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

Facelift / Engine suggestions


#1

Just want to say, love the game so far. Only been playing/following it for about a week so I apologize if some things are being repeated, or are actually implemented and I haven’t figured them out yet (very possible), etc.

First thing I think would improve the workflow of different models, would be to add a “Redesign” option alongside the Facelift option. This would be for designing the next ‘bodystyle’ of a model without having to create a new vehicle project, and then discontinue the old version. It could just function the same as the existing facelift option, but would re-enable the “Modify Chassis” button in the project page. Basically the typical model progression would be Creation, Facelift, Redesign, Facelift, Redesign, etc. Think 94-04 Mustang to 05-14, with facelifts in '99 and '10.

Next we have the engine. I saw in the FAQ that the engine features are pretty set in stone at this point, but I don’t believe this would require much work to implement with the existing system. We should be able to change the block/head material in the different variants, maybe add the option in the first page where you select the variants bore/stroke. It’s not uncommon for real-world engines to come in iron and aluminum block or head variants in different models and trims.

To a lesser degree I think we should be able to change the heads as long as it stays within the same type. No changing a variant from Pushrod to SOHC, but 2v to 3v SOHC and DOHC may all be interchangeable. I mean, the 4.6L in the Mustangs had 6 different head variations in total, among 2v, 3v, and 4v variants all on the same engine. I think this is a relatively less common occurrence, so don’t expect this to be considered as much, but it’d be cool for performance based models nonetheless.

Also, why can we only assign one engine/vehicle to a factory at a time? Surely the factories should be able to handle as many different models, trims, and variants, as long as they have the size and tooling to keep up and not get overworked. Maybe have a tooling cost penalty when building two different models in the factory, but should still doable assuming the factory is of sufficient size. Doesn’t make much sense to build a new factory for every car you make imo. This is the part where I may indeed just be doing something wrong and we can already do this.

Another thought I just had is that some fixtures should be required on every car. Things like every car has to have at least one headlight, tailight, indicator, mirrors, door handle, wheel, and exhaust pipe fixture. The indicator lights may not be required early in game due to lax safety regulations. I think this would just help with immersion and ‘fleshing out’ each car. You gotta have door handles for example, otherwise how do you get in? Deciding on door handles, and deciding how to tackle things like the exhaust outlet is all part of the design process. Otherwise how many people just design and sell cars that don’t have wing mirrors because they just didn’t think about it?

EDIT: Sorry for all the Mustang examples, I’m just most familiar with Mustangs over any other car so they’re the first instances of things that come to mind. Not trying to base the entire game around them or anything lol


#2

To answer some of your questions/suggestions

  • How do I explain this… facelifts like going from the 94 stang to the 99 stang are implemented/being tweaked and will work as explained. Totally redesigning the chassis though (like going from macpherson strut front end in 1985 to double wishbone in 1990 on the same variant) is not going to be a thing. That would be a lot of unnecessary work when you should just be designing a ‘new car’ from the beginning.

oh, and if you meant “redesign” as in going from the 94-04 mustang chassis to the 05-14 chassis, that would be a no go. They were both very different chassis designs. You would just create a new model for the 05 chassis.

This I believe is going to be a no go, as it would completely flip the balance of the game on its face due to how things are calculated (like engineering familiarity)

And again I believe this would flip the balance of the game’s mechanics as well, so I don’t believe it is ever planned as a thing.

:man_shrugging: I havn’t played campaign in a while, so I’m not sure, but if you use a body that has a lot of variants (IE: coupe, convertible, ute, sedan) all those variants will be made at the same factory if they are all copied off the same car chassis/model.

They will not because not everyone wants to spend the time to make their campaign car look good if it’s not going to be shared outside the campaign. Some people may only slap on some aero for tuning and stretch the morphs for tires because they will be the one who ever sees that body if they only need it for the campaign. Also it would add a tedious step in the already heavy step process. If someone really didn’t care to style a car, they would just grab some random fixtures and slap them on to get past that step anyway.

And welcome to the game and forums! We hope you enjoy your time here.


#3

I was referring to the chassis changes, like going from the Foxbody to the SN95 to the S197. Gameplay-wise, it’d be alot more straight forward to have a separate function alongside facelift for chassis changes. Not to mention getting rid of the clutter of having a bunch of retired projects from previous iterations of the same model, for each car. As far as balancing goes, the chassis change option would be similar to designing a new car from scratch (just skipping all the unnecessary redundancy of creating another model), while the facelift option would skip the chassis part of the R&D and have a much quicker development period (so basically unchanged aside from maybe an R&D modifier), encouraging people to update the existing chassis with new engines, safety, etc, before investing in a new chassis. It is the same ‘Model’ after all, and usually makes use of the same resources, factories, and development teams to accomplish the same goals as the prior chassis, so it would make sense to be handled in this way.

I didn’t consider the engineering familiarity. I obviously don’t know much of how the calculations work. If it is something that could be implemented without too much fuss, it would be great, but if not it’s not the end of the world. I figured head design changes would be too much but thought I’d throw it in there while on the subject.

With the factories, I’m aware you can build the different variants of an engine or model in the same factory, but I was referring to building Model A and Model B in one factory. You would obviously need to make sure the factory is large enough to keep up with the output of both (or however many you try to jam into a single factory). For example I think the Taurus or Fusion is built in the same factory the Mustang currently is. This would pretty much balance itself out, as the factories would still need to be large enough to handle the combined output, and all the combined tooling/production costs would still apply.

Your comments on the fixture thing, I can understand, and figured that would be the main argument against it. Just seems odd to me, with one of the main elements of the game being the car design process. It’d be like someone who just wants to design the car, but then click a button to have the tuning issues resolved.

The chassis upgrades and factories, are really the two main issues I have with the current workflow. The rest of my suggestions are more just things that come to mind while playing the game.