Home | Wiki | Live Chat | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

Some Aero, some brake, some others


#1

I have a car for which increasing front downforce seems to cause more understeer. I think I’m reading the graph correctly, that yaw rate exclusively decreases with the addition of more front downforce. I can’t tell if the yellow line’s axises are swapped or what.

Not the most common type of caliper, but there are actually fixed two piston calipers, with the two pistons opposing each other. A number of lotuses use them, and IIRC BMW uses them on the rear of the M4.

This is a surprisingly common misconception about tires, but having the tiny rubber band sidewall isn’t the best for absolute traction. Look at how much sidewall Time Attack cars have. I can’t tell if the game knows this for sure, tbh.

Oh cool now I can do a 1+2 seating arrangement, just like a Mclaren F1… Wait this is a front engined car, what is that driving position?

Speaking of which, would it make any sense to have a +1 seating option? I think there was a version of the Mercedes SL that had 2+1 seating with the rear seat sideways.

While it’s a definite comfort penalty, it’s my understanding that you actually want the front suspension frequency to be higher than the rear for peak track performance.

It seems a little odd to me that I can’t have VVL and non VVL engines in the same family. It’s not super common, but there have even been engines in the same family that have different number of camshafts, ford made both DOHC and SOHC versions of the 4.6 modular V8.

It also seems like this engine could go further back:

Speaking of which, that’s displaying the wrong intake, that should be the performance intake.

Which also reminds me, is there’s any chance of a front mid engine/rear transaxle combination?

What is semi space frame? Is this the Lotus style glued aluminum or is a space frame/aluminum honeycomb combo? If it’s the latter, the Vector W8 had that in 91. It also had a three speed automatic, a De Dion rear suspension, and the same switchgear as the F-117.

Kind of a different thing, but what determines the max size of turbo you’re allowed to use? In my attempts to recreate turbo era F1 engines, I’m running into the somewhat unexpected roadblock of not being able to make the compressor large enough. I know this is all getting changed, but it is a bit of an odd one at the moment. On the subject of turbos, I know the Ecoboost V6’s and maybe some other modern turbo engines use differently sized turbos in order to get a sort of twin scroll effect on a V6.


#2

I have a car for which increasing front downforce seems to cause more understeer. I think I’m reading the graph correctly, that yaw rate exclusively decreases with the addition of more front downforce. I can’t tell if the yellow line’s axises are swapped or what.

Good find, I can confirm that this seems off, maybe a wrong sign in the calculation.

Not the most common type of caliper, but there are actually fixed two piston calipers, with the two pistons opposing each other. A number of lotuses use them, and IIRC BMW uses them on the rear of the M4.

Uhh, yes? So? :stuck_out_tongue:

This is a surprisingly common misconception about tires, but having the tiny rubber band sidewall isn’t the best for absolute traction. Look at how much sidewall Time Attack cars have. I can’t tell if the game knows this for sure, tbh.

Try profile 20 tires and compare cornering. That is a thing we thought about and implemented.

Oh cool now I can do a 1+2 seating arrangement, just like a Mclaren F1… Wait this is a front engined car, what is that driving position?

On the side, some imagination required.

Speaking of which, would it make any sense to have a +1 seating option? I think there was a version of the Mercedes SL that had 2+1 seating with the rear seat sideways.

Nah, making even more uncommon options doesn’t seem too relevant. We decided against that.

While it’s a definite comfort penalty, it’s my understanding that you actually want the front suspension frequency to be higher than the rear for peak track performance.

It’s not “Automation: The Track Car Simulation Game”, production cars first, and in those the current model is a good “true” rule of thumb.

It seems a little odd to me that I can’t have VVL and non VVL engines in the same family. It’s not super common, but there have even been engines in the same family that have different number of camshafts, ford made both DOHC and SOHC versions of the 4.6 modular V8.

Yes, that’s the line we draw for what can change and what not, makes for the best compromise between adaptability and gameplay.

It also seems like this engine could go further back

Your engineers obviously disagree :stuck_out_tongue:

Speaking of which, that’s displaying the wrong intake, that should be the performance intake.

That is a problem that can happen, the engine model doesn’t get updated because of load times. Is it still showing the wrong intake after you exit out and reload the car?

Which also reminds me, is there’s any chance of a front mid engine/rear transaxle combination?

Most likely not, we’re happy with the current set of layouts.

What is semi space frame? Is this the Lotus style glued aluminum or is a space frame/aluminum honeycomb combo? If it’s the latter, the Vector W8 had that in 91. It also had a three speed automatic, a De Dion rear suspension, and the same switchgear as the F-117.

You do have glued alu, that is the Lotus style. Then you have semi space frame, which is the Audi style.

Kind of a different thing, but what determines the max size of turbo you’re allowed to use?

Their distance to the engine block determines their maximum size. In the forced induction revamp we’ll add race turbo headers which move the turbo further away so you can mount bigger turbos.

Cheers!


#3

Sorry to hijack a little, but being at turbo sizes - why they seem to be related with the single cylinder bore only (and not, let’s say, whole engine capacity)? Is that for that distance reason?
That way a 1.5 square I3 gets the same turbo limits as a 3.0 square I6, which is… weird, at least. Especially it makes creating eco-turbo I3s harder (and V6s too, as they are basically two I3s together for that matter), and makes I6 outright superior for eco to medium performance turbo applications due to the earliest spool from all the inline configs.


#4

Like I said: mounting distance., that is the same if it is an I3 or I6.


#5

But what about smaller turbos? A 2.0 I6 can have smaller turbos than a 2.0 I4, and thus spool up earlier, aiding economy and drivability (IIRC with the latter). If I understand this right mounting distance doesn’t impose any lower limit for turbo size - that is purely a matter of realism. Could we please get the same (I6-like, preferably :grin:) lower limits for all configs in the same displacement/turbo (a 1.5 I3 being able to have as small turbos as a 1.5 I4, a 2.5 I4 as a 2.5 I6 etc.)?


#6

Yeah, I think that could be done, but that would be something to change in the forced induction revamp, too. Probably not going to touch turbo or engine stuff till then really, campaign stuff is more important right now :slight_smile:


#7

My daily driver is a 2+1. Two up front, single seat in the rear.


#8

There might be something else weird going on with this engine, if I do a manual test on it and leave the slider at idle the manifold pressure goes almost to atmospheric and the headers start glowing.

Track cars aren’t practical, but unless I haven’t explored the suspension tuning enough it seems you don’t need to make that sacrifice. It could be that this car has active suspension? I need to try with passive suspension. With this tuning you could get more sportiness but sacrifice comfort. It’s funny that a lot of racing sims have the opposite problem, Forza 3 had all these street cars with active aero, suspension, and diffs and it didn’t seem like any of it was reflected.

Oh, it’s a space frame made of extrusions on a monocoque floor pan? I was thinking of a monocoque with tube subframes.