That is so awesome. WAIT… I’m supposed to go against this in the hypercar battle?
The moment you realize, you have lost the competition before it even started.
I feel the same way.
Ehh, you may or may not be up against something that might look a little like this in the upcoming contest, but the next stable build is still quite a distance away and I definitely don’t like some of the things in this design. But as I asked in my previous post, I’m still not sure whether this design lends itself to ‘something eco but fast’ or ‘something plain fast’.
The other problem I have is now that we (beta testers) have been working with killrob (actually, I’m not doing very much except asking questions, killrob’s doing most of the work) to iron out the drag issues, we’ve now noticed that not every mod body necessarily has an appropriate Cd. thecarlover mentioned very briefly when making their bodies that the Cd of each body ought to be calculated based not on the car’s actual effective area but on the body without any vents or aerodynamically significant fixtures (since vents and wings etc. will add to your effective area significantly).
Having gone over some spreadsheets, and looking at the files, for example, I see that vmo’s Huracan body.lua stipulates Cd = 0.24. I can’t help but feel that this is a bit high. Consider that the MP4-12C body (which is vanilla), I think, has a body only Cd = 0.17. I’m of the humble opinion that at least the Huracan bodies should also have a similar value, if not even lower. This goes a long way to explaining why some of the awesome 1500-2200hp cars of late have somewhat disappointing top speeds.
The other part is that in the process of ironing out these calculations, we tested the cars running maybe 80-90% of their required ventilation, not 100%. The requirements go up very significantly with high boost (though this has been reduced slightly in the process of retweaking).
More like “Now where did I put them big boy pants”
[quote=“strop”]The other problem I have is now that we (beta testers) have been working with killrob (actually, I’m not doing very much except asking questions, killrob’s doing most of the work) to iron out the drag issues, we’ve now noticed that not every mod body necessarily has an appropriate Cd. thecarlover mentioned very briefly when making their bodies that the Cd of each body ought to be calculated based not on the car’s actual effective area but on the body without any vents or aerodynamically significant fixtures (since vents and wings etc. will add to your effective area significantly).
I will be adding versions of the Murciélago and sorta-Diablo with removable tops, and I’ve already lowered the Cd values slightly on the bodies to put them slightly more in line with the McLaren bodies. That being said, both cars have some amount of integrated lips unlike the McLaren, so the Cd value will be higher regardless because of that, but still much lower than the real cars. Cd isn’t as important on more regular cars, as long as it’s in the right ballpark, but for supercar bodies any little tweak can make a big difference when pushing them to their limits of speed.
I haven’t checked yet, but what about the amount of body lip compared to the McLaren body? I presume due to the integrated features that too would be higher?
Yeah, they’ve both got that lip at the front, and IRL the McLaren actually has a higher drag value and I find that it’s excessively low in the game. I could lower the Cd of both Lamborghini bodies to be the same as the McLarens, even with the lip. They’re currently changed to be in the low 20s, while the released versions are in the mid 20s.
I’ll have to build a proper MP4-12C replica and take a look at the spreadsheet to figure out what the McLaren body Cd really ought to be, but as it is, it’s the only body capable of the superlative top speeds even with lower power outputs that we see from certain other cars that vaguely resemble it. Others, well, I guess they use an even more aerodynamic body.
I’d definitely change the values though. It’s actually not that easy to prevent lift at the front with the Murcielago body, and despite a low downforce run hot setup, I’m pushing 1500hp and getting a top speed of 408km/h, which seems about 30-40km/h too slow even for this body. At any rate, I also put the dimensions into the dev spreadsheet and got suggested figures between 0.20-0.21 for the body alone (given a real 2001 Murcielago has a Cd of 0.33). As for lift values, I also got Front -0.0168 and Rear -0.0288, if that’s of any help to you.
I changed it to 0.21, and the Diablo-ish one to 0.2, so my estimates are pretty spot on. For lift, I have -0.0263 in front and -0.0213 for the rear using the spreadsheet in the dev kit, though my estimates for the values leading to that might be a bit off. Is there a new spreadsheet for these calculations?
Probably not? For “front aero” I just put “lots” because the body already looks like it has a giant splitter on the front but seriously, even when I double lip the front, and double wing the back, it’s not that easy to maintain a no-lift front. Not that I’m sure this actually needs changing.
So, are you preparing a story for the Kusanagi? I don’t mean to be pushy or anything, but it’s been a little while…
Yes, and I’m actually very sorry that it’s running this late! I’ve been chipping away at it daily for the last month and a half, but have already blown every conceivable deadline.
The Kusanagi story is actually pivotal to GG’s development program, hence I’m taking great care in what it covers. The content is perhaps slightly unconventional, but it will all make sense…
Except to see the story within a week
Very interesting design and also it’s good to see someone put this much effort into the storyline too, and keep it believeable.
[quote] I’m not sure the design is coherent (I’m quite sure it is not, actually), so things will probably change.
Commenting on the Ouroboros styling - I’m not sure if something that wild and experimental NEEDS TO be coherent in the traditional sense. I think you can look at this thing as a statement that is like a sentence: It has a beginning and an end and it says something meaningful. If the language isn’t quite the same in the beginning as it is in the end, then perhaps the story it is telling has more direction.
While I agree with that sentiment (GG as a company is evolving after all), when it comes to styling, I’m not quite as certain. Too busy confuses, it detracts from the impact, the eye can’t follow what’s going on. There has to be a certain sense of flow, a common language, regardless of complexity (see: Mazda Furai).
With that, I went back and changed a few things, hence now we’re on to draft 2:
I thought to myself: how can I arrange the venting on the rear bootlid such that it encourages flow towards the center of the rear? And why would I want to do that? Because more air flowing over the bootlid means more air flowing over the wing, which is what I want. Also, there’s a parallel to the principle of high maneuverability aircraft prototypes with forward sweeping wings to redirect the air towards the midline. At least that’s the idea (as half-baked as it is).
I can’t really comment on the aerodynamics of it, but styling-wise the rear end looks spot-on to me. As for the front, it’s distinctive and evolutionary and definitely has an original personality. My 2 cents would be about how to attract the eye even more to the headlight shape which is very interesting and reptilian in an unusual (good) way.
Don’t you mean under the wing because air going under wings is what actually makes the downforce thus why some racing teams have top mounted wings.
Eh good point, my phrasing was a bit imprecise. What I really meant was more air being redirected over the bootlid towards the wing.
I need to look into if and how top mounted sings are legal for pedestrian crash safety. I do tend to use them myself but vaguely think they’re not road legal.
(Hmm, thanks to migration to the new forum, I think attachments no longer work, meaning I will just rely on an image host from now on!)
Okay, catching up on things after the forum migration. I’ve now discovered that while I can’t seem to attach images to posts, hyperlinking them from a hosting platform directly embeds them thanks to this clever editor. On the down side, thanks to the different markup syntax, many of the other BBC tags specific to the old forum have broken. I can’t be bothered to go back and fix all of that. also lol emojis
First, here’s the second draft of Ouroboros. Simpler is better in some places, as there’s already so much going on with the line of this car. I really do like how ‘reptilian’ it came out.
After some thought I’ve decided should this be the next car GG produces it’ll be in the eco-hypercar tier as previously discussed. Think 650hp, under 1100kg, 6.5L/100km, a top speed of 370km/h-ish and lapping Nordschleife in 6:56-ish on P-Zeros, for a price tag of about 160000AMU.
Then, for those of you who already migrated and therefore missed it, I had a brain wave. Ever since Razyx commended another user for being able to find a way to plant certain fixtures that wrapped around sharp vertices (I can’t remember for the life of me who it was, which makes me sad), I’ve been looking into ways to defy the shape of the body even further. One of the bodies that lends itself more greatly to this challenge is the not F-40 body. I said to myself, everybody tends to follow the vertices of this body when placing their fixtures. And why shouldn’t we, it looks great when you do! (refer to squidhead’s newest car in his KHT thread). But I get tired of working within those same constraints, so I wondered if there was a way to bring that 90s body into the new millenium and beyond. For the base I tried to emulate the slanted nose cone look like on the Ferraris of the noughties (e.g. Enzo), but also tried to take it to a new extreme, like, say, Veneno or even Egoista (though it’s impossible to really replicate the Egoista, that’s how ridiculous it is).
Thus here is the first draft of something we’ve dubbed Lilith.
The main problem with this body is that it doesn’t fit particularly large engines. I can manage a decently reliable 4.4L v8, but forget anything sizeable V12 (which is what I REALLY wanted). Ideally this would be a 1:1 power:weight tier hypercar, the “GG default” level. That would mean about 1250hp for 1250kg, but also a lot of boost which kills driveability (and fuel economy, I can only manage 14L/100km despite all the tricks and ultra tech drivetrain and aero). I’ll just have to wait for further developments to rebuild the car, but the vision’s there, at least. The other thing I have to figure out is whether to use the usual P-Zero like tyres, or, since this is a car that breaks 400km/h, whether to go with something more. On P-Zeros I’d expect a Nordschleife time of 6:45 and an Airfield time of 1:06 but that’s also with the suboptimal engine setup and massive turbo spike.
I should also consider whether this is the car that I want to use wider tyres in. I tend to default to 345 rears and anywhere from 235-265 fronts depending on the setup. Previously, the maddest of the cars used race-grade 395s (Mephisto, Mercury) for very good reason, but I need to figure out what kind of price point and goals the tyres for my 1hp:kg cars would have, if the “eco-hypercars” already match the performance metrics of today’s regular hypercars on P-Zeros.
Further to the previous post, the look has been refined a bit further (but it is still not complete), as has the engineering. The beta factory settings are a bit, uh, non-operational at the moment, but I was reminded that an advanced company is likely to have significant tech pool in some areas which will reduce the cost and engineering penalty. Mine is mainly sunk into aero and drivetrain, and spread out over engine.
As this is a higher tier car, I’ve increased the specs accordingly, but somehow the MRSP of the car does not seem to have increased by much (I’m sure this is just temporary and due to the build). As you can see, it has a 1hp:1kg ratio. It also has a top speed of 400.6km/h in “normal downforce” configuration. The downside to not being able to put in a larger engine is I had to run the mixture richer than I’d have liked to, plus more boost on the turbo, meaning the fuel economy is twice as bad as my eco-hypercar tier (then again, twice the power lol). In addition, while I normally use 8-9+ sport tyres with a max width of 345, this time around I pushed it out to 10+ 365s sport tyres on the rear. After a lot of thumbing through catalogues, it turns out that some companies produce racing tyres of this width (Hoosier has one for “GT1” spec, of course GT1 doesn’t exist as a division anymore…). Regardless, this is the kind of car that you’d strongly consider switching to dedicated DOT tyres when on the track, which is exactly where you’re supposed to be taking this car… not street racing… Though if you were to race on the sport tyres, it’s good for 6:41 on Nordschleife and 1:06 on Airfield.
The main thing I remain unsure of is the taillight array. Was the previous array more striking? Is this new one too busy? I will say, working with the indicators was a right pain in the ass but since this is the likely most frequent view of the car, it does have to be right!!!