I think we should have a feature to clone models and variants, instead of just variants, I’ve read on a forum back in 2015, where it said that cloning models could be done in Unreal engine, and this is useful for something like luxury brands of car companies, like having one model, duplicating it, and changing the fixtures so much that it does not look like the original car model, and having a different name, and hopefully the same for engines, so you can have an engine with different cylinder amounts. Sorry for my bad grammar, I typed this at midnight.
You can do what you want by Making a new model on the same model using the same options.
Cloning a model adds very little to the game itself, especially in the campaign.
I do see one benefit, a massive reduction in engineering time plus being able to share a production line. No need to be able to Clone the model, but perhaps implement it so if you make a car on the same platform you get all those reductions as stuff like the chassis, body, and possibly engine would already be engineered.
It can help to make a new update model in a later model year using the same body and starting off with the same shapes and trim pieces; rather puzzling it all back together.
It also allows to create trims of the same models with different panel materials.
It also allows to create trims of the same body with different suspensions (offroad version with solid rear axles, AWD sports versions with high-end independent rear suspensions, different from the FWD base trim).
It allows to create trims of the same body with different engine placement, transverse base model and longitudinal RWD premium or sports trims.
It also allows to create racing spin offs of existing models (useless perhaps for campaign, but highly useful for RP’ing purposes and forum challenges).
All-in-all, this appears to be a recurring request and in terms of coding, it should not take that much effort.
You’e basically making a new trim at that point.
I can see the advantages there.
name a non-neiche model that has both Transverse and Longituidinal engines
Never use “It can’t be much work” when relating to game design.
But with a new chassis and updates materials.
It’s not impossible to consider doing though, just like having a (if that would one day be possible), a front engined and a mid-engined version of a hot hatch (Clio V6 style). It could make sense in sedan with transverse FWD lay-out and premium or sports trim with a stronger chassis, different suspension and a longitudinal RWD or AWD lay-out. Production lines would be split even if the engine orientation didn’t change.
True, true, but relatively speaking. Alternative work-around would be to allow exporting a trim, changing the name and this causing it change the ID-number, so that you can re-import the file as a new model (now this is impossible). Not sure if this would take less work than making it possible to copy a model.
In any case, it’s less work than changing the whole system and allowing to change the specifics of the model per trim within the same model.
This harks back to a similar idea I mentioned in an engine family discussion: they really are two separate models united under one name. The amount of engineering that went into that probably would have been enough to make half of an entire car, which you cannot know if they are just named as the same model. It doesn’t make sense to be able to do that under one model in Automation, and cloning a model doesn’t really make a lot of sense from a campaign perspective either. I can sort of see why it hasn’t been added to the game. And even if it were to be added, I’d emphasize other features like exporting engines to be placed at a higher priority, but that’s a different matter.
You could use it for special editions that have a different engine layout and body material as well.
And it would be easier to make 2nd gen models of the same car so you can just swap out the engine, use more modern materials and such. Also, new generations through variants isn’t very good.
Usually when you’re making a new Generation, it’s on a new platform, and a new body. Usually, you won’t see a new Generation of a model with just a new look. That’s a facelift.
When you’re making a new Generation of a model, you’re usually making quite large changes. Making a “new generation from a variant” is facelifting a model. It’s not a new Generation.
True, but at least you can more easily keep body styling and some fixtures. You delete and work from a template, instead of from the ground up.
I’m completely fine if the developers say it’s difficult to achieve, then it’s not worth the hassle, but if it’s doable with limited work, even as a low priority somewhere, then I cannot say I find your arguments so far to be very compelling.
So, what you’re after is… the template feature from Kee?
I think that would take much more work to re-implement, correct me if I’m wrong.
Two million units. Came in Front/transverse and Front/Longitudinal (with six centimeters variation in the wheelbase). It also had two variants, 2 and 3 valves per cylinder, of the same engine
Also, the Alfa 145.
name a non-neiche model that has both Transverse and Longituidinal engines
Renault 21: A pretty normal family saloon of the 1980s, smaller engined models were conventional transverse FWD, while larger engined models (2.0L and Turbo) used the longitudinal FWD trans from the larger R25. The Car was actually developed with this in mind, as the configurations differed in wheelbase.
Alfa 145/6: The first two model years used an updated version of the Alfasud Flat 4 carried over from the 33, and were thus longitudinally mounted, while later ones switched to Fiat based, transversely mounted inline engines.
Rover 75/ MG ZT: The story of the Mustang V8 powered ZT260 and its lesser known Rover variation is pretty common knowledge at this point.
Triumph “Ajax” Family: Not technically the same model, but they were all based on the same bodyshell. Initially launched as the front wheel drive 1300 in 1965 which would evolve into the 1500 of 1970, that year they added the much cheaper RWD 1300cc Toledo, and the best known of them all, the 1972 Dolomite. Meanwhile in 1973 the FWD 1500 was replaced by the 1500TC, which was a Toledo with the Twin-Carb 1500cc engine.
Honourable mentions: Ford Transit, Mercedes Vito, Renault Master.
These Vans can be configured to any drivetrain configuration (FWD, RWD, AWD) to better adapt to different customer needs.
The first-gen Focus could also be included in the honorable mentions. Came from the factory with a transverse I4, but had a transmission tunnel, differential notch and mounting locations for the 4.6L V8 to be mounted longitudinally (Though it did require a different crossmember for lower support).
As a software engineer myself, this right here is one of my biggest pet peeves.
Never EVER tell a programmer it will be easy. Because even ostensibly simple things never are. There’s a guidline in the industry: Want an estimate of how much time it will take? Make your best estimate, double it and add 40 hours.
I know that and appreciate that. But you take my statement out of context:
- for a community request that I saw appearing almost weekly;
- for a functionality that would make sense and is grounded in reality and can currently only be simulated by fully manually copying a car to the smallest details;
- relatively to other potential solutions that would be massive work or would entail a whole redesign of the whole base structure of the game.
I never said or meant “add that singular line of code and be done with it”.
As a legal officer my pet peeve is statements taken out of context.
As a former programmer @kmBlaine is correct about how difficult “easy” things are.
However, all of the cars are now stored now stored in an SQL database which, as far as I am concerned, makes the job easier.
Through SQL (pseudo code style) -
Copy car to temp_table
Copy car from temp_table to new entry in car_table
Make a button and point it to the subroutine.
Now, before I get shot down by software geeks, there is coding behind this which is a more complicated than what I wrote above but kmBlaine’s formula would come out as 50 hours which I do find preposterous!