This works on capability bitfields that can either come from udev or
from ioctls, so it is equally applicable to both udev and non-udev
input device detection.
Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie <smcv@collabora.com>
meyraud705
I see how the documentation is confusing. I think that the choice of the axis is an implementation detail. The documentation should state the goal of this value, so I propose this wording:
"Use this value to play an effect on the steering wheel axis. This provides
better compatibility across platforms and devices as SDL will guess the
correct axis."
Value could even be renamed 'SDL_HAPTIC_STEERING_AXIS'.
For Linux, sending an effect on the X axis with a Logitech wheel works. Others brands don't have driver for Linux as far as I know.
meyraud705
Added Linux implementation, otherwise you get "Unsupported direction type" error.
Added documentation to explain why one would use SDL_HAPTIC_FIRST_AXIS.
Mathieu Laurendeau
Consider a device supporting effects on multiple axes.
There's currently no way to play effects against a single-axis direction.
A device supporting effects against X and Y may not allow to play effects with a two-axis direction coordinate, even if one of the coordinates is null.
My current (ugly) work around for this is to add a direction type SDL_HAPTIC_X_FORCE to play effects against a X-axis only direction (patch attached).
This issue impacted two GIMX users using the following wheels:
- Leo Bodnar SimSteering force feedback wheel
- Accuforce direct drive wheel
Playing constant/spring/damper effects against a X-axis direction worked well for the first wheel, but not for the second one.
A better strategy seems to play the effects against the first axis reported by the DirectInput enumeration.
This strategy also works with Logitech wheels (at least the DFGT).
It's been more than a year that I have the latest patch (playing effects against the first axis only) in the GIMX software. It's being used by thousands of people, mostly for adapting their FFB wheel to the PS4. I had no report that proves this strategy to be wrong.
Include guards in most changed files were missing, I added them keeping
the same style as other SDL files. In some cases I moved the include
guards around to be the first thing the header has to take advantage of
any possible improvements compiler may have for inclusion guards.
SDL_UDEV_Scan must be called during SDL_SYS_HapticInit to ensure devices
outside of the 0-31 range are added to the list of haptic devices.
Fixes Bugzilla #3923.
Joe Thompson
With Direct Input device (MOMO Steering Wheel w/FF)
with SDL 2.0.3,
SDL_HapticOpenFromJoystick() would fail. (Can't set exclusive mode)
Now with 2.0.4 rc1,
SDL_HapticOpenFromJoystick() succeeds but the the returned SDL_Haptic* cannot be used. Calls to SDL_HapticNewEffect() fail with "Haptic error Unable to create effect"
If SDL_HapticOpen() is used instead of HapticOpenFromJoystick(), the device is usable. Calls to HapticNewEffect() succeed with the exact same parameters as the previous failing call.
I have attached a proposed patch for this issue.
When using SDL_HapticOpenFromJoystick(), the original code did not (re)enumerate the axes. This returned a new haptic device with 0 axes. Later, when a new effect is created, SDL_SYS_SetDirection() would set the flags to include DIEFF_SPHERICAL, regardless of what the caller actually set. (see Line 566 in SDL_dinputhaptic.c). This would cause the SDL_HapticNewEffect() to fail (or interpret the coordinates incorreclty.)
The patch moves the call to IDirectInputDevice8_EnumObjects() outside of the if() block so that the axes are (re)enumerated for the new haptic device.
Note: For steering wheels it is common for the joystick to have multiple axes (ie steering, throttle, brake), but the haptic portion of the joystick usually only applies to steering.
This allows us to set an explicit stack size (overriding the system default
and the global hint an app might have set), and remove all the macro salsa
for dealing with _beginthreadex and such, as internal threads always set those
to NULL anyhow.
I've taken some guesses on reasonable (and tiny!) stack sizes for our
internal threads, but some of these might turn out to be too small in
practice and need an increase. Most of them are simple functions, though.
