Issue I found, while trying to make a Supra
2.5m 1985 Coupe body does this in the rear.
I’m pretty sure that body’s already fixed in the campaign beta.
90s Mid Coupe body (NSX) has slightly off wheelbase (at least 2.4m one). Front wheel is set slightly too far back in the arch.
The open beta?
The opt-in light campaign beta.
90sJDMCoupe also has its chassis protrude through its rear bumper if that morph is pushed in far enough.
Edit: this only seems to affect the front-engined configurations (rear- or mid-engined doesn’t have this problem).
Not sure if it’s been posted, but this body variant doesn’t have a second/third row seat option.
(The 2.6m body has no third seat row too btw)
I believe this is because it’s a soft top - hard top convertibles have no penalty if I remember correctly, and normal cars have a 12% (?) penalty.
All four of these bodies’ engine bays appear to have shrunk even further after the latest update:
This is perplexing considering that their engine compartments were already quite small in the last stable build.
It seems like a lot of former mod bodies have had their engine bays shrunk to absurdity.
A lot of bodies in general have shrunk insanely. I’ve noticed that some Sedan bodies are noticeably smaller than the wagon or coupe variants. My 1990 Levara doesn’t work in openbeta because of this.
Please give actual examples of sizes that fit or do not fit, comparing to real life counterparts and mention what you expect it to be. If you no longer can fit a 10L V12 into some car and instead only a 5L V12 barely fits, then the engine bay has “shrunk insanely” but it probably is a good thing.
Okay, here’s the 1990 Levara in stable, and the engine does indeed fit. It’s a 2.3 liter inline 4.
As you can see, the engine fits snug as a bug in a rug, and doesn’t look absurdly shoehorned in either. If the car this is loosely based on (Mitsubishi Galant) can fit a 2 liter four-banger no biggie, an extra 300cc shouldn’t be a hassle.
I remember at one point you guys made engines appear a bit larger in engine bays–I don’t know if that was a long time ago, but it might be causing this in some way? Just a shot in the dark, probably wrong as I don’t think the engine’s visual size has anything to do with the engine bay filling calculations.
I think part of whats going on is it isn’t obvious that the engine bay arrows only indicate if the engine fits for FWD (or the most restrictive type) by default, even if you selected longitudinal front engine. It looks like the engine bays are way more restrictive than they actually are.
Some former mod bodies do change going vanilla though, usually for the better, but these had the firewall moved forward more than most bodies and lowered to where macphersons stick through the bonnet (they could just be disabled i guess).
70sUSCoupe_Small can only fit an 800cc I4 in mid transverse configuration (I’m expecting it to be able to carry a 2L I4 or similar), and no V-type engine will ever fit into its engine bay:
Meanwhile, the 90sMidCoupeLarge can’t be fitted with anything bigger than a 4.0L V8 longitudinally:
Also, 90sMR_Cor_Coupe can fit big V8s, up to around 5.7L capacity, but no V10s or V12s bigger than 4000cc:
I have writen this a view days ago that some engine bays in most coupes are too small.
A 3000ccm Line 6 is to big for the 1960 Limo.
I think a little finetuning in this area is absolutely nessesary after the LC3 release.
Do you have FWD unchecked when testing this, though?
If you don’t, try again and see where you get.
If you did, then be a bit more specific with the model’s actual name and maybe it’ll get another look
Hope that Helps
Make sure you can’t fit more in transverse, some body layouts are just not that great for longitudinally mounted engines. Always check both directions, especially for mid engined cars.