No, that wouldn’t work, then everything would have to be unlocked in sandbox at all times. Then people would complain how unrealistic things are. 
Adding tech pool is the way to go.
[quote=“Killrob”]No, that wouldn’t work, then everything would have to be unlocked in sandbox at all times. Then people would complain how unrealistic things are.
Adding tech pool is the way to go.[/quote]
But again, 4WD is very old, and off-road cars had it way before the Jensen FF, which itself was 11 years before the Quatto, it’s not like having carbon fibre in the 1940’s, yes 4WD became widespead in the 80’s but it was already perfectly viable way before that. As it is if you want a Group B rally car in the early 80’s it will get stomped over by the Quattro.
Also, I have no idea on how to add tech pool.
EDIT: I also noticed something: now whenever you change something on the engine, or even revise one, the name always resets itself, which is annoying if you use custom names. Also, clicking on “revise engine” and then exiting puts you back in the main menu, when double-cliking on an engine, the tabs doesn’t appear in the builder, but exiting it puts you back in the engine list, but in the engine builder.
[quote=“RAHayesJ”]Man Hours made so much more sense, it made you think “This will take very long to make…” Prod. Units makes no sense to me. At all. I’d recommend changing that back or maybe trying “Production Time” or something maybe?
Still playing. Will give more feedback!
Definitely prefer the old UI as well, this is too… busy? Too much space being taken? by crazy huge back buttons and the gigantic bar at the bottom indicating “stages” you’re at? Was easier to go back and tweak what you wanted with the top-down list from before. And being restricted by year for body styles? Ouch. I liked making the old style look modern.
The noise adjusting the body parts hurts quite a bit as well, it sounds rough. Especially when you’re going back and forth making changes quickly. Don’t want to sound like a whiner but having “less” seemed to be better. Disabling the animations would help but it’s hard, very hard to adjust to the animations in the menu and feel slightly nauseous watching it after switching back and forth between the dyno and the other parts. And trying not to click on the wrong “department” entirely.
Please don’t kill me. <3
How can we save a platform without being forced to put in an engine?[/quote]
I disagree with everything here. Please don’t change it. (Maybe allow a “classic UI” for people like this, idk.
[quote=“autofrank”]
[quote=“RAHayesJ”]Man Hours made so much more sense, it made you think “This will take very long to make…” Prod. Units makes no sense to me. At all. I’d recommend changing that back or maybe trying “Production Time” or something maybe?
Still playing. Will give more feedback!
Definitely prefer the old UI as well, this is too… busy? Too much space being taken? by crazy huge back buttons and the gigantic bar at the bottom indicating “stages” you’re at? Was easier to go back and tweak what you wanted with the top-down list from before. And being restricted by year for body styles? Ouch. I liked making the old style look modern.
The noise adjusting the body parts hurts quite a bit as well, it sounds rough. Especially when you’re going back and forth making changes quickly. Don’t want to sound like a whiner but having “less” seemed to be better. Disabling the animations would help but it’s hard, very hard to adjust to the animations in the menu and feel slightly nauseous watching it after switching back and forth between the dyno and the other parts. And trying not to click on the wrong “department” entirely.
Please don’t kill me. <3
How can we save a platform without being forced to put in an engine?[/quote]
I disagree with everything here. Please don’t change it. (Maybe allow a “classic UI” for people like this, idk.[/quote]
Please read the entire discussion for clarification on these points.
I still, even with this update, can’t use the game on my new laptop. I install the launcher, it says a launcher update is available - it installs that, then it downloads the latest version of the game. It installs that. Then it still claims the games version is 0, so I install the update again…restart the launcher, says the version is 0. So I copied all of the files from my desktop over. Still says the version is 0, no matter what.
Awesome update.
Why didnt it get it through the launcher though?
That’s usually because of something strange happening to the install location, for example if you copy pasted the game files to a different folder it’d do that.
Where are you installing things to?
[quote=“falconnut”]Awesome update.
Why didnt it get it through the launcher though?[/quote]
Because it’s an opt-in Beta for now, until we’ve got it bug free enough to automatically roll it out.
[quote=“Daffyflyer”]
That’s usually because of something strange happening to the install location, for example if you copy pasted the game files to a different folder it’d do that.
Where are you installing things to?[/quote]
Default installer location, I never change it for anything. When I copied and pasted from my desktop to my laptop, I did so to the existing install location.
I’ve got a bit of experience of game programming and such myself, and understand how sometimes that affects stuff weird as you said - but everything is where it should be it looks like.
[quote=“Discovolante”]
s. Then people would complain how unrealistic things are. 
Adding tech pool is the way to go.
But again, 4WD is very old, and off-road cars had it way before the Jensen FF, which itself was 11 years before the Quatto, it’s not like having carbon fibre in the 1940’s, yes 4WD became widespead in the 80’s but it was already perfectly viable way before that. As it is if you want a Group B rally car in the early 80’s it will get stomped over by the Quattro.
Also, I have no idea on how to add tech pool.
EDIT: I also noticed something: now whenever you change something on the engine, or even revise one, the name always resets itself, which is annoying if you use custom names. Also, clicking on “revise engine” and then exiting puts you back in the main menu, when double-cliking on an engine, the tabs doesn’t appear in the builder, but exiting it puts you back in the engine list, but in the engine builder.[/quote]
We are splitting a difference between AWD and 4WD. Most/all 4WD systems before the quattro did not have a centre diff. They just either locked the transfer case into 4WD (4H, 4L), or ran in 2WD. That setup was common on Land rovers, Jeeps, etc. And as it lacked a centre diff, it should not be used on the road.
This motortrend articles describes it pretty well motortrend.com/features/consumer/1105_4wd_vs_awd/viewall.html
[quote=“Z31NA2T”]
That’s usually because of something strange happening to the install location, for example if you copy pasted the game files to a different folder it’d do that.
Where are you installing things to?
Default installer location, I never change it for anything. When I copied and pasted from my desktop to my laptop, I did so to the existing install location.
I’ve got a bit of experience of game programming and such myself, and understand how sometimes that affects stuff weird as you said - but everything is where it should be it looks like.[/quote]
Can I get you to check the following registry key?
Start → regedit
If you are on 64 bit
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Automation
or
if you are on 32 bit
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Automation
Seems like there may be a little balancing issue on the tutorial mission, its looking for 0.015 lb/(hph) economy. Seems unobtainable unless i’m just not “getting” it.
** not that its not obtainable, its just listing the lb/(hph) when in reality it seems to be looking for mpg.?
While I do not know how much the game means, it must not mean that amount, as I have completed some scenarios with “0.015 lb/(hph)” and “0.007 lb/(hph)”.
[quote=“ConeDodger”]Seems like there may be a little balancing issue on the tutorial mission, its looking for 0.015 lb/(hph) economy. Seems unobtainable unless i’m just not “getting” it.
** not that its not obtainable, its just listing the lb/(hph) when in reality it seems to be looking for mpg.?[/quote]
Currently, many of the errors you will find will be the game still using metric units, or trying to. For instance, the yaw rate graph that was wacky in your video was so because you were using mph instead of kph, and in the closed beta we all test with metric units.
Yeah, we probably need to specifically make sure some people are testing using different units…
[quote=“zeussy”]
We are splitting a difference between AWD and 4WD. Most/all 4WD systems before the quattro did not have a centre diff. They just either locked the transfer case into 4WD (4H, 4L), or ran in 2WD. That setup was common on Land rovers, Jeeps, etc. And as it lacked a centre diff, it should not be used on the road.
This motortrend articles describes it pretty well motortrend.com/features/consumer/1105_4wd_vs_awd/viewall.html[/quote]
I see, but in that case why not have 4WD in 1980, as it’s the year the Quattro was lauched ? the restrictions are too limitative, it’s like no 4-speed gearbox in 1948, why ? the 2CV had a 4-speed gearbox back then. It just limits designs that really existed.
As implied by the discussion before: that would mean that Audi drivetrain tech is zero, which I find highly unlikely. Around +5 tech pool is a reasonably estimate and may even be low.
Does that mean that tech pool is going to be adjustable in sanbox in one of the upcoming updates ?
Found a odd thing out today, the max turbo size is bound to the cylinder size, not the engine size. Thus the same turbo is used on the 4 cyl engine as on the 6 cyl engine, even if the i6 is 50% larger.
And when i maxed out the turbo size on a 1649cc i6 on 100 octane, (99.8 octane), switching to a i4(1099cc) layout without changing anything else, made the engine run on 88.6 octane. The exhaust diameter was 4" on both, does it do THAT much?
That depends on how much boost you get up to effectively, so yeah, it potentially can do that much.