Home | Wiki | Discord | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

Steam Open Beta B160308+ Bugs & Feedback


I’ve started to write this post a few day ago, and when I completed yesterday and published it I haven’t read previous answers. Sorry. And this crazy new forum mechanics does not make it easier :wink:

post:87, topic:6655”]
Your point about scrolling we ignore because the way it is now makes sense for fine tuning your setting without having to use the up and down buttons. I use it that way all the time, dragging is so much less precise than the scrolling via the mousewheel.[/quote]

Yes, I like very much current mouse wheel tuning, and You shouldn’t change it, but it is not excluding, adding one useful option in one tab. The change is only that all fixture window will be active for scrolling. This is not impossible and do not ruin whole system.

post:87, topic:6655”]
The fixtures back key is working as intended too, it is not the norm to have 7 pages of fixtures. [/quote]

What You are writing here is illogical. Back key that doesn’t work as back key. It is just duplicating adjoin key with fixture name. And when You need to go back where You were before You need to seek and scroll.

Number of fixtures still grows so I guess no one have only one page. Moreover number of pages will be increasing, unless You going to limit it, or forbid people making new content. You think that better to limit maximum fixtures amount than fix that stupid key? :stuck_out_tongue:


Yes, I like very much current mouse wheel tuning, and You shouldn’t change it, but it is not excluding, adding one useful option in one tab. The change is only that all fixture window will be active for scrolling. This is not impossible and do not ruin whole system.

Ahh, that’s a neat idea, to have the fixture page scroll down with the mouse wheel, that indeed would be handy.

Dude, the thing is not that the “button is broken”, the system was designed with just one page of things in mind and that is the problem. With the advent of the Unreal Engine version we can redesign the UI to be more sensible. For now it will stay the way it is as we want to limit the amount of effort spent on the soon to be dead Kee-Engine version of the game to a minimum.


If I understand correctly, the new factory/engineering stuff is meant to give cars a real, physical production cost rather than the estimated ones, correct? I’ve heard that the cost in the market tab is an estimate based on a medium factory, which can under or overestimate the cost depending on how many you plan to produce.

My question is, after you set up the factories and engineers, is the cost meant to update in the market tab? After setting up everything for my car I can’t seem to get the cost to change to anything but the estimated value. Has this been implemented or am I missing something?



This happens every second time when launching the game.


I’ve had this, IF I have attempted to re-position the window while the game is loading.


That happens to me when I minimize the game while is starting.


That is the case I think.


That sounds fair.


Hey guys got playing this game again after a while.

While trying to make an FF based 4WD car there is no option for 4WD with a transversely mounted engine. Is this intentional or is it a bug? I used to have no problems selecting a 4WD drivetrain for any transverse car of any size.


The unlock year for transverse AWD is extremely late (compared to longitudinal).


Was it added in the new update? Because I built a transverse AWD car in 2001 prior to this update. And my current car is a 2009 model year.

Besides realistically the Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 has it since 1987.


It’s been changed in a recent update, as to why I don’t know, even though transverse AWD (and 4x4) appeared just shortly after longitudinal AWD:


Not necessarily beta related, but if you make a high-power, low-weight rear engine car the game kind of loses it. My guess would be that it has to do with the weight transfer of acceleration causing the weight on the front wheels to go negative (wheelie). If that’s the case, it might be a good idea to clamp or at least sanity-check values in the calculations and let users know that there’s an issue. As it stands, you just get a blown tires message at the testing page, which I don’t think properly represents what’s happening.


Latest update broke car loading. Null error and then…


Usually the blown tires warning appears because you tires are too narrow and they are overloaded.

Do you have the car’s files?


The compactness of the pushrod suspension seems to be glitched. While it says that it has extremely low compactness, selecting pushrod suspension gives more room for engines and also more practicality due to more cargo space.


Do you have examples of that?

I just tried it in a midengined car and it made no difference on engine size compared to double wishbone suspension. It also reduced the cargo volume.

The practicality thing seems to be related to their higher load capacity.


Nevermind, it seems that I was mistaken. Still, it seems weird that pushrod suspension is gives higher practicality than double wishbone, considering that it there’s a huge spring right where you would want to put your groceries.


Yeah, I agree, it seems like the practicality bonus for the better load capacity more than compensates for lost due to cargo volume.


I didn’t have an example handy, but here’s one that I just threw together to demonstrate: 518312e4-0c1b-11e6-82e9-6cf0495d3f8c.lua (12.3 KB)
I don’t think that the issue is the tires being too narrow (345mm F/ 395mm R).

Also, an unrelated issue that I’ve noticed is that some models have some wonky tire sizes available. The model above, for example, can have 395 tires in the rear even though the arches are only really wide enough for 315-325. Another that I can think of off the top of my head is the 787B-esque body where you can add offset to the rear wheels for maybe 40mm beyond the widest arch morph.