Home | Wiki | Discord | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

Cloning Car Models


It would probably be much worse than 50h in total, because programming is just one thing, testing in every situation possible with all other systems in place is another. Don’t forget how darn complex the game is already, and will become once the whole campaign is done.


Nor did I exclaim that you said that, so you’re misquoting both yourself and I. But if that is your defense…

then what does this actually mean? Because, sure you didn’t say specifically “add this one line” but that is the essence of what you are saying. You’re asserting that your suggestion will be easy to implement to which I might even agree when its compared to other things but at face value, it means exactly what sounds like since you didn’t compared it to other things. And moreover, you’re telling other people their business which is really what I am on about, not your suggestion itself. Which brings me to my second point:

What context? That’s not context. Those are affirmative reasons for what you are suggesting. None of the things you listed change the meaning – depending on their presence – of your assertion that it would be fairly easy.

  1. Request frequency does not make things easier for the devs. It just means people want something more.
  2. A function’s pertinence to reality is similarly does not make things easier for the devs. It just means its pertinent to reality.
  3. Any specific solution being harder or easier does not change that fact that you were telling other people their business, which again is the only thing I am critiquing.

Especially with the last one, I can see you are trying to peg my critique as a straw man fallacy against your suggestion but it won’t fly because I wasn’t even critiquing your suggestion. In fact I don’t recall stating my support or opposition to it at all.


And I don’t think I can say it any better myself. Preposterous? Certainly possible :wink:.


I was telling Vri404 why I think it could be considered rather than immediately discarded. I was not telling the developers what to do at all.

As far as I know, Vri is not a developer.

And please, one should be able to discuss potential additions or changes without automatically implying the defs should take (immediate) notice. Maybe I was stupid to presume we’re that mature around here?


This is the suggestions category. So this is the place where we come to “tell other people about their business”. That’s the whole point of having a suggestions category, actually.


So how about cloning engine families? I have needed this multiple times, as I needed a V6 Version of an i6 engine, and more stuff like a V12 version of a i3 that had really good hp/litre, and almost always I needed to go from i6 to V8, Another thing that this would be great at would be having a flatplane V8 and normal V8 of the same engine etc.


That makes less sense since the game to create an engine is waaaaaaaaay shorter than the time needed to set up fixtures, and anyways changing your base engine has a large impact on your tuning.
You have less parameters to duplicate by hand, they rely on numerical values so, even though it’s still troublesome, it’s reasonnably easy to do, and anyways 3/4 of these parameters have to be modified anyways


In a sense, yes that is true but recommending changes/features and making assessments of things you are not qualified to evaluate are different forms of “telling other people their business”; the former is what we’re here for and the latter is patronizing and makes you look silly.

Don’t make professional assessments about something despite lacking the expertise. That is all I am saying.

I think this has some merit to it and come to think of it, I feel the community – myself included – has been a little over-zealous is striking down ideas on the basis of the game’s (in)completion.

For the record, I support the concept of your idea i.e. being able to copy design elements and create styling cues but specifically cloning a model seems redundant to me for reasons that have already been thoroughly dissected. I might be able to the buy the dual longitudinal / transverse engine arrangement and/or suspension options argument. The second of those actually makes a lot of sense for trucks since I know both GM and Chrysler build their trucks on essentially the same chassis but the light duty models (1500 lb capacity) have independent front suspensions whereas the heavy duty models (2500+ lb capacity) have solid axles in front. And Ford probably does too; don’t know off the top of my head.