Having a play, I made a “4WD” (yeah, right) with solid front and rear axles on coils. Used the “off road” suspension preset, and got travel that even Zabhawkin would be proud of. If I drop the ride height by 1 unit, travel is in the order of 800.
8 Likes
1 kilometer susp travel?.. now that is a proper RockBouncer. 
6 Likes
Some bodies, such as the small versions of the NSX and 12C bodies, have much smaller engine bays than previously; the one in the latter is now back to Kee size and can no longer fit big engines. I am in favor of this change, though; I must admit that the ability to plonk a big motor in either body felt quite unrealistic.
1 Like
There should be a warning for front/rear axels with very different ride heights. Maybe only show it while in the body and suspension tabs.
1 Like
When building 1950s / 1960s cars, I started having a lot of issues with material cost getting a float error / NaN when using straight 6 engines in the late 1950s and early 1960s. And it appears to definitely be the engine. I built several randomized cars with V8s and never had a single issue. As soon as I build a randomized car that has a straight 6, I get NaN cost.
How to Reproduce:
Simple. Put a straight 6 and a car and get NaN material cost. Late 1950s / early 1960s definitely but other eras may also be affected; I have not tested.
Examples:
1 Like
I’ve also had that problem, but it happens to me with even modern cars. This car was classified as light delivery and I was in the middle of tuning it when all the sudden it went to a $0/NaN$ material cost and I can’t figure out why. It’s a turbo I3.
1 Like
The new speed limiter is always in KPH even when MPH is selected for units.
2 Likes
I’ve been getting a similar issue with a 1977 car, though I didn’t try changing the engine, as changing the seating configuration fixed the issue. just thought i’d add that on to what you pointed out.
Besides calling it 3 doors - 0 Seats, my suspension page shows me “rear load capacity: 0”.
My cargo volume is 446l but the text warning says load capacity is low for the volume.
Is there a bug related to this calculation?
There seems to be a problem with the fuel economy of turbo engines:
Not only does this seem unrealistic to me, but slight changes in the gear spacing makes it jump up or down several points at a time. The above results are with the gear spacing at 47, moving it down to 38 changes it to 26.8mpg
Is that with a full load (which I think always says 0)?
Ah thank you!
Empty it says at least 169 
It already drops to 0 at 4 passengers.
I still wonder if the distribution is right. Does front load capacity include the engine?
Because my car can handle 1.1 tons at the front but less than 200kg in the rear
Found a speed limiter which is great apart from the fact that it doesn’t match my mph units…couldn’t figure out why my, limited, 130mph car had a top speed of 80! Then realised the limiter is in kph.
Note to self…read new release notes before commenting…
The car import is still broken, I’m afraid.
But instead of nothing appearing, the model does appear, not the trim however.
3 Likes
What suspension setup are you using? Under the chassis tab.
I just managed to crash the game again with the latest crash log functionality in the current ‘openbeta’ version. It took me a few tries before it crashed (around 5 or 6 copied trims). It is just the same story as before:
- Copy a trim.
- revise the trim
- Select a new family, or in this case even a copied engine variant.
- start designing the new variant/family and crash.
Chances are high that this is the ‘garbage collection bug’ that you are looking for.
The crash log was uploaded with my username.
Double Wishbones front and rear.
That’s probably why. Double wishbone suspension isn’t meant for carrying high loads. It does seem that the warning comes too early, because that cargo volume seems to be pretty normal of a typical car that could be using DW suspension.
Okay, might not be the typical suspension for high loads.
But in the front it says 1100kg load capacity with the same suspension and weight distribution 51/49.
Strange 
But thanks for your advise so far 
1 Like
I don’t think you’re doing anything wrong or missing anything crucial. There is something definitely screwy with the suspension load calculations. On several vehicles I’ve made, I either have to turn them into monster trucks or raise the spring stiffness to spinal compression injury levels to be able to even get a load capacity approaching an actual car.
On the 1950s not-BMC body that I had the issue with NaN cost, with 264 mm of suspension travel and a 5.00 rear spring stiffness I still only managed 200kg load capacity and that was with a solid axle coil suspension.
EDIT: Just to clarify, the Normal preset uses a 1.80 rear spring stiffness albeit with slightly more travel but even so. Getting realistic rear loads just seems to be excessively at odds with ride comfort and drivability.
1 Like