Simagic Alpha Evo Pro/Max Review: All Grown Up

Simagic Alpha Evo Pro Review Summary

Main Features and Performance

The Evo Pro has a very light, low-inertia rotor that responds quickly and conveys a lot of detail. The reviewer says this helps explain its agility.

It offers 18 Nm and 21 Nm settings, extensive adjustability, frequent firmware updates, and a ring light.

Bench testing found:

• Bandwidth: About 54 Hz, with detail diminishing gradually beyond that point.
• Response delay: Roughly 6 ms—about 6.4 ms at light forces and 5.8 ms at heavier forces.
• Force build-up: Peaks around 5.5 Nm/ms; the base reaches most of its force in about 4.5 ms.
• Force release: Similar to build-up at lower forces, but much faster above roughly 9–10 Nm—up to about 12 Nm/ms on the 21 Nm setting.

Both tested firmware versions produced the same bench results.

Pros

• Highly responsive and detailed, without feeling twitchy on the newer firmware.
• Works especially well for track racing once the driver adapts to the light rotor. The reviewer’s lap times eventually matched those achieved with the Ares Platinum, and he preferred the Evo Pro for track use.
• The force feedback feels quick in use, and the reviewer did not notice the measured torque shortfall while driving.
• Firmware refinement has made it a much more mature product than it was at launch.

Cons and Caveats

• Measured torque was below the rated figures: about 16.5 Nm instead of 18 Nm, and 19.1 Nm instead of 21 Nm. The reviewer suspects an encoder offset. Simagic said it was working on a fix and reported that its own units were healthy. The reviewer planned to update his results if a fix became available.
• During a 10-second holding-torque test, force gradually increased by 0.2–0.3 Nm. The reviewer also observed this behavior on the Evo Ultra, but not on the Alpha U or Conspit bases. He does not know the cause.
• The light rotor took time to adjust to: initially, it disrupted the reviewer’s familiar inputs and caused mistakes.
• It never suited his rally preferences. Even with a low slew rate and added friction, damping, and inertia, he could not make it feel like a heavier rotor.
• The ring light is a feature, though the reviewer jokingly expressed little interest in it.

Firmware and Subjective Impressions

Simagic provides an even-numbered default firmware, installed through SimPro, and an odd-numbered version that users must flash manually.

The reviewer initially perceived the two versions as noticeably different. In a blind test, however, he identified them correctly only 2 out of 12 times. He concluded that expectations and placebo can influence subjective impressions.

Versions 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 measured identically on his bench. Any difference may be subtle or outside what the bench can detect.

Comparisons and Overall Verdict

The reviewer prefers heavier-rotor bases for rally, particularly the older Alpha lineup and the Ares Platinum. He says the Evo Pro’s light rotor is a genuine difference that he could not fully reproduce with settings.

For track racing, however, he came to prefer the Evo Pro over the Conspit base he compared it with. He also considers its responsiveness and detail strong for the price, especially with the 21 Nm update.

Verdict: Strongly positive—“two thumbs up.” The reviewer considers the Evo Pro impressive and substantially improved since launch, while noting the torque-measurement discrepancy and that its light-rotor feel may not suit everyone, particularly rally drivers. No numerical review score was given.

Speakers’ Perspectives

• Reviewer (The Napman): Praises the Evo Pro’s responsiveness, detail, and track performance; prefers heavier rotors for rally and reports the torque-test caveat.
• Reviewer’s wife: Suggested the blind firmware test, in which the reviewer scored 2/12. She is also said to love the refined product.