Quote:
Originally Posted by UNKNOWN_370
The keyword in all you said is VISCERAL. in my opinion. If the experience isn't visceral. It's not a car worth buying. So while technology May have progressed over the years at the expense of feedback. I don't see how losing a connection to the road will ever be good for motor sports. We've always fallen back to trying to maintain some type of feedback through the wheel with each technological breakthrough. These 6 years is the first time in history that many car companies are choosing tech over a complete driving experience IN SPORTS CARS. Another key factor. These are sports cars not passenger vehicles.
Companies like Alfa Romeo, Jaguar, Lotus and Mercedes have all taken steps to ensure feedback is a sensation NOT mitigated in order to boost the overall drivers experience. I say if I can name 4 companies that have made feedback a priority in our high tech state of the auto industry? So can the rest. Even Mazda, who uses electric steering have found a way to provide feedback. It's all important in a sports car. I don't see how FEEDBACK can be considered subjective in a car type that's intentionally designed to stir the senses even morsso than provide power?
While the progressive mentality may say tally ho and on with technology. Which is great if we're not talking about a niche group of performance vehicles.... I don't think we need to progress to the point where we kill VISCERAL, in the driving experience in cars designed purely for SPORTING INTENTIONS. My Z is very direct. I've found only flaws in my suspension and the numbness in my steering wheel under 15mph, which I'm never there. I don't need my car to feel like my playstation. I need my PlayStation to feel like my car.
|
I get what you are saying. But visceral is ultimately always subjectively "authentic".
The feedback you are getting is all funneled through a tuned set of shock absorbers, springs, tires, chassis bracing, and so on. It's adjusted according to the padding on the steering wheel and the calluses on your hands. Its affected by your attention and memory-based versions of past experiences (themselves a cobbled together semblance of something resembling reality).
The inputs are always muted or modified or somehow adjusted, and we adapt to that. If you turn the car and can't feel the road, the feedback system has failed, and in the absence of any road contact feedback, you'll have to rely 100% on your eyes or the sensation of vestibular re-orientation, as if the car is gliding. Take out the feedback from your inner ear, and you get vertigo, the eye movements failing to match the head and body's re-orientation experiences.
It's a very wide continuum is all I'm saying. It's not an on/off switch.
You may not like it, and your reasons for being dubious about it are valid. Nissan may do a poor job engineering the tech, or they do a great job and some drivers will still bristle at the thought of yet another disconnect from their ultimately subjective and highly personal version of their driving experience.
My (overly optimistic?) hope is that this will lead to an incredibly tunable level of control over how driver inputs and road feedback are adjusted to the individual driver. That sounds pretty cool to me.
It may suck and individual results may vary.
The comparison to video games always comes up. I personally find 1st person shooters non-immersive and headache inducing; I like 3rd person "movie" style action games and find them incredibly immersive.
It's perceptual, and perceptions are adaptive and subjective.