I’ve never noticed it before or I wold have said something but why does the Bore/stoke auotmatically adjust when one is set too high or too low compared to the other
Example:
I was trying to reproduce the Ford “Thriftpower Six” straight six engine found in Falcon’s and a few other vehicals between 1960 and 1964 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Straight-6_engine
The bore is 3.5 inches(89mm) and the Stroke is 2.5 inches(64mm) but when I tried this the bore would automatically start to decrease from 3.5 inches if I tried to set the Stroke any lower than 2.594 inches. Why does it do this? surely if it was done in real life it can be done in the game.
As far as I know, in the last update the maximum delta in the bore x stroke ratio is around 30%, 89mm is around 39% bigger than 64mm so you won’t be able to use it.
I wanted to see how close I could get the engine in the game to match its real life counterpart like some other people have been doing, Ford’s 2.4 liter (144ci) “Thriftpower Six” has those Bore and Stroke measurements. I’m disappointed that I can’t match both, I can either have the correct Bore or the correct Stroke not both.
I think he means why we chose that ratio to limit it at. We chose it as it was a good balance of preventing you from building stupidly long stroke engines and fitting them in tiny cars because the block was still tiny, and also because it covers about 98% of real engines out there (besides ones like this)
Yes daffy, that is what I meant. I actually did try to make a 144 thriftpower and ran into the same problem. I ended up decreasing the bore and increasing the stroke and calling it “close enough”. I think a bigger issue is figuring out what the actual HP of that engine should be in Automation terms, since I believe it was only ever rated in SAE gross HP as opposed to the more modern/accurate SAE net HP.
Well I was just going to try to shoot for the wiki listed 84hp but I wanted to get it at the right rpm’s which I haven’t had much luck with on other engines. My OCD got the best of me this time, it stomped its foot and said “Close enough isn’t good enough complain now!” anyways thanks for the quick answer guys.
The diameter of the cylinder bore should be determined by measuring straight around the hollow interior of the bore and make a note of it. Next, the length between the main bearing (engine’s crankshaft rotate) and the rod bearing (articulating joint on which the piston rotates) of the engine. Make a note of the value and multiply the length between the main and rod bearing by two. eg.If length is 2.5 inches, then it is multiplied by 2 =>5.The final step is to divide the diameter of the cylinder bore by the piston stroke length. eg.If the cylinder bore is 4 inches and the piston stroke length is 4, then 5/4=1.25
I recently asked the same question on the developer question board, viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1827, I understand that you guys developed the limit to prevent huge engines from being in small cars but why not have the bore stroke ration develop the height and width of the block and each vehicle type have a size limit on the height and width that can fit in it? I understand that you guys were developing limits to ensure that there are no glitch cheats but at the same time I see this game as not redeveloping the engines created in the past or present but allow us to make our own ridiculous or awesome engine.
What would you guys think of limiting the size Engine that each vehicle can handle, not how big we can make the engine
Indeed we need to put the limits somewhere, and I think we got a nice compromise going that allows for a lot of variety without breaking the game in the process. Yes, stupid engines are fun, but balancing stupid engines/extreme engines is NOT fun (or impossible)… so the question is the following:
What would you like to have?
a) A better game without ultra-extreme engines.
b) A worse game with ultra-extreme engines.
[quote=“Killrob”]Indeed we need to put the limits somewhere, and I think we got a nice compromise going that allows for a lot of variety without breaking the game in the process. Yes, stupid engines are fun, but balancing stupid engines/extreme engines is NOT fun (or impossible)… so the question is the following:
What would you like to have?
a) A better game without ultra-extreme engines.
b) A worse game with ultra-extreme engines.
Our decision on that matter was pretty simple. [/quote]
Why would we show off how broken things are in Sandbox mode? In my opinion that sends the wrong signals and does the game a disservice. Also, we would get some 100 questions per day asking why you can’t build that super cool engine in campaign mode…
Yeah, just no… There are fairly broad limits to what you can do already, and they exist so we have resonable bounds in which to do realistic calculations, they’ve been set in stone a long time ago and they’re not going to change I’m afraid.
Not even a check box in the options with a dialogue box saying “This box will break sh!t, but be awesome doing it.”
Because, well… It is pretty cool to do things in a game that are impossible in reality. I mean, games are nothing if they’re not fun.
Not to say this game isn’t, but options are always good.
My point still stands that once we go outside certain bounds of real engines, that it becomes quite hard to get it to spit out stats with any realism, I don’t see that its worth letting people set bore and stroke combinations that are going to produce unrealistic stats, and also confusing players that different bore and stroke settings are available in sand box than in the campaign. It also seems like it would add very little gameplay value as compared to the work it would require and the problems it would cause.
The tighter the ratio, the more accurate the calculations. It is a compromise, and we chose to place ourselves somewhere in the middle where players can build most modern engine designs to a good degree of accuracy.
What do you want:
a) small range, excellent accuracy
b) medium range, good accuracy
c) large range, poor accuracy
