Home | Wiki | Live Chat | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

Early Budget markets balance? (current UE4 openbeta build)


#1

Hi,

I was playing around with early (1946) cars and stumbled across a design with excessive competitiveness, stemming from a motor that only made 10 horsepower - the car could only do 22 mph (35 kph), but it still out-competed every other model in Family, City and Commuter and up to 200% margin also out-competed every model in Commuter Premium too (in every nation).

The main reason is the car gets 80 mpg - I think there needs to a stronger penalty for slow vehicles, especially in Gasmea, even if they do get incredible mileage.

Pictures and Lua export attached.



Model 1 - Trim 1.car (14.9 KB)


#2

There should be penalties for cars that are too slow, I think that is what is not really working here? It should penalize drivability, which is the most important stat here. I’ll take a look at the car.

Edit: Indeed it looks like a bug in the fuel economy calculations, I get the engine to make fuel :stuck_out_tongue:


#3

Man, that would be revolutionary!


#4

If I learned to make fuel from nothing, I would sure look as happy as your car.


#5

But would you be as beige?


#6

Archana is a poor country, and a car you can afford to buy and run in a poor country in 1946 will really outcompete. A very cheap car would sell really well in 1940’s here in Brazil (where even a VW Beetle was expensive for the average joe), even if it could only reach 35 km/h.

But yes, a cheap car designed for Archana shouldn’t outcompete the budget cars offered in Gasmea.


#7

Dunno about that, even the 2CV was twice as fast in its first iteration (though not more powerful) and it sold well in poorer African nations (as if I remember correctly it cost a third of the VW in Europe, no idea in other places).

35 I see as excessively limiting, as even 1890s cars had top speeds in the 20s. 60-70 would be more reasonable in period (2CV: 65, Fiat 500: 70). At 35 I would think just owning a tractor would be cheaper and really more of an effective work horse all-round, just throw the kids in the trailer!

Though yes, the main issue is it outcompeted in every nation, which would not make sense especially in Gasmea. And it’s the result of a fuel economy bug anyways - I guess if it could really do 88 mpg in 1946 at its top speed with 4 people + luggage it does deserve to be bought!


#8

After the last update, I tested this bug again.

I made a 46 car that gets ridiculous high scores not just because of a 200cc engine, but also because of a veeeery long gearing ratio…

It crawls like a snail, but does over 50 km/l (117+ US mpg).

But it can’t complete a lap in the test track because of the gearing… I think a car that can’t complete a lap in the test track, no matter how slow, just shouldn’t be sold. It can’t be used for anything.

Even if this thing was already teaked, I think it needs further work.


#9

Hmmmm. Sounds to me that there should be a severe drivability penalty for very low accell/top speed (I know there is one, but maybe with a non-linear curve?) or hard minimum for performance like safety.


#10

I think a very low top speed (35-40 km/h) can happen in a poor country in 46 with a very small and cheap engine in a small and inexpensive car that people can afford. If they don’t care about drivability, no problem with that. But that car have to work, and the one I made just don’t.

A crappy engine + very long gearing delivers a better market result than the “right” gearing, but the car just don’t work. Maybe “be able to complete a lap in the test track” can be the hard cap on performance, just to make sure the car can be used by the buyers.


#11

Yes, that sounds like this needs a bit more tweaking :slight_smile: thanks for pointing out!


#12

Here is a screenshot.

This car takes 2 minutes to reach the second curve in the test track and then stalls, LOL

200cc engine, almost 7000 km/l (this means 16 thousand US miles per gallon). LOL

It is broken

And if I change the spacing just a little bit it goes nuts, negative fuel economy? I made an oil well.


#13

I’m more impressed by the “-10seconds” to 100kmh🤯