New generation body to reduce penalties

[Cyk0]

@Killrob

What I think you guys are missing is that “iconic” bodies built nowadays / modernized are far larger and heavier due to safety regulations and requirements. It would be either overpowered to just tick a box and have it be modern (original body with some safety penalty) or it would be very unrealistic (weight penalty but no size difference).

To say that I missed it a bit harsh with my opening post containing the weight reference, and I also mentioned that it might not be realistic to have it achieve 100% reduction since you are using the same body (baring modifications)

@Cyk0

Basically in exchange for money and engineering time you have the ability to reduce (maybe not fully?) the prestige and safety (offset by slight weight increase) penalty for an old body.

But as I said, more generational bodies would achive the same thing. This would just let the user create a classic out of a car that was successful even if that car has another bodyshape than what became a clasic irl (which is something that would increase the chases of a shape having generational bodies)
It would also mean that even say the 991 could have been handled with just 2 bodies with some morphing options say the original from 63 and then the 996 from 99. Then you would have handled 52 years of models with those two instead of the 7 internal body classifications they really went through.

But the big point for me is the ability to create my own classic line. maybe it will only span 30 years because of diminishing returns form re engineering but I would not be pigeonholed into doing it a style that eventually gets some “generational” bodies.

Anyway enough beating of the (potentially) dead horse. I don’t want to be an advocate for feature creep here, and this is certainly something that could be acomplished with the “tools” ingame (bodies) and mods. Keep on doing your great game! I am really enjoying the campaign even in its lighter form.

[RomeoReject]

Of course the Mustang, Challenger, Porsche et al aren’t identical to the way they were, I’m well aware of that. But they look close enough that designing an entirely new body to account for extremely minor changes would be a total waste of development time. As I said up top, there’s really no reason why updating the entire chassis, drivetrain and materials while retaining a classic style should be universally negative.

[TrackpadUser]

That’s the thing, they aren’t really extremely minor changes.

Extremely minor changes would be something like most facelifts.

Or like Cyk0 said, the post 2000s Porsches.

But apart from that they are quite different, even though they might share some design elements. Some tweaking of the values might be required so bodies can be used for longer with facelifts considering how long some cars were in production, but it should definitively not be possible to make a viable car out of a 1970 body in 2010.

[RomeoReject]

@TrackpadUser

That’s the thing, they aren’t really extremely minor changes.

Extremely minor changes would be something like most facelifts.

Or like Cyk0 said, the post 2000s Porsches.

But apart from that they are quite different, even though they might share some design elements. Some tweaking of the values might be required so bodies can be used for longer with facelifts considering how long some cars were in production, but it should definitively not be possible to make a viable car out of a 1970 body in 2010.

While you’re not incorrect, I disagree thoroughly. We aim for nostalgia all the time with modern cars, and again, rather than doing small rear engined coupes with small enough differences to be changed with player sculpting and trims, just do it once and let the player do the rest of the work.

We already have gameplay elements in place for not bothering to update a model between 1970 and 2010: Namely, the safety, emissions, power delivery, general dimensions and everything else would be horrible with the old technology in place. If someone wants to make a classically styled, modern-chassis car, the game shouldn’t really be jumping in and saying “NOT ON MY WATCH”.

[Killrob]

If someone wants to make a classically styled, modern-chassis car, the game shouldn’t really be jumping in and saying “NOT ON MY WATCH”.

Correct, in a world of limitless resources, time, and manpower I fully agree.

[stm316]

Isn’t this:

Retro car company not viable?

The game currently gives a percentage penalty to desirability for older design templates, so presumably this means a company like Morgan cannot exist in the game (leaving aside that designs start in 1940). Is there any chance of adding the ability to ‘modernise’ a car design so that the shape remains the same but there is no desirability penalty? Or maybe retro marketing that counteracts the penalty? Edit: This also affects the possibility of keeping a similar if not specifically retro design o…

almost the same topic?

[titleguy1]

Compare a new car and an old one side-by-side, and you can see the differences.

[Daffyflyer]

The only real examples of retro cars that actually share a body design I can think of is mid 90s minis and South American spec VWs, and they DID get discontinued due to lack of safety etc.

As Titleguy1’s pictures show, most modern “retro” cars, are just new cars built with lines that are heavily inspired by something older, but usually are quite different in diamensions, have no bumpers etc.

We certainly do need some more “modern retro” styled bodies though, sure.

[Leedar]

Maybe we can conscript a generous community member to make modernised variants of older bodies. Is making bodies that difficult?

[maffc]

@Leedar

Is making bodies that difficult?

That is a very subjective question. In my experience it all depends on a number of factors including skill level, complexity of your subject, your goals for the resulting body and your tolerance to the quality of the output.

A couple of my bodies I’ve come away thinking “that was hard work”, even starting over when I’ve felt it was not going right. With others I’ve felt they were easier than expected.

[Cyk0]

I just want it noted that me as the OP that mentioned the 911 as an example, never claimed you could do a 996 with a body of a the first 911 from 63. You could hower make and jump 30 years and do one from 93 with a 63 body by flaring the arches and using era suitable trims for each of the cars.

And if we take the 996 and the two body “generations” that follow it they are basically indistinguishable so that one seems to be servicable at least 20 years, and who knows what the future will hold.

That is the reason i said you could cover 7 911 generations spanning over 50 years with only two bodies. (Also the reason i proposed diminishing returns from a re-engineer body feature)

That being said the question/proposal has already been adressed here and this “concern” is solvable within the confines of the game, either as more bodies get released or through moded bodies.

[Deskyx]

Game’s not stopping you though. You can do so if you want. However are you really expecting Singer and Morgan to cater to the same clientele as Porsche and Lotus? The only negative downside to using an older body in game from what I’ve seen is a desirability hit and drag.

[Cyk0]

Well, I just made an example of porche being able to sell body that 30 years old. Yes it changed styling quite allot with the 996 (it was even criticized for that very thing as well as becoming bigger)

Lotus Is another good example of a company that re-engineered a car chassis (to meet new safety standards even) The Lotus Elise is still in production after 20 years and 3 generations. And I am positive they could be represented with the same body.

Currently when dealing with premium cars that care about prestige (and safety to an extent) its hard to sell a car 20 or 30 years later simply due to the body being old. Irl they sometimes go through generations with little external change like the mentioned elise or 911 (still excluding the big change that happened during the 90s) or with basically the same mechanical basis but more and more stuff added to a long going iconic line like the Citroen DS.

The reason I created this post is that I wan’t to be able to have those iconic cars based on what becomes successful in my company’s own story rather that hopning I have suiting body as a followup to a especially successful car.

With re-enginering (done properly with a cost weight increase and diminishing returns) It would be possible to create my own icons, and extend the life of a hit upwards to 30 years as long as you keep bringing out new models and include new innovations when applicable to. (Would be very hard to do in a category that cares about prestige and safety otherwise)

[RomeoReject]

@Deskyx

Game’s not stopping you though. You can do so if you want. However are you really expecting Singer and Morgan to cater to the same clientele as Porsche and Lotus? The only negative downside to using an older body in game from what I’ve seen is a desirability hit and drag.

It’s not stopping me, but it’s kinda like saying “Pokemon isn’t stopping you from leading the life of a Ghost-type guy”. It technically allows it, but it’s definitely pushing the player away from it. As for your example, no, I don’t think Morgan and Lotus have the same clientele at all, I agree with you 100% there. But Morgan still has a clientele, despite how archaic they look, is my point. The world hasn’t jumped in and said “You’re receiving a massive penalty for using a body style from the '40s”. I like the year system, I like that certain aesthetics are locked off early on (As they should be). I like that certainly technologies and materials don’t become widespread until later. I like that countries’ demands change with the times. What I don’t like is the game saying “OK, this style of body is now punishable to even think of. We haven’t got a suitable replacement for its aesthetics, so if you were wanting to do a similar style, tough luck.”

Make no mistake, I absolutely adore Automation, and even if this is never changed, I won’t stop enjoying it. It just does feel a little confining to have the game give me a finger-wag for trying to do a classic style over modern drivetrain.

[Deskyx]

But you do have a clientele. If you don’t have a consumer base your desirability would be zero. Alot of the car buying public is turned off with very retro designs.

[Jaimz]

Guys, it’s really simple…

1. Learn 3D modelling
2. Make the modern versions of the “classics”
3. Upload to Steam Workshop

The devs can get on with the game instead of upsetting you!

[Sillyworld]

Or just edit the LUA file to unlock it later in game and you can use it without penalty.

[thecarlover]

To add to this, copying the folder from the “camso” folder, pasting it in “gamedata” then renaming it and editing the year in the .lua should have it working correctly as a “new” car.

[jedi5002]

I’m not sure how to organize my thoughts nor how feasible (extra work developing or testing, game balance, etc.) this will be, but here goes.

Say there is a not-911 body that unlocks in 1960 game year. There’s the 3d model, the deformation data, and the body specific lua (passenger / cargo boxes, aero, etc. for coupe, sedan, wagon, etc.), if I’m not mistaken.

(Numbers made up, and by someone less than amateur)
Another section could be added to the body lua which describes scaling modification for specific years e.g.:

In 1990 the car body gets scaled along the x, y, and z to 1.10* its base value (space used by additional safety stuff), the aero gets scaled by 0.95 (larger surface area for same body style), weight would increase, etc.
*It could be adjusted based on axis (e.g. 1.10 along x and y, 1.05 along z)

Maybe the boxes (passenger, cargo, engine, etc.) wouldn’t increase because there’s just more padding around them, not usable room? (Again, less than amateur here.)

In 2010 the scale factor is now 1,20 the base value (20% increase of the base, 9.1% increase of 1990, assuming my math is correct), aero is now 0.90, weight is increased compared to 1990, etc. (Again, made up numbers for illustration purposes; I haven’t a clue how “realistic” or verisimilitude they are).

The year could be saved with the specific model, which would be used to calculate the “too old” modifier. e.g. You make a 1960 not-911 which is deemed “too old” in 1990. You could clone the 1960 model which then updates the model year to 1990 and inherits the updated stats (base * 1.10 visual scale, base * 0,95 aero, etc.). If you cloned it in 2000 it would inherit the 1990 stats. If you cloned it in 2010 it would inherit the 2010 stats (base * 1.20 visual scale, base * 0.90 aero, etc.)

This would effectively be a “clone model” button (similar to “clone trim” currently). You’d still have to engineer the car like it was new, but maybe you gain some familiarity bonus to engineering the body.

Fixture placement should only have to be recalculated; it’s the same body, just scaled differently (similar to how morphing a trim adjusts fixtures now).

Thinking on it more, it also seems rather niche; a decent amount of work that probably won’t get too much use (e.g. compared to clone trim or morphing a body with fixtures intact). Though, perhaps more feasible than several variants (1960, 1970, etc.) of every style (coupe, sedan, etc.) of every body (not-356, not-911, etc.).

This “clone model” feature would favor people who don’t want to redesign the fixtures every time they make a new car; people who are more engineer (stat tweaking), rather than aesthetic designer, or people who want to roleplay a retro car maker.

(Or a personal use case of mine: make a DeLorean replica that sells from 1980 to 2020 and only updates the engineering / tech side of things )

[TrackpadUser]

The thing is that it’s not just a question of scaling.

The bumpers especially are quite different between 1960 and 2010.

Same thing for stuff like the fatness of the various pillars.