able to acheive the same result with SimShaker. I have a 'Bumbs & Buffets' Filtering Threshold of 98 because with less than 98 when i went over a kerb at the right also vibrate very much the left side of the Gametrix Seat giving a unrealistic feeling, and even with 98 you have sometimes vibrations at the opposite side of the kerb and also i have to say that the vibration with a 98 value is much less intense that with Sim Vibe.

If you were able to improve that, you would have the best software of the market (in my opinion). Continue with the great work!!!! Thank you.


Edit: I'm using two bass shakers behind my pedals and the Gametrix JetSet and as i said the sensations are great, Overall an improvement respect using only bass shakers and Sim Vibe, I am only missing the Bumbs. With better Bumbs would be great and clearly a much better experience (at least for me).

I agree.
Bumps FX for iRacing to refactor is my very next TODO item.

 

[=Andre=]

Yes, I think you are not properly understanding.
Your patience is appreciated but I also have helped the sale of many of your software and continue to promote it. Any improvements you make, are also towards achieving future sales.

Thank you. I would rather say you are trying to play your own game, based on my software and my responsiveness, to meet your personal goals. A lot of requests, but little collaboration.

Overview:
1) Add the ability to have 2 bump features, "Small" & "Large". No longer as a single bump control.

2) Let the user have controls to determine "Threshold" & "Gain" but also what the (max bump value) can be for a "Small" bump. This can then determine also what is a "Large" bump.

For an example, lets assume a user sets 40% of the (max bump value) as the limit for a "Small" bump.
Then, we know values over 41% would be "Large" bumps.

3) If you can, allow to have an entirely different .wav for "Small" bumps and another for "Large" bumps. This would be awesome and very much appreciated. It could bring a greater variety to the feel of "Small" and "Large" bumps.


So in layman's terms:

If a user can:

• Determine what represents "Small" & "Large" bumps operation
• Alter controls for each independently
• Including "Threshold" control
• Including "Gain" control
• Including individual "Small" & "Large" bump ".wav"

I think that can be implemented. I just don't quite understand the idea behind that. How it's going to improve the immersion? If you are going to make small bumps in mono fashion and large bumps in stereo, isn't it that what you already reported as an "issue"? Just set threshold slider low enough and you will get it.

 

[Mr Latte]

Thank you. I would rather say you are trying to play your own game, based on my software and my responsiveness, to meet your personal goals. A lot of requests, but little collaboration.

So tell me what collaboration, you seek?

Recommendations made to you in this thread, are that, recommendations or requests not demands. I have stated this in the past already more than once. It is discussion, not fault seeking or comlaining... What you deem as important or what you decide to put your development time into is your choice.

I was shown, a rather biased and unfair comparison of SSW & Simvibe that appeared on i-racing forums early, last year. Possibly this may of put people off looking into your software or as a serious contender. Yet I think I support or try to promote your software as much as anyone.

I seen the potential with SSW and in using .wav files from the very begining. Some know, how much work I put into creating and testing fiiles with others in private. To the point of testing and considering "car profiles" with the possibility of even having effects created to work on specific "tactile models". Then a user would just download the set more suited for their own tactile model. These are considerations at the moment as I have still on my own side of things more I want to do in testing and achieve prior to considering to release such files to the public.

I even contacted RD staff on the possibility of having and sharing "car profiles" FREELY on these forums from the downloads section.

Tell me how do I personally benefit, other than enjoy or seek better immersion and share it with others? I have even had several people and testers tell me the improvements in the tactile they are feeling over the default files from my own custom files are that good they would pay for such "car profiles". Yet I opted to persue, options to offer such freely here for the communnity. Which you are aware of.

Jetseat may be your primary focus. I have offered to help with files creation or development towards Jetseat if you feel my own input will be of benefit. Send a Jetseat and you will get free testing and collaboration development. Im a tactile hobbyist so I would enjoy that but again that is your choice.

I think that can be implemented. I just don't quite understand the idea behind that. How it's going to improve the immersion? If you are going to make small bumps in mono fashion and large bumps in stereo, isn't it that what you already reported as an "issue"? Just set threshold slider low enough and you will get it.

Bumps
Others are clearly also seeking improvement in bumps too. I am not alone in this, though I wish more people were vocal in sharing their own views. All that is sought is improved immersion and SSW bring more enjoyement to its users.

The Problem:

SSW currently CANNOT ouput accurate "STEREO Bumps" AND produce a good level of "MONO Bump Activity" at the same time.

We have to determine by positioning the "Threshold %" if we either want
A) Lots of MONO bump activity OR
B) Improved operation in STEREO bumps.

Therefore compared to Simvibe using "Roadbumps" and "Suspension Bumps" we look at this as the target to meet. Here these two effects bring (A) excellent mono bump activity in "Roadbumps" and (B) strong stereo bumps from "Suspension Bump" effects.

The importance is that BOTH can be enjoyed with individual settings and Hz being used.


My perspective on this....
When you have capable tactile hardware that can generate good low fequencies. We can use "large bumps" with a powerful felt sensation using a .wav from @5Hz-40Hz.

Currently, when operating with a high level of "Threshold %" these will deliver pretty good STEREO immersion. Producing a strong sensation for the wheel/side that is going over the bump. Its a very enjoyable and satisfying part of the immersion.

For "Bump Activity" we would likely get good results with a .wav using @50Hz and upwards.

These do not need to be that strong and should if representing small surface details or minor bumps be focused on giving enjoyable consistent immersion. These do not need to be directional but operate mainly like a background effect to compliment others.

If you bring the ability to have different .wav for "Small" and "Large" Bumps but then also control to determine what represents a small & large bump. You give people the ability to have not only BOTH the "Activity" and "Stereo" reaching the goals sought after but even more....

Personally I believe you have the chance to bring these features, making it possible to have even better results than Simvibe. By using individual .wav effects. If we have the set controls mentioned and in having more operation towards what the user can set and may prefer to feel for bump activity.

Then a user could have more feel for "activity" or more feel for "stereo bumps" but each now or individual .wav with their different felt character. Bringing more low bass sensation or more mid bass sensation based on specific tuned .wav effects for each. These could be developed to work well on popular tactile models with in-depth testing so ensured to feel good.

Thats what I enjoy, or good at bringing, yet I can't as I don't currently have the controls or ability to do so.

Really the choice is yours Andre. We can drop the whole idea, I burden you no further. Likewise just keep the current progress of whatever files/effects I created or continue to do for my own usage/enjoyment and focus more just on my own cockpit....

 

[Michal Burisin]

This feature request seems like the software and people using it would really benefit from it. When people are investing lot into getting stereo setup, they would like to take advantage of it fully.

From what I have seen here and in other forums from Mr Latte enthusiasm for tactile, I would say he has done more for tactile community than anyone around here - he is really helpful to anybody as can be seen everywhere around here even with individual questions, putting lot of effort in testing, putting information threads together, spreading the word etc. and he's doing it on his own time for free. I see there might be some communication misunderstanding between you two, maybe it might be easier for you to go over this via PM, just a suggestion.

Thank you both for pushing tactile further!

 

[=Andre=]

So tell me what collaboration, you seek?.

I'd seek for the essential results, Mr Latte.
You shows us a lot of activity, experiments, requests, lots of repetitive expatiative posts. Looks really great.
But what's the result?
Can anybody, except few private testers, download your elaborated samples now? I had created a file storage resource, tied to SSW interface, accessible for anyone, as it was settled between us. The resource is empty, talking about the samples. That's a pity.

I'd seek for real, not declarative, understanding between us. Repeatedly telling me "really the choice is yours Andre", you keep the pressure on, trying to reach your own goals by all means. I suggest, it's clear enough that personal goals may be not just financial.

I'd seek for brief and clear explanations, rather than lengthy repetitive essays. I wouldn't like to skip posts in this support thread, where people could easily ask for help, but sometimes that's the only choice.

Being talented and enthusiastic, let's be also collaborative, Mr Latte.

 

[Ziggy972]

I agree.
Bumps FX for iRacing to refactor is my very next TODO item.

Great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!