also, with a monocoque, it does the inverse
I hate to be stubborn about this, but the RAM consumption really does bother me, because my system likes to crash if I max out the memory usage. Can you please at least clear the RAM used by Automation when we return to the car-selection menu? It’ll make the difference, at least for me, between having to close and restart the game every time I want to change between trims, cars, etc. and being able to continue as normal like I did before the BeamNG Crossover update.
I don’t know what made that update so much heavier, or possibly it’s just acting like Windows Vista and not relinquishing RAM when it’s done, but I’d gladly trade ‘faster car loading’ for ‘lower memory usage’ any day of the week. And no, “Just get more RAM” is not a viable option.
If your system crashes when it starts to run out of RAM then that is a problem with your system, not the game. UE4 does indeed use a lot of it though. Not much we can do about it, we don’t program the game engine and memory handling. How little RAM do you have? We made Automation run (slowly) on a tablet equipped 1GB of RAM. I doubt your system is that shit.
Windows Vista is probably doing you no favors but its not a Windows or even Vista thing. Its operating system design in general.
Just some trivia on memory management for you. I don’t expect you to know this at all btw because its heavy computer science stuff here. Anyways, operating systems allocate memory to programs in blocks that are larger than the program actually needs and often don’t reclaim it fully even once the program voluntarily surrenders it. The reason is two-fold
It avoids fragmentation which is hard to explain quickly but if you have lots of small memory requests then your memory gets spread over a large physical space with big gaps in between. Think of it like this: You can read a book where every page is several kilometers apart but is it easy? No. And if you’re writing a book but don’t know exactly how long it will be it would be wiser to get a whole ream of paper rather than just one page at a time.
It avoids reallocation time. Memory allocation is usually a expensive process in terms of time. If a program needs a lot of memory at some point in its lifetime, chances are it will need that much memory again at a different point, so why bother reclaiming the memory if its just going to get used again?
This strategy that a lot of operating systems use generally improves performance. However, sometimes it means that one program ends up hogging memory, meaning that ONE application will have great performance but everything else is kinda blah.
TL:DR. Operating systems use certain heuristics when handing out memory that generally improve performance overall but sometimes those heuristics lead to runaway memory hogging.
Technically, I’m running Windows 7, but I used Vista as a reference as something notorious for memory theft.
@Killrob I’ve got 12GB of RAM, actually. Then again, it is possible, and something I hadn’t considered, that the memory may not be in the best shape after 7 years.
@kmBlaine I knew a little of that, mostly the larger-blocks-than-needed and the reallocation time thing, but I hadn’t even considered fragmentation. I suppose it makes sense (I’m used to defragmentation because I’m still running old-school platter-based hard drives), just hadn’t expected at memory speeds that fragmentation would actually make much of a difference.
That said, now that I know about the whole memory management mess, I might know where most of the memory is disappearing to, and which program the blame really needs to be on. One program getting all the memory seems to be what causes this whole crash in the first place, and I hadn’t even realized the web browser was eating quite that much RAM in the first place.
I suppose, overall, my reason for blaming Automation was that this memory hiccup kicked in right after the BeamNG Exporter update.
Of course, the other thing I hadn’t considered initially is that it may be a VRAM thing. I’m still running a GTX 275, and they don’t have that much VRAM…
I can’t tell if this is a display bug or in the stats themselves, but whatever the case, all chassis material choices have the same (displayed?) corrosion value:
In case it matters, this is in 1992 by the way.
This will be fixed in today’s patch!
The intake sounds on exported V12s are very loud, even with the standard intake type. I can’t imagine a luxury sedan buyer being pleased with an engine that is constantly hissing like it’s attempting to learn Parseltongue.
Found an issue with the latest patch. The notice for gearing reducing top speed stays present even when using the speed limiter to lower the top speed.
I noticed another bug. Now that we can’t duplicate locked fixtures, I still have the habit of trying to do. However, I noticed that they do in fact duplicate, but the copy remains locked as well and doesn’t move so it only looks like it didn’t duplicate. It’s easy to accidentally layer multipe fixtures in the same place with this bug.
While the tooltip for ABS vs ABS+TC correctly shows that the latter takes 2 more engineering units (6.5 vs 4.5), when you select them, the exact opposite happens. ABS only takes more ET.
Ah, one I found recently: the Micro Muscle Car (the one that looks like an American muscle car, smallest wheelbase) can’t fit any engine in the Rear Engine configuration, they’re all too long. Even a minimum capacity Boxer 4.
Methinks the maths may be wrong.
There is a bug, but it’s not with that body per se
Not all variants of that body support rear engines, so as you have yet to chose the variant body when you design the engine the warnings seem to be based on the minimum size across all variants. I.E. nothing.
There is a workround, ignore the warnings and put in any engine that allows you to progress to the trim stage, select your variant and then return to the engine designer where the warnings will be more accurate.
Is this a bug or a feature?
(Loading a car then exiting to the main menu puts it on the main menu screen)
testing this car on the gravel circuit as part of the reddit challenge here https://www.reddit.com/r/automationgame/comments/91ciwi/1980s_reddit_rally_challenge/
the car is quite not competitive yet but that’s not the point
I think there’s a problem with the offroad tires: sport compound does everything better on gravel - cornering, traction, braking. With the same car, just changing tires, the sport compound are 4 second faster than the chunky offroad on the automation gravel track time trial.
what’s the role of the chunky offroad? where do they excel in beamng?
I found two bodies that have their hood cam placed inside the vehicle… roughly in the middle of the vehicle.
10sSUV_Ute_Dual, and I assume the other variants of it, but I haven’t tested that. Their names are 10sSUV, and 10sSUV_Ute. Unlock year is 2003.
90sMPVLarge, and I assume it’s variant 90sMPVLarge_Cargo as well; though also untested. Unlock year is 1988.
Power seems to have an effect on price. Up to 375 bhp this car’s price is reasonably low (sub-$25k without markups):
Increasing the power beyond that value seems to add nearly $7000 to the car’s price:
Is this intended behavior or not?
A more nagging concern is that the game always crashes every time I exit the designer, even though I have no third-party antivirus software installed on my machine.
aereo fixture settings seems to be ignored by the exporter
Check tire prices, higher speed tires can get a lot more expensive. More power, more speed, unless you use a limiter.