I can fit a square 8L V16 into it, doesn’t sound all that small to me it is the engine height that limits it for you, right? The V12 is higher of course, being 60 degree bank angle.
Yeah, try transverse and pushrod.
Im sorry, but what car exactly fits an 8L V16 in the transverse layout. Also surely mid longitudinal should be able to fit an engine larger than that seeing as the back end of the car should be longer than it is wide.
The one you were talking about, the LMP body. It has a weird engine bay shape (in Automation). If anything, that should be your complaint, not that it is too small because it isn’t. I managed to get a 10.5L Engine in there.
I would extend this point by saying, having a transverse engine in the rear is just weird. It’s not a Miura. I’d prefer it if the engine was able to fit longer lengths Longitudinal and shorter lengths Transverse. This happens alot not just on this body, cars like the Saleen supercar, the Laf, this body. Basically anything with a mid engine layout can always fit a bigger engine transversely. From a logic sense it doesn’t work, sure people have done it in actual production cars, but it’s not so much of a thing anymore.
Miura + Other examples
Not gonna lie, I think automation would have a panic attack if you tried to do this.
Other cars that did this (that may be less known) was the Cizeta-Moroder V16T, but this thing was wide
It measured at 2.06m compared to the Mclaren F1’s 1.82m, so it was much less practical.
The only “modern” car that seems to be well known with this engine layout is the Lotus Evora, and that has V6 which is considerably smaller.
The reason im going on about this is because it’s anoyyed me for quite a while. Why should I be forced to have a much smaller engine in the normal layout? Is it because the car should be “unique?” The Laf can’t even fit its real engine in the engine bay, I tried, it was the first thing I did and I’ll be honest I was more than disappointed. Sacrificing weight distribution and realisticly the engine bay look is painful, I don’t think the transverse layout should change, but rather the longitudinal length get longer. Height should be the issue, not length.
Okay so on to game limitations. Obviously there are many, the engine has to spawn in a set place where the creator defined it to be when creating the model (I think that’s how it works, or its the transmission, one or the other)
Although this is true and I do agree with this, there is a certain amount of clipping that you simply can’t get away with, also I’d assume that they set it so that the maximum amount of different engines can fit in the car in different oreintations. Also have to remember that some people play with the intercoolers/ radiators enabled, so the pipes and stuff have to go places. In a transverse layout none of these have different models, but thats ok!
You don’t even need to have the transverse layout to make this a
But the point here would be that you would probably make the internals smaller (in the bit after the family) so that the engine doesn’t kill itself. Yes it’s overkill but you should have the option to be able to do this whether it be transverse or longitudinal.
Finally (?) would it become too much of a meme. Some people would use it that way, Venom has some particularly good examples of this, being able to fit V16’s in Kei trucks etc, but thats an extreme. The engine probably shouldn’t stick through the front of the vehicle. The reason that essentially the engine limits were removed were for one, to have a bit of fun, “ok you can’t see this V8 but it would never feasably fit irl” and the more common one that I find is “automation can’t do the model for something like this but it is possible” so maybe having a 2.0L I4 in a kei truck.
this is the one i remember so ill stick with it
Overall, yes I can fit my “brilliant” x.xL V16 in this car, but its transverse and i’d like to be able to fit the engine longitudinally as it would follow the actual look of the car, make the “engineering” easier and change the handling to be more realistic.
Don’t ban me pls
Ye olde BodyEditor_80s_coupe (2.4m wheelbase) has a cry if you put a badge in the right (wrong) spot.
Changing alignment of the fixture to cardinal/horizon “fixes” it, but if the fixture is a single letter in a word… she looks a trifle odd.
Yeah, Ive also tried to see how large an engine I can fit in that LMP body. I managed to fit a 10L V12 in it transversely, but thats not the point. The point Im making is that in the longitudinal layout, you cannot fit a 5L V12 when realistically it should be able to fit larger engines. If you look at it from that perspective, yes, the engine bay for it is too short.
As for Sky-High,
I think that its fine for bodies like this to be able to come with a transverse engine layout in the rear. If you remove that layout, youre just limiting what you can do with the body. Sure it isn’t realistic say for an LMP car to have a transversely mounted engine, but this is automation.
Also regarding this, for the LMP body at least, it is a pretty large relatively speaking, I dont think components clipping should cause much issue. But, if the body is small enough to cause clipping, firstly I think that actual gameplay should come first. Saying that we can’t fit realistic engines in a car because “the pipes that noone will see underneath the chassis will clip” isn’t really a good excuse. Ofc if it wasnt obvious Im not saying that we should be able to fit 21L V16’s everywhere because who cares about clipping, but there are plenty of bodies which have engine bays where they cannot fit an realistically sized engine because “it could cause clipping”
I wasn’t saying remove it obviously haha, some cars like the stratos relied on having this layout. For these specific cars that were engineered to have ML RWD layouts it doesn’t make sense to have a larger transverse bay. I mean more clipping through the sides or out the top too.
To try and put it to rest, the BodyEditor_80sLMP_Preview has its rear firewall too far back. Its not really a matter of gameplay vs visuals here.
As far as fitting ridiculously large transverse engines, the track width is too wide. You can only fit around 220s (with DW suspension) before the tires poke outside of the fender and you need to morph it out more. Its an LMP car, they are already super wide in order to fit meaty tires without needing to morph it out wider.
And it’s not the only offender - the LaFerrari body (which unlocks in 2008) also seems to have the same problem:
It’s even worse with the 2007 hypercar body (more specifically, the vanilla one) - the biggest engine I could fit in it with the mid longitudinal setup is a highly undersquare 4.0L V8, and even then, there was little room to spare:
This problem also affects the 1987 NSX body (both sizes):
And also the 1969 Stratos body:
I almost forgot this one, but the 1990 348/355 body isn’t immune to this problem either - and it’s too draggy to boot:
The only fix for this nagging issue would be to move the firewall further forward.
On the other hand, the small version (2.15m wheelbase) of the 1979 C4 Corvette body has an engine bay which is too narrow and short at the same time, which renders both mid-engined configurations virtually unusable (although the rear- and front-engined configurations work just fine):
In this case, moving the firewall forward alone won’t be enough - a wider rear track, to allow for a wider engine bay, will also be needed.
I contest the moving forward of the firewalls on the Stratos body (70sRally_HT_BP_Preview) and the 348/355 body (90sMR_Cor_coupe_BodyEditor_Preview)
As you can see from these pictures, the firewalls are already in a realistic position and moving them any further forward would encroach on the cabin space which would not make any sense.
The Stratos IRL housed a transversely mounted 2.4L v6 behind the cabin, and the 348 and 355 both contained a longitudinally mounted 3.5L v8 with an 85mm bore so it isn’t realistic to expect either of these to house a 6L v12 or similarly large longitudinal engines.
The other bodies mentioned I agree with, as the firewalls are further back than what they probably should be.
I appreciate being thorough with the mid engine bay sizes, but I don’t think every one of them is broken. The pics you used do not compare the chassis to the body and aren’t consistent materials so its hard to see if its actually too far back.
The 2007 La Ferrari (BodyEditor_10sSupercar02-Coupe_Preview) is already being looked at by Maff-C.
The Stratos (70sRally_BP) if anything is nudged a smidge more forward than it should be. It fits bigger engines than the real thing but it is supposed to fit the original V6 size without much of a penalty.
The C4 (70sUSCoupe_Small) is definitely a little too short but it is not too narrow. Make it wider and you’ll need bigger fenders to fit reasonable tire widths.
I’m not sure of the others without looking at them. I wanted to put in my two cents because I’m afraid that all of this will look like “AGGGHHH engine bays R too small!!” and it’ll get ignored when just small adjustments will do the trick.
You may have a point. It might be better to leave those bodies (with the wheelbases that they have) as they are; however, for those still wanting to fit large engines longitudinally, a larger version of each (with a longer wheelbase) might make more sense in that regard.
Look, we have over 500 bodies in Automation now, and due to technical limitations we can’t make them all adhere to your sense of realism (ohh, that sounded like a nice jab, but wasn’t meant to be :P) by default. Just mention the worst offenders and they’ll be looked into.
I hope you do understand how this is a complete non-issue compared to other things on our table? Hence why I’m a little (or a lot, depending how you read it) dismissive about this. Not saying that this is not annoying to someone who has those expectations wanting to build a very particular car with that body, it is.
Point them out and chill, we’ll get them fixed when we (as in the body makers) get around to it.
I completely get where you are coming from and I’m sure they do too as far as the amount of bodies there are and priorities. They are just trying to report the bugs so when you guys can get to them, there’s a record of whats wrong to save time. Not trying to assign blame, but when you put a transverse 8L pushrod as an example of it the engine bays being “fine” when the length of the engine bay is the problem 90% of the time, people are gonna think you don’t think it is something that needs fixed and they will feel the need to try and convince you.
When re-opening the game after restarting my PC, this body always seems to reset its wheel arch morphs. It is not exclusive to the car I have chosen to show it with as I’ve had it happen many a time when creating a car using this body.
I’m unsure about the rest of the variants, but I know for sure it affects the 5dr hatchback.
10sSupercar01Small (2.3m wheelbase) has rear morphing zones that give wider rear fenders on the right than on the left. (EDIT: I now know that the larger version with a 2.7m wheelbase is also affected)
It looks and feels incongruous considering the fact that there is nothing wrong with the other morphing zones on this particular body.
the same problem happens on the larger 2.7 m wheelbase version