Series of guides to increase your Automation skills

General Chat
1

I have collected here what has been said so far on this thread, divided by topics.
I’m very happy for it, it’s coming very good. It’s a series of useful tips for everyone.
If anyone want to share some other tips, just post it here, if it’s not redundant or b*****t i will add it.
Topics (chapter) are not final, they are only what came up till now.

I’m hosting a challenge right now (Forest Co. delivery car), it’s based purely on economy and i noticed i don’t know how improve my cars even i have over 200 hours on Automation; i have so many questions about the car tuning and i can’t find the answers anywhere. My first tought is to create a guide for old and new player analizing the car submitted for that challenge, but than i have a (IMHO) a better idea:

Why don’t ask the “proplayers” to write some guides to help others?
Topics that comes to my mind now are:

-Economy (how to make a car with better fuel consumption?)
-Track time (how to improve the performance of a car?)
-Offroad (how to max the offroad stat?)
-Budget (where can I save without loosing marketshare?)
-Factories (how to tune factories in the campaign?)

I can try to write the economy guide, but only after hosting the challenge and analyzing the cars.
Here, as example, a preliminary abstract.
-Body: witch is better? A light body or an aerodinamic efficent body?
-Engine: If i want 100hp, better downsizing and increase specific power output or detune the engine with a lower cam profile? Oversquare or undersquare? Ignition timing or compression? Turbo or NA?
-Gearing: overdrive? spacing?

Do you guys like this idea?

2 Likes
2

Yeah, it could be neat! I could even contribute with some tips to that.

1 Like
3

After about 800h in this game I have only one major tip - EXPERIMENT. Every time. Because this one time OHV might be better than DOHC. Turbo might be better than N/A. FWD might be better than RWD. Steel might be better than aluminium. Or the other way around in every case.

As I once wrote somewhere:

There are four levels of advancement that I’ve discovered:

  1. Click various things as long as the numbers you need go green.
  2. Click various things as long as the numbers you need go green AND then check if making sth worse allows some other thing be better, and if this makes the overall effect better; by this time, you should have some experience from the previous level - use it to choose the parameters you start with.
  3. Ignore the numbers, look on the graphs - after some time on the level 2 you should notice the graphs and work out some basic knowledge about what they mean, what shapes them and what influence they have on the overall effec; use the level 2 strategy for things that do not have graphs. (that’s the level I’m on)
  4. Have a thousand hours played in Automation, be an engineer, a mechanic or… Anyway, use your knowledge about the car construction.

And as Strop pointed out there, that’s still not all. I’d add now using the detailed stats tab - it is somewhat helpful (although I still have no idea what really some parameters are dependent on).

Economy is always experimental. You want high engine efficiency rather in the lower revs, not really a good overall rating. And then comes the gearbox setting… I just slide both sliders as long as I don’t get catastrophical acceleration and don’t limit the car’s top speed and see what happens with the economy.

Track time… I can make a monster of a car that laps Nurburgring in less than 6:30, but I still have no idea what makes the car faster on the track (because sometimes a car worse “on paper” has a better time - I’ve seen it many times tuning my creations).

Offroad - no idea, I’ve never really created many offroad cars, only a few of them.

Budget - definitely not my strongest point :grin:

Factories - what do you mean by “how to tune them”?

EDIT: I had a very similar idea some time ago, but I didn’t make it real after I’ve realised how hard is passing Automation knowledge. Or rather, Automation intuition.

1 Like
4

This is a great tip and surely the best strategy to improve even further. I know it’s hard to do pass the intuition, but with this “guides” i don’t want to reveal the secret formula for the perfect car but a good solid base to start.

These “guides” may even be a series of tips like the one you mentioned, only in a way easy to found and not dispersed through the meanderings of the forum.

With factory tuning i mean: it’s better a highly automated small factory or a bigger more artisan one in the career? And the tooling quality? I played time a ridilous small amount of time the campaign; that (like offroad, budget etc.) are only the first ideas comed to my mind as an example.

5

Click the sliders until the numbers turn green.

That’s literally it.

3 Likes
6

Over 1200 hours and I’m still on level 2 :thinking:

1 Like
7

I consider myself as far from an expert as is possible in this game, but, even I’ve got a few words of general wisdom.

Large bore, short stroke: great for ‘big’ engines that rev higher. I typically do this for cars I intend to turbocharge in order to make the most of the turbo.

Small bore, long stroke: Low revving engines that make decent torque. I’ve not personally found a use for it, but that’s not saying it’s a bad engine idea.

Bigger isn’t always better. Yes, this is coming from the guy with the 3.6L I4. It has its uses, but it’s not an engine that I typically go to in challenges because it’s not always the best choice. This goes, actually, for lots of engines. Sure, sometimes a car needs that 7.0L V8, and other times, a mere 2.0L I4 will do the job.

Experiment, and question everything. From the beginning of choosing the body, if you can’t name three reasons that you’re picking this option over the rest, without falling back on ‘company lore’, then you may want to consider other options. I’ve hosted the Hybrid Beaters League, and in that, I saw many unusual strategies to dealing with how to squeeze maximum efficiency out of a car. If you’re uncertain about what works best, then it’s time to experiment. There’s opportunities where SOHC is better than DOHC, or where OHV is better than everything else. Sometimes it’s all based on what you’re trying to do.

An example would be a late 70’s challenge, with turbos just unlocked. If it’s a point-and-squirt drag race, they’re excellent. If it’s the 24 hours of Green Hell, don’t even bother, especially if reliability counts.

And one I’ve learned many times, sometimes picking the most expensive option is the wrong decision. Don’t use titanium connecting rods in a budget sports car. Don’t use carbon-ceramic 6 piston brakes on a hot hatch. And don’t throw a 7 speed Double-Clutch sequential into a lazy family cruiser.

As for suspension… Active suspensions (Hydropneumatic, air, Active Sport, active Comfort) are great for boosting your numbers, but they cost a lot, and they have trade-offs. They all weigh more than the ‘free weight’ springs, they cut out options that could make the springs better, and as a result, they aren’t always the best choice.

So, to sum everything up: Experimentation is the Key to Success.

4 Likes
8

Side comments here only because I haven’t properly explored all facets of the game in a long time, as it’s been well proven in the last year or so.

This is best applied for cars that are required to be a) cheaper b) more economical c) don’t rev that high. Often matches well to the natural limitation of low friction cast pistons. Eco turbo setups with low AR ratio and small compressors may help if economy is your watchword, but less so if service costs and low engineering time are the priority. Depends on the era.

Overall, your approach will vary depending on the kind of car you want to go for and also the nature of the challenge. The Automation metric is quite set in its ways. It has to be, otherwise it would be frustrating. Also keep in mind in sandbox you may make decisions that seem cheaper but in the context of a campaign may not be available to you without significant investment (e.g. full vs partial alu panels).

The world’s favourite mad scientist car guy Christian Von Koenigsegg actually put it very well when, while commenting on the Agera One:1’s tests around Nordschleife: “we only need 1340hp, because we could make a few hundred more, but that’d be a waste and you’d only get maybe 3 or 4 seconds faster in a lap.”

It’s the interface between lateral and longitudinal grip as well as drivability, versus raw speed. The simplified way I think of it is: there’s a three way compromise between weight, power, and torque curve. The higher the average speed around a track, the more important the power will be, and the lower the average speed, the more important handling will be. Nordschleife actually has a relatively high average speed, and for it, cars with 1000-1300bhp do best provided they weigh at or under the 1000kg-1300kg realm (with a body optimised for lower drag and best possible tyres etc. etc.) Faster tracks will tolerate even more power and weight. Slower tracks less so. At least that appears to be my ballpark. I mean I do have a 2150bhp 1650kg car with ridiculous tyres but even that will be at least 10 seconds slower than my 1100kg 1100bhp car with similar tyres (the former’s main advantage is that it’ll do 500km/h without blowing a gasket).

3 Likes
9

This is a seriously underrated engine style in this game. Engine weight rises dramatically with a high bore design, which I find completely unacceptable unless you’re using the Vulcan body where you could probably stuff a marine engine on it and still get 50:50.

The 7 liter V12 on the Assoluto Crinale I made a few months back weighs 260 KG with VVL and all the heavy stuff, while the 7 liter V12 I used on the Dimensions weigh a full 30 KG more. That 30 kg is a serious chunk of weight that will go where you don’t want it to.

Oh that too. SOHC and VVL. VVL really doesn’t do anything but add dead weight I feel in high performance applications. You don’t even get much more MPG with it on faster cars. And SOHC can save a chunk of weight with V engines, you might not think it’s worth it, but hey if you’re running turbochargers power is not really an issue.

3 Likes
10

Oh, believe me, I’ve been doing experiments with SOHC (one of my other companies is going to use the hell out of it), and I’ve been finding it to be almost-as-good as DOHC in 90% of applications, and much better when going V-style for reduced weight.

And I’ve also been slowly learning when it’s appropriate to use turbocharging. Sure, it’s an easy way to bolt on some extra power, but the turbos are heavy, the intercooler can be heavy, and they produce a nasty spike in torque and power that can be difficult to work around for anything other than a sports car.

And I’ve been slowly experimenting with VVL over the past year or so. I’ve found that in most cases, VVL is okay, but if you design an engine that needs more than a 15.0:1 AFR, then you might as well dump the VVL and go 5-valve DOHC (was using a DOHC based design) and go for the extra intake airflow. With SOHC and VVL, if you’re ever pushing the upper limits of the engine, yeah, VVL ends up being a waste of weight and reliability.

Another thing I’ve been messing around with is when it’s appropriate to choose MP-EFI instead of DI. And that’s when price matters more than performance/economy. DI is still very stupidly expensive, and MP-EFI will do almost-as-good as DI. Just it needs more octane spared to do it. So if you’re building super-cheap cars, MP-EFI is great.

As for general tips for engine reliability for everyone:

First, make sure your block and head materials match. Yes, it sounds stupid, but the reliability penalty for alu head on cast block is vicious early on.

Second, if you’re struggling for reliability, look at the engine chart to see what’s hurting. If it’s things exceeding their RPM limits, consider either adding quality to those parts or reducing the redline.

Third, if you’re running in a challenge and you’ve got plenty of budget left, but you need 2 or 3 points of engine reliability, a few quality points in your fuel system might make all the difference.

2 Likes
11

As for quality slider usage:
Fixtures: adds weight but a relatively cheap way to get reliability
Bottom end: doesn’t always return much in reliability but smoothness really shoots up quickly
Valvetrain: more power, expensive and sometimes offers fuel economy benefits
Turbos: idk. Never seen any point to this.
Fuel system: adds loads of reliability and has a noticeable effect in increasing engine efficiency, also lowers octane rating
Exhaust: makes the engine quieter, sometimes frees up power and adds slight reliability. Haven’t ever seen a tangible effect on economy because of this slider.
Gearbox: higher top speed, actually helps in almost all stats. Can induce more wheelspin. I haven’t used this one too much.
Tyres: cheap. Really cheap and really worth it if you’re looking for ways to improve performance, both in terms of acceleration, and handling but also braking. If you want better economy though, stay away from this.
Brakes: just makes them more efficient. Can unlock that last bit of brake performance needed for some driveability.
Aero: improves economy and top speed.
Suspension: improves driveability and comfort. Never used it that much.

3 Likes
12

Almost free power, reliability, and slightly better boost curve. What’s not to like?

2 Likes
13

Hm. I still have plenty to learn, so thanks for that. Did not know.

14

I have collected here what has been said so far on this thread, divided by topics.
I’m very happy for it, it’s coming very good. It’s a series of useful tips for everyone.
If anyone want to share some other tips, just post it here, if it’s not redundant or b*****t i will add it.
Topics (chapter) are not final, they are only what came up till now.

2 Likes
15

I might add to this:

Bottom end: Allows for higher rpm while being reliable (assuming valve float isn’t the issue. Then invest quality in the valvetrain.)
Valvetrain: More power. Plenty of more power. This is the choice to go for when you’re limited on capacity on an N/A engine. Plus, it moves peak power slightly higher in rpm.
Turbos: More power and better boost curve when you have very high boost. Doesn’t return much otherwise. So it’s mostly limited to race engines or the undrivable sort of hypercar.

2 Likes
16

I’d say quite the opposite unless you want mainly a light, cheap and simple engine without much performance or use a turbo to get power. Otherwise, with a bit heavier engine, but still lighter than most similar turbo ones, you can use VVL (which in my experience is unmatched in terms of balancing efficiency, drivability and performance) which allows achieving higher power in higher revs with similar efficiency. But matching long stroke (lower revs) with low friction pistons (lower revs) multiplies the effect on revs limiting them really severely. So with VVL it’s in fact more reasonable to use short stroke with low friction pistons, allowing the engine to rev to about 6000-7000 rpm, like a normal engine would do, and achieve quite good power (and as a bonus exchange very low weight for smoothness boost, from lower cam profile thanks to VVL and oversquare proportions - both increase smoothness). What about modern N/A 2.3 V6 with ~200hp and 30% economy? That’s easily achievable with this way.

Oh, and for those worrying about the VVL cost - look at Adenines :wink:

Oh, and now one specific “trick” (not really) that I use came to my mind. I roughly design an engine, in case of bore and stroke setting them only to get the desired capacity. Then I set desired rev limit (unless it’s clearly way too high (both bottom and top end complaining) for that engine, then I simply lower it) and go back to the first tab - if the limit is too high for the bottom end then I slowly lower the stroke until the reliability stops increasing, and then increase the bore to get back to the initial capacity. If the bottom end is “happy” with the initial limit, then I increase the stroke until the reliability starts to drop, and then lower the bore to get back to the initial capacity. This way I can get the highest possible revs with the highest possible reliability with given engine construction. It obviously also alters some other things, so changing the rev limit or capacity is always worth considering, as well as not going for the optimal setting from revving point of view - if you care more about cost-cutting, efficiency, lightness or torque, go for more undersquare proportions. If you want higher smoothness go for oversquare. Revs depend on both, and even sometimes (OHV!) it’s better to go for undersquare to get higher revs, which also fantastically multiplies the effect of OHV’s lightness and small size.

In short:

  • long stroke (undersquare) - for eco engines (efficient, light, cheap, not very revvy, not very smooth) and OHV ones (higher revs, even more weight reduction and even more size reduction than just going for OHV instead of some xOHC and retaining the same proportions)
  • short stroke (oversquare) - for engines with advanced valvetrains (DOHC, 4v SOHC and so on, the less advanced valvetrain the smaller the gains will be), especially premium/sporty ones (higher smoothness and/or higher revs)
  • OHV - for squeezing a huge V8 in a small engine bay OR for engines which have to be lightweight above all.
4 Likes
17

I don’t consider Audi engines as “not very revvy”, 8700 rpm at 92.8 mm stroke and 84.5 mm bore?

18

Undersquare engines tend to be underpowered ATM in automation. I personally rarely use them unless I use OHV, since in those cases you are almost always limited by valve float when it comes to reliability.

Going oversquare with the more advanced valve trains lets you get more power out of your cheapish configuration before running into reliability issues, without having to run forged internals or a very low cam setting, since even at 40 cam you can get reliability issues with cast internals if you don’t purposefully nerf your rev limit, giving you an unoptimal power band.

Here is a quick example of a run of the mill DOHC engine with 40 cam, MPFI and cast internals.
The stats it compares to are the stats from that engine with the default 2L square configuration.
As you see, while you do loose a tiny bit in terms of performance, the boost in reliability is pretty massive, making the undersquare configuration better for most demographics.

image.png1782×902 1.3 MB

The main issue right now, as Killrob mentioned in the video he made a while ago about the planned engine designer overhaul, is that the current simulation doesn’t really simulate the advantages of undersquare engines, since those depend a lot on the resonances within the airflow that goes within the engine, a phenomenon which currently isn’t really simulated.

4 Likes
19

Undersquare engines are better when you don’t need high revs, but that obviously doesn’t mean that a high revving undersquare engine can’t be done - I didn’t state such thing anywhere. These Audi engines (4.2 V8 probably or 5.2 V10) that you mention are used only in high-performance and high-price cars, where weight might be more impoertant than cost - so they can use durable, but very expensive internals to rev high with lighter, undersquare design. Or there can be a million other reasons why they chose such proportions. You have to remember two things:

  1. I wrote about Automation engines having all things but proportions equal, and Automation is definitely not a perfect simulation of real engines.
  2. There are a lot of things influencing an engine design which are not present in Automation and thus weren’t considered here - such as reusing parts from other engines already in production, which I think in case of VAG might be the primary factor (AFAIK most of their inline and V engines have a bore spacing of 88mm; all VR and W engines are derived from the original VR6; most, if not all I4s are or Audi’s design from 1972 or its derivations); even more, modular families, impossible in Automation, yet quite popular; varying accesibility to technologies (maybe Audi has some tech allowing them to create much stronger internals? or some tech that highly favors undersquare design?).

EDIT:

revvy.png1680×1050 1.46 MB

@RobtheFiend Are you still wondering why did I write that undersquare engines are not very revvy?

1 Like
20

Not very revvy is in most peoples minds max rpm of 6000-6500. Not 8k+

Look at a lot of modern engines. Volvo 90mm stroke, Audi 92.8mm, 6500 - 7000rpm.

P.S. Several new engines from Audi uses 90mm borecenter, those with 84.5mm bore.
88mm c-c max out at 82.5mm bore.