I am one of those guys that want all the options we can have, gears, chains, belts etc but I am also one that wants the game to be finished before Windows 54 is released. As it is right now the belt used is just cosmetic, yes it would be cool to have chains/gears too but not at the expense of extending dev time. I say keep the belt and then add more options after 1.0 IF there is a demand for it and IF it can be justified, chain/gear/belt CAN be justified IMO just not at this stage of development.
We are talking about something that does not fit the core goals of the game as my question implies, making it worse for implementing such a thing (because that is effort spent on something entirely irrelevant).[/quote]
Your question implies that the game should be restricted to something that has already been done yet which does not equate to something that does not fit and thus is entirely irrelevant. Racing engines obviously fit the core goals . There is no reason why higher boost shouldn’t. E. g. in the game, you have the task for creating a racing engines for a company.
By no means do I want to make this small change a big deal, it was just a neat suggestion that I’m sure can be pushed in an update after release. The biggest part would simply be the graphics, which can wait until after release. Otherwise the differences between the two option there, are simply engine smoothness (which affects the luxury rating in the end) versus Engine Reliability and Maintenance interval.
As for where in the UI… If specifically for Variants (Which I personally prefer but that doesn’t make it an absolute, obviously) on the valvetrain window (third one into engine design, as it appears on my steam version) We could split the VVT space in half. As there are only ever really 3 options, None, VVT - Intake, and VVT - All Cams. If we divide this section into two that should leave room underneath for a second option selectable as it wont need much space for only two options.
How’s that sound?
The devs have said multiple times that this game is about production cars and engines. So no, racing engines do not fit the core of this game.
And it isn’t as simple as adding more range to the slider. It will require a lot of work to make sure everything works nicely, especially since turbos are surprisingly hard to simulate properly.
Let’s also add that the current turbo sizes already have issues pushing 3 bars of boost.
[quote=“LilRedRhyder”]Quick question, probably irrelevant, but being able to option between Timing Belt and Chain?
Something I noticed about Subaru’s when I was working there as a detailer was that the Chain Timing Engines were a bit noisier (offset by the manufacturer by an increase in sound proofing, the noticed sound change was purely from outside) but also had a significantly higher service interval and reliability expectation, than the older Belted Timing motors. I know Honda goes back and forth depending on the vehicle the engine is going in as well, also Toyota.
It’s just one more thing, and again probably irrelevant… just a 2 cents moment.
One thing I want to add to this is that timing belt reliability and service interval is something that has changed greatly over time. At the very least, by the 1990s they were a 100,000 mile thing for a number of engines (hell, mine went 130,000 miles and 15 years and succumbed to two spun main bearings rather than the belt or tensioner breaking), and when replacing it the water pump gets replaced too as that is right next to it and lasts about as long anyway. Timing chain engines would still have a water pump, with a similar life-expectancy, so in the grand scheme of things the increased cost of a timing belt vs a timing chain over the life of a car is nearly a wash.
Then there’s the matter of a timing chain weighing more (timing belt could have an extra 0.0001MPG, saving the owner what, a few bucks every 100,000 miles) and having an additional cost up front vs a belt.
I do think a timing belt vs a timing chain is an interesting debate, each have their advantages and disadvantages, however I think they’re enough of a wash that they don’t belong in the Engine Designer.
Consider in the future adding gravity-fed injection for properly rubbish economy cars (like the trabant)
Maybe this is discussed several times, but I thing adding of ECU modification would be good improvement, because with fine ECU adjusting you can make more lienar torque curve and good adjustment of fuel economy and emmisions.
Also adding A/C compressor and adjusting the size of alternator would be good addon, because they are direct contributors in fuel economy.
I’m playing this game from a couple of time and I thing this will make the difference between arcade game and real good simulator.
some suggestions i think are easy to implement, some i think not, but here they are:
-how about sequential turbos?
- and other turbo options for que same cylinder configuration? == like single on V8s, twin on I6 and I4, tri on I6, etc.
- also the whole camshaft configuration are too low, i never got a engine that could run to 12kRPM without severe torque loss. even “bike” engine.
- electronic and mechanical fuel injection comes later than real wold
For what I know, the ECU discussion was done several time and it was scrapped. Imagine that is bonded into the cam slider and the ignition timing system (and also that the EFI system have a better efficiency of the system thanks to the ECU).
Different turbo system will be available later on.
I don’t think EFI and MFI came later. MFI was available during WWII on airplane engines and in the Mercedes 300SL gullwing (1955).
EFI was available in the market earlier than the 1988.
The only place where we will consider integrating an ECU limiter is in the forced induction revamp, because as you say it’s impossible to get those super-flat torque curves without it even with modern turbo engines.