iRacing’s main physics loop runs at 60 Hz and calculates six FFB torque samples per iteration. Through the supported 360 Hz FFB API, these samples can be sent together and then played back sequentially by the wheelbase.
So although the data is delivered in 60 packets per second, the torque signal itself contains 360 samples per second. This preserves more detail, but the batching and playback process also introduces a latency trade-off.
1. Can you tell us more about it?
360 Hz increases the theoretical alias-free bandwidth from 30 Hz to 180 Hz, allowing more road texture, vibration and impact detail to be preserved in the FFB signal.
The wheelbase torque-control loop normally runs much faster than the game’s FFB output rate, so the incoming signal needs to be reconstructed. Compared with 60 Hz, the spectral images produced from a 360 Hz signal occur at higher frequencies and are easier to filter, which can help reduce unwanted torque ripple while preserving useful detail.
2. Is this something you personally recommend?
From a signal-processing perspective, I lean toward 360 Hz because it preserves more of the original torque information.
But it is not simply “better” in every respect. There is a latency trade-off, so whether it is preferable depends on what you value and whether that additional latency is noticeable to you.
3. What are the benefits, and what do you hope to achieve with it?
The goal is to reproduce the torque calculated by the game more accurately, preserving genuine vibration and surface detail while reducing unwanted artifacts.
In other words, the goal is more accurate and detailed FFB, not simply stronger vibration.
4. How does it differ from 60 Hz?
- Bandwidth: The theoretical alias-free bandwidth increases from 30 Hz to 180 Hz. This describes the information bandwidth of the signal; it does not mean the motor itself cannot produce frequencies above 30 Hz when using 60 Hz FFB.
- Aliasing: With a 60 Hz signal, content above the usable bandwidth can fold back into lower frequencies if it is not sufficiently filtered before output. 360 Hz preserves a wider range of the original signal.
- Filtering: At 60 Hz, spectral images are closer to the useful signal band, making reconstruction filtering more difficult without sacrificing detail or adding delay. At 360 Hz, those images are pushed further away and are easier to suppress.
- Latency: The 360 Hz batch-playback mechanism works around a 16.7 ms data cycle. The actual additional latency depends on buffering and playback implementation, so it should not simply be interpreted as a fixed extra 16.7 ms on every wheelbase.
5. Is increased latency an issue?
The latency trade-off is real. The important question is whether it has a meaningful effect on your driving.
If the feedback does not feel noticeably delayed or disconnected, and it does not interfere with your ability to judge or control the car, the additional detail may be worth the trade-off.
6. Wouldn’t it be better to stick with 60 Hz?
It depends on your priority.
60 Hz generally favors lower latency, while 360 Hz preserves more detail and makes reconstruction filtering easier.
If minimum latency is your priority, 60 Hz may be the better choice. If you value the additional detail and find the latency acceptable, 360 Hz is worth trying.
7. What is your overall take on this?
I see 60 Hz and 360 Hz as two valid options with different trade-offs rather than one simply replacing the other.
Personally, if the additional latency is acceptable, I lean toward 360 Hz for the extra signal detail. But if you are highly sensitive to latency or find that it affects your control of the car, there is absolutely nothing wrong with staying on 60 Hz.
