How many here use TrackIR?

I got one just two days ago and I like it quite a lot in flight sims
but I'm finding it is making my driving sims a bit harder because the
cars now feel too alive in games like GTR2, Race07 and rFactor. My
view is moving around more than I want. I've disable look to apex and
Gforce movement as much as possible in the game interface but the cars
bouncing seems to be hardcoded, or is there a way to lessen that too
in the ISI based games?

"Poky" > wrote in message
...
>I got one just two days ago and I like it quite a lot in flight sims
> but I'm finding it is making my driving sims a bit harder because the
> cars now feel too alive in games like GTR2, Race07 and rFactor. My
> view is moving around more than I want. I've disable look to apex and
> Gforce movement as much as possible in the game interface but the cars
> bouncing seems to be hardcoded, or is there a way to lessen that too
> in the ISI based games?

I use TrackIR in flight sims but never really liked it in racing sims due to
the problems you describe. Wider or multiple monitors are a much better
solution. As for the bouncing, that is very realistic in rFactor.

The problem with sim racing is that people always seem to want to sanitize
the experience in their pursuit of speed and winning. We could have had FFB
gear shifters and peddles by now, if people weren't so girlie in their
attitudes!

Remember all the crying when Papyrus took out the AI strength slider in GPL?
Going back further, I remember being laughed in my local computer store
because I was buying a CH Flight Yoke for use with racing sims (ICR2, back
then). 'Just use a gamepad' they advised me!

Then we had all the unrealistic GPL setups. And let's not forget you had to
put three wheels off at Spa to be competitive - total bull!

Hopefully, iRacing will bring some much needed order and hardcore realism to
this 'sport'.

"Poky" > wrote in message
...
>I got one just two days ago and I like it quite a lot in flight sims
> but I'm finding it is making my driving sims a bit harder because the
> cars now feel too alive in games like GTR2, Race07 and rFactor. My
> view is moving around more than I want. I've disable look to apex and
> Gforce movement as much as possible in the game interface but the cars
> bouncing seems to be hardcoded, or is there a way to lessen that too
> in the ISI based games?
>

For driving stuff I use a TIR profile that has a significant dead zone for
yaw, pitch and the X axis. I disable roll and the Y axis in the TIR
application. I can look side to side, up and down and focus in on guages
only with a deliberate effort. Roll and Y add to much movement so they're
out

Dave

"DavErb" > wrote in
:

>
> For driving stuff I use a TIR profile that has a significant dead zone
> for yaw, pitch and the X axis. I disable roll and the Y axis in the
> TIR application. I can look side to side, up and down and focus in on
> guages only with a deliberate effort. Roll and Y add to much movement
> so they're out
>
> Dave
>
>

Yea, that's what the issue was. Just needed more deadzone for roll. I like
the roll for driving sims because you actually tilt your head when looking
into the corners. The default racing setup is pretty good but the roll is
too sensitve and needed more deadzone. I've found the viewpoint was too low
usingn the TrackIR Pro that clips to headphones but the vector module that
you put on the brim of a cap or visor is about the right height. I lower my
seat when racing so needed a higher sensor than I would use in flight sims.

"Roger Longcock" > wrote in
:

> I use TrackIR in flight sims but never really liked it in racing sims
> due to the problems you describe. Wider or multiple monitors are a
> much better solution. As for the bouncing, that is very realistic in
> rFactor.

But in a real car you bounce with the car. In rFactor you are not actually
in the car so you feel like you are fighting against the bouncing. A little
bouncing is good but in rFactor there is a bit too much for my liking.

I found out I needed more deadzone for TrackIR to work well in racing
games. F1 Challenge works real well with it as that doesn't have too much
bouncing, just a little. I've got most of my racing sims working with it
well now, just need to do a bit more tweaking on the roll rate and
deadzone. I found I needed to adjust default FOV too because with TRackIR
on my default view was bit too far back in the car. TrackIR is expensive
considering for not much more I could get a Wii that uses basically the
same technology and offers you lot more than just motion sensing. Still, I
like TrackIR so am glad I bought it.

Gumby wrote:
> "DavErb" > wrote in
> :
>
>> For driving stuff I use a TIR profile that has a significant dead zone
>> for yaw, pitch and the X axis....

I do just the opposite. I have no dead zone so there is alway movement.
It is much more predictive than moving out of the dead zone and all of a
suddenly having movement. On the other hand I have the values on the
curve set extremely low so the movement of head to screen is as close to
1 to 1 as is possible. Just another approach.

"rqk" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gumby wrote:
>> "DavErb" > wrote in
>> :
>>> For driving stuff I use a TIR profile that has a significant dead zone
>>> for yaw, pitch and the X axis....
>
> I do just the opposite. I have no dead zone so there is alway movement. It
> is much more predictive than moving out of the dead zone and all of a
> suddenly having movement. On the other hand I have the values on the curve
> set extremely low so the movement of head to screen is as close to 1 to 1
> as is possible. Just another approach.

1 to 1 is best in flight sims too.

rqk > wrote in :

> I do just the opposite. I have no dead zone so there is alway movement.
> It is much more predictive than moving out of the dead zone and all of a
> suddenly having movement. On the other hand I have the values on the
> curve set extremely low so the movement of head to screen is as close to
> 1 to 1 as is possible. Just another approach.
>

That won't work for me as I tried it and I'm one of these people that tend
to naturally tilt their head to one side. I need the deadzone.

"rqk" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gumby wrote:
>> "DavErb" > wrote in
>> :
>>> For driving stuff I use a TIR profile that has a significant dead zone
>>> for yaw, pitch and the X axis....
>
> I do just the opposite. I have no dead zone so there is alway movement. It
> is much more predictive than moving out of the dead zone and all of a
> suddenly having movement. On the other hand I have the values on the curve
> set extremely low so the movement of head to screen is as close to 1 to 1
> as is possible. Just another approach.

Just goes to show that there is no "one true way" in setting up your TIR
profiles
I hate to think of the amount of time I've spent futzing around trying to
get it so it feels right to me. I suspect that my settings would seem very
odd to some and quite natural to others.

Dave

Hi Gumby

This is not meant in an attacking way at all but have you ever been in a car
going over 160 mph? (Um, just in case that is like 240 kph)

I wonder because I have more than once and I can tell you that my head/eyes
were NOT moving "with the car". Assuming (as we should in the case of a
race car) a stiff suspensioned car.... you would not beleive the physical
impacts of track imperfections. Your eyes and your car are NOT attached. I
haven't driven on a race track that was smooth enough (no ovals here) to
make my vision "move with the car" at speeds over 150 mph.

Your body is getting rattled.... the sealbelts (5 point) save you in a crash
but they "HOLD YOU IN THE CAR" when you aren't crashing too! Ever notice an
F1 drivers head popping up and down as he accellerated and braked?? Ya
think he wants that to be happening - 'cause I'm sure he doesn't.

HANS device --- Head and Neck Support
-- an attempt to more substantially connect the "head"/eyes to the car.
Prior to the hans device drivers were killed because the car stopped
suddenly, their body -restrained by the 5 point- stopped suddenly.... but
the HEAD (and eyes) not being restrained, did not stop as suddenly and was
stretched "beyond comfort" for the body and spine. (verbage used to
minimize graphic detail)

The car is "tight" "stiff" and "lively" --- your head and eyes are somewhat
(within limits of a human) in freespace.

Racers tend to dislike CLOCKWISE rotation tracks. Why?
The reason is that their bodies have been "conditioned" to manage all the
bumps, lumps, g-forces, et al of racing on a COUNTER-CLOCKWISE track (which
is much more prevalent) Racing on a counter-clockwise track is hard on the
neck and shoulders. I personally think it affects your "track line vision"
in the same way.

Personally speaking... I think eyesight and being able to manage the
"vibrations/ up / down/ sudden surface impact/ changes/ etc." and having the
ability to focus quickly and accurately on multiple moving as well as
stationary objects all at the same time is a bit a special skill (or
requirement) for a successful race driver.

I have my "head vibration" and "look to apex" turned on in rFactor and I
think it adds to my immersion and thus pleasure.


*** Of course this is all IMPO - so you can ignore if you like ***
--


"Gumby" > wrote in message
news:dWGYj.153614$Cj7.103254@pd7urf2no...
> "Roger Longcock" > wrote in
> :
>
>> I use TrackIR in flight sims but never really liked it in racing sims
>> due to the problems you describe. Wider or multiple monitors are a
>> much better solution. As for the bouncing, that is very realistic in
>> rFactor.
>
> But in a real car you bounce with the car. In rFactor you are not actually
> in the car so you feel like you are fighting against the bouncing. A
> little
> bouncing is good but in rFactor there is a bit too much for my liking.
>
> I found out I needed more deadzone for TrackIR to work well in racing
> games. F1 Challenge works real well with it as that doesn't have too much
> bouncing, just a little. I've got most of my racing sims working with it
> well now, just need to do a bit more tweaking on the roll rate and
> deadzone. I found I needed to adjust default FOV too because with TRackIR
> on my default view was bit too far back in the car. TrackIR is expensive
> considering for not much more I could get a Wii that uses basically the
> same technology and offers you lot more than just motion sensing. Still, I
> like TrackIR so am glad I bought it.