So will this challenge be hosted in the open beta or the stable version of the game?
And if on the ob, will there be any limitation on toe settings in the suspension tab? Currently there’s no cost (neither in material nor service costs) for toe, which allows one to really abuse that suspension setting.
I’m assuming 4.3 open beta only - and in that version, revised weight distribution calculations have made rear- and mid-engined cars more viable.
Why? I can see wheel width being banned, but banning offset adjustment is ouch, due to the fact that a lot of RR cars use mac struts on the front, which notoriously in game are offset really far out with no way other than advanced trim to bring them inward. There are also bits in there like wheel center offset that do absolutely nothing in terms of stats or disguising other wheel sizes for stats purposes. They just allow for style manipulation. The only things in the wheel and tyre tabs in advanced trim that you need to regulate are wheel width, wheel diameter, tyre width, tyre diameter, and camber. All of those have actual tuning counterparts that make large statistical difference. The rest are mostly aesthetically driven and wouldn’t have strong stat implications if they were in other tabs. Ride height should be increased to +/- 4 as well, for similar reasons of deleting rake from bodies.
This amount of toe is woefully inadequate for RR builds in game. It should be increased to +/- .3 or .35. For reference Ford C-max, a fwd hatchback, has .2 toe on at least one of its axels. Limiting a RR sports/sporting car to less toe than a tame hatchback will not produce the levels of sportiness you’re hoping for in entries.
I would also give us some more techpool if you’re wanting sports cars, but i do understand wanting easy legality checking.
I would really like to have some leeway in wheel advanced trim as well - just so i could make my tires look more old-timey, all round and blown up.
EDIT: Moreover, 45 enginer loudness limit is ludicrous now. The devs themselves said that 60 is not atypical for a roadgoing sports car.
- why would there be a material cost to toe settings? It’s not like they actually add more material to change the angle of the car’s tyres. 2) Limiting toe is counter productive to having a rear engined car challenge. It’s literally how they have been made more viable in game. Only when you start getting into ridiculous values of toe (+/- .6 or more) that there is really any extra SVCs that would need to be factored in. Even economy cars run around .2 toe and we don’t really care about extra tyre wear at that point.
Oh god my time has come, time to make one of my chronically strange Japanese things…
It’s on the open beta.
Right now the toe limits are at +/- 0.15 because as Maverick says, toe has no effect on svc currently. I chose that limit to be the same as QFC33 and LHC, but I’ll increase it to +/- 0.4 to be more appropiate.
To be honest I’m not very familiar with advanced settings, but I’m fine with giving more freedom. Only wheel width, wheel diameter, tyre width, tyre diameter, and camber will be banned, and ride height can be adjusted to +/- 4.
Techpool stays at +5, this is meant to be a quicker challenge.
Agreed, I’ll raise the limit to 55. I went too safe with the loudness limit .
What would you consider to be reasonable service costs for a car like this?
It depends on what other people submit. I don’t look at cars in a vacuum, I compare them to the other entries.
If your car has $1500 SVC and the average is $2000, you’ll get a good score; but if the average is $1000 SVC you’ll get a lower score in that stat.
My first test mule for this cost $19.5k AMU, weighed 924kg, and was powered by a 160bhp all-alloy 2.0l F4, with struts all around. It was built on the small Commoner body set, but had 4 full seats, and surprisingly low sub-$1k service costs.
What size car were you building tho? And is it carbed? both larger cars(so more engine bay space) and carbs can produce sup $1k SVCs, but it’s rare if you’re using anything other than standard interior bits and medium tyres. Most RR builds hover between $1000 and $1500 in my experience.
A small one with a wheelbase of 2.4m, tires that are 165mm wide up front and 205mm wide in the rear, standard interior and cassette tape deck, but not power steering or ABS.
The body set I used ('84 Commoner) also has a surprisingly large engine bay in RR configuration.
Working at around 1300 SVC at the moment
probably should make it cheaper though
although my car is kinda small at 2.3m and costs about 15000
lol. current build i have is a 2.6 wheelbase (visually extended 2.5 crown vic body) with 225s all around and sport/premium interior. Debating on making it a standard Midlands Ceres GTC or making it some high power special edition.
Yeah same here, sport interior w premium cassette on the Manta coupe body
Ok current submission
Passes all the current things i think
Rear engine all wheel drive funni-mobile
Essentially an answer to the question “what if the LVC LF2 had been a sleek rear-engined aero blob that came out two years earlier?”
960kg. 150bhp (on regular unleaded). 0-60 in 7.5 seconds and a top speed of 135 mph. 0.95 lateral g and 60-0 in 35m. All wrapped up in a sleek, futuristic, and aerodynamic coupe body that’s small on the outside and big enough on the inside for four adults. And it’s a steal at $13,700 AMU. Need we say more? It’s no 911 or Alpine, but it will have no problem whatsoever keeping up with either of them on a B-road.