Besides, it would require extra models for the crankshaft and extra animations.
Umm, why? How would be an I6 based on an I4 be any different than a normally created I6?
@TrackpadUser I searched a bit, and the most explanation-like thing I’ve found was your post:
So, hmm, I still have no idea WHAT is the reason, AFTER using the search function.
1 Like
There’s your answer
Edit: Idk why it quoted you on the 2nd one
“Design decision” is not really an explanation. Everything is some sort of a design decision, and everything has (or at least should have) some logic behind it - and I would like to know it (probably not only me).
1 Like
From what I remember, it was a decision to make the game a bit “easier” and less intimidating to a new person to the game that doesn’t know much on engines
Mainly that it would make the whole thing very open to abuse. Youd be able to go through the whole campaign with very few engine families since they would be so modular.
Also, searching for “head change family” gave me this post by daffyflyer. Brucemation on: The restrictiveness of the families system
2 Likes
That’s exactly what some real life companies are doing right now. And some were doing it for ages - VAG… Most, if not all I4s based on the design introduced in 1972. Most V8s, if not all except Bentley’s 6.75, based on Audi V8’s unit. AFAIK V10’s are also based on these V8s, as well as V6s. Volvo used their modular family for the majority of their cars for almost 20 years, and now they replaced it with a single family of 1.5 and 2.0 I4s, both petrol and diesel. BMW’s new 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0 engines are all parts of a modular line - I3, I4 and I6, both petrol and diesel - the only non-modular engines are the 4.4 V8 and 6.6 V12, also used in RR. Merc AFAIK plans to use modular lineup of I4, I6 and V8. And so on, and so on, and so on.
The argument of too different engines in the same family seems… weird, to say the least. Right now we can make engines in the same family that share absolutely nothing but the block and head. Different internals, different aspiration, fuel system exhaust - even the valvetrain can be different, because one engine can have VVT, while the other can be without it. It only makes sense with the idea of renaming current “family” to “engine”. And here comes a probably easy solution to the problem of not having modular families or different head types in one family - not having families at all, but instead having an option to clone the engines (what now is a family) - you have a perfect V8, but need sth smaller too? Just clone it and change the clone’s cylinder count to 6. Done, you have a modular family. This would make sense - in fact I’ve done some modular engine lineup’s that way, but of course instead of simply cloning I had to manually set all the parameters to the same values.
2 Likes
The thing is, this will also kinda apply to the game, in the form of bonuses due to tech familiarity.
So if you make a lot of inline 4 engines, that familiarity will help reduce the engineering times and raise the quality of all future inline engine designs. Similar thing for designing a lot of a certain head type.
The reason why they won’t be included in the same engine family in game is because, like Daffyflyer said, changing the block or head of an engine, should not give you the reliability bonuses of running the same engine family for a long period of time, like how GM was able to fix the kinks of the initially unreliable Buick V6.
You also have all the costs related to designing a new block and/or engine head.
Because even if you base your new block/head combination on pre-existing designs, you still end up having to redesign a lot of stuff since the engine size is different, which affects the strength and thermodynamics of the engine.
You also need to design and make new molds (which are very complex for heads and blocks) and make sure everything works properly.
Those changes can cause issues to come up that didn’t happen before. Issues with cooling, issues with the engine head warping more easily after you lengthened your engine, etc.
The thing is that those components are much simpler to design than a head and block, and can easily be shared between engines and even between brands with only minor redesigns.
As for the valve-train, the thing with VVT is that it can be implemented without requiring changes to engine head, unlike VVL and changes to the valve count.
This would definitively be a good thing to have. IIRC something among those lines is already planned for both engine families and car models.
2 Likes
Well, hold on. Let’s put aside the issue of valvetrain modularity, since that’s something I’m fine with. I want to talk specifically about having a variable cylinder count.
Currently, there is no advantage to making engines that have the same bore and stroke dimensions. Sure, you can get a familiarity boost between I4s and I6s, or V6 90 and V8 90, but those engines can be totally different otherwise. I can totally optimize the bore and stroke of the two different engines for different purposes. Why the hell should BMW use the same 0.5L cylinder for all their engines? Why the hell should Alfa Romeo lop off two cylinders from a Ferrari engine for their Giulia? According to Automation, those important design decisions are pointless, and they should have just designed a new engine instead.
Having variable cylinder count would be an amazing game mechanic. Being forced to have the same bore/stroke would mean that you would have to plan ahead. You’d have to make sure that the largest engine would fit the cars you want it to. You’d have to make sure that the bore/stroke ratio would be appropriate for all the different cars. You’d have to carefully adjust the power output for each variant. Designing a family of engines would be an incredible balancing act, and you should be allowed to reap the rewards of doing so. In real life, companies design engines with the same bore/stroke precisely so that they can build them on the same production line. If you have the skill to design an entire line of engines that can all be made in one factory, more power to you buddy.
See, I’m perfectly fine with having a fixed head type, because it doesn’t really open up new design opportunities. If head type was modular, it would just be an easy way to get more power/efficiency from the same engine line. Boring.
But modular cylinder count is the opposite. It’s not simply an easy way to make one engine better. It’s about designing new engines around a major design constraint. It’s a challenge, and one that can be rewarded with significant benefits - just as in real life.
So in summary, if modular cylinder count is nixed for the same “design decision” as modular head type, I urge you to reconsider. They are totally different game design choices - one just makes things easier, the other opens up a whole new gameplay element.
I don’t really mind if this is something that doesn’t get added to the game for a while. It’s probably not that useful in the current light campaign. But in the future, maybe after the Grand Campaign is done, perhaps with the engine designer revamp, this would be an absolutely amazing thing to have. Reward player skill and encourage creative engine design. And best of all, add a new design challenge that real world automakers actually deal with.
A link to my old topic on this subject - Engine variants with different cylinder counts
8 Likes
And this I can agree with, I’m fine with the head type thing, but would really like the variable cylinder count
1 Like
The only thing I would add is that we do adjust individual cylinder size all the time in real life. The Chevy 305 and 4.3L were the same family, despite having different cylinder sizes, just as the Ford V10 and 302 did.
That said, I do agree: The system definitely needs a concrete set of “rules” to make it fair.
I agree with you, it can be a good game mechanics.
But it can be done in another way, more complete way IMHO (note: this only works for the campaign): Add a button to “re-engineering the engine”, you create another engine family starting from values of the first, the more you change, the more you need to spend (in Engineering Time). This way you can change cilynder count, head configuration, bore and stroke (maybe not cyl configuration and materials).
EDIT: Obviusly there’s need to set a limit, if you change number of cyl, bore and stroke, you need to pay the full ET “price”
3 Likes
That’d be an amazing system! It would make stuff like carrying the Chevy small block forward from the last fifty years actually possible, as well as making all the “variants” it has/had possible.
I’d be so down for that system, if it’s possible.
1 Like
In it’s simplest form the engine family would mean using the same block with the same bore spacing. That is what most makes mean by engine family. In some cases the block could be replace like in cases where inline 6 have been recast as V12 but share the same bore spacing. It also done by adding or deleting cylinders from V engines.
Now in the modern era it doesn’t always mean that. The Ford modular engines are good example they share the same tooling but not the same design. By that I mean the V6 is not based off the V8, but both engines can be built at any modular engine factory with minimal re-configuring though.
Taking all that into consideration I think approach the Devs are taking is correct by giving us bonuses for configuration we specialize in. I think they could add some detail like the tooling for the factories down the road. I think with the engine factories they need to add assembly lines we should be able to build several different engine configuration from the same factory on different lines.
Example; V8 A is a small displacement on line 1 and V8 B uses a larger displacement but otherwise share the same core design perhaps with different internal specs and intake.
1 Like
You can already build different displacement engines. They’re the variants. The system the devs have chosen is that a factory builds one engine family, be it 4cyl, 6, whatever.
1 Like
Yes, but the current implementation is very limited, which is what the discussion here is about. Sure, you can do a 305/327/350/383 set of engines currently, but stuff like a TPI 350 vs a throttle-body injected 350 isn’t possible, or aluminum heads vs iron heads, V6 vs V8 (I’m aware this one is planned), etc.
Stuff like that is absolutely everywhere in real life, but the game is a little difficult to work with at the moment. At moment, a 454ci V8 with a specific exhaust, intake, cam profile, internals and an iron block might as well be a completely different design than the exact same everything else, just with aluminum heads.
Which is why F17’s idea makes a lot of sense. If you have a motor that’s almost perfectly identical, just with a little different displacement, or a different carb, then the amount of R&D work required do that different design shouldn’t be too much. If you change the cam and heads, maybe it would take a little R&D to make it all work. If you change basically everything short of the block, it’ll require extensive R&D, as you’re basically doing a brand new motor.
1 Like
Using different Block and Head materials
Brucemation on: The restrictiveness of the families system
I’ll be back with more
So, you’ve quoted two articles, one of which is debating the merits of aluminum vs iron (And make no mistake, almost universally across the board, aluminum tends to the preferred option; It’s lighter and doesn’t rust), which has absolutely no bearing on what I suggested. The other is kind’ve rambling, but begins by asking for the same thing I am - more options regarding what constitutes an engine family.
So, while you can find all the threads you want, I’ll bring this back to what was asked for: Make the god damn variants allow for more stuff than displacement differences.
The only things that you can’t change on a varaint are material and head type. I’m not sure what “more” you’re after. We know you can (in some real-world cases) “sohc to dohc”, but the devs have said that’ll mess with the manufacturing bonus system they have in place. I may well be wrong, and feel free to correct me if I am, but that’s what I read/heard.
…Material and head type would be a good start. Was also the impression internals couldn’t be changed either (So if you used forged pistons in one, you used forged pistons in all of them), but I haven’t played in a week or so, so I may be incorrect.
On top of that, what was suggested was logical - they more extensively you changed an engine, the less of a bonus retained for being in a family. I stand by my support of that suggestion.