is there any posibility for exceptions? i started working on a car and realized too late that the wheelbase exceeds the limits by pretty much 0.01m…
What about a length limitation instead of a wheelbase limit? Or is the wheelbase limit there because of turning circle or something? As you can tell, I have no idea what I’m talking about XD
Is that the BMW body? Because if it is, then I’m running that same one (denoted as 116.something inches in my game) and may also be screwed
yeah it’s the bmw body
I buffed the wheelbase as I don’t see the need to stifle your creativity, but I’m drawing the line at 3 meters.
Post is updated according to previous discussion as well.
since cars in this segment have turbocharged engines pretty frequently and right now the SVC impact for turbocharged engines is well, excessive to say the least, do you have any plans to do a slight SVC reduction for turbocharged cars to keep things fair?
That means at least as much as the swanson can hold under its cover? Or that the new car can hold under its cover at least as much as the swanson can hold in total?
Cargo capacity alone is not the only thing affecting practicality. Other factors include seating capacity and ride height.
With this in mind, I started making some test mules - I thought I could beat the practicality benchmark with a near 2.8m wheelbase wagon with a longitudinal DFI 3.6L I6, but could not, and settled on a 2.6m wheelbase SUV with a transverse MPEFI 2.4L I4 instead (both of them had a standard interior and infotainment). The wagon was sportier and more reliable, but thirstier, and decidedly more expensive to buy and service. Comparing it to the SUV in the trim tab revealed that I wouldn’t lose too much by choosing the latter (which costs just $20k instead of $25k). My decision isn’t yet final, though; I’ll examine both options more closely before settling on one of them (or neither, if things don’t go to plan).
@vero94773 I don’t know how if turbo engines dominated quite as much here as other markets by 2016. But the 30-40% extra is a little excessive but as far as I know they perform better in I’ll consider a % discount for turbo engines, perhaps 20%. Another point is, turbo engines are less affected by high altitudes (Mexico City at 2240 meters above sea level.) Instead of trying to emulate this perceived advantage (if it’s even a thing), limiting SVC impact is an easier path.
@hjuugoo Under it’s cover, which most larger cars should achieve without any extra work.
But I realize Practicality alone doesn’t work too well, as cargo capacity is used for Utility instead. Accessibility and Height seem to be deciding factors (seats/doors/space aside) so my spacious SUV mule has the exact same Practicality as the reference car. A large wagon is scored as less practical, even slightly worse than a roughly same-sized sedan. I think I’ll lump Practicality together with Utility, after some more checking
(The game cargo stats are for the market calculations, not really for comparison to IRL - for reference, the Swanson has 1270L of cargo, while the hatchback and sedan got 868 and 315)
Am I the only one for whom it shows WES 0 and no graph for emissions regardless of “emissions level” in the engine designer?
Your WES level currently only shows in the engine tab
ah thanks didn’t notice that
are spoilers allowed
Funtional aero fixtures (spoilers, wings, and lips) may be used, but you don’t need to do so.
As for my entry, I have a suitable mule ready, and am open to collaborations with others regarding design - if anyone is interested, please let me know.
Does this mean that the body unlock year CANNOT be before 2009?
Nah body unlock years are all over the place, so they don’t matter as long as the car looks like something that could be sold in 2016.