I am not able to change the morphs on the panel van version of the 1975 254 cm wheelbase “70sPanelvan” (VW T3 lookalike) body. It works perfectly on the passenger van but not on the panel van.
A few issues surrounding the 70sUSCoupe_Small body.
-
Front axle looks to be very slightly too far back.
-
Chassis firewall is too far forward for the mid and rear engine layouts
-
Mid-Engine transverse engine bay size is very limiting. Mid-Engine longitudinal cannot fit any engine. Should at minimum fit a 2000 cc DOHC I4.
-
Not a bug, but expanded variants would be heavily appreciated (non-inset coupe, soft-top convertible, targa).
Edit: Found a new issue with same body. Large amounts of clipping on rear pillars if fixture is placed near edge of trunk (see photo for example.
1 Like
This has been a lingering issue for years now - it’s quite sad that it’s been unfixed for so long, and a car body with this much potential really mustn’t go to waste.
2 Likes
There are new Swinger bodies in the new Patch 16 update, however, those bodies are currently unusable at the moment I selected those bodies in the lime green rectangle.
Selecting those bodies can cause the game to crash as shown below.
This body has asymmetrical UVs in the rear - while I haven’t tested it yet, this may be the case for all wheelbases of this mid-engined body.
Other taillight for comparison:
2 Likes
This variant has only 1L of cargo volume, causing all sorts of issues with the stats etc. All other variants and wheelbases are fine
1 Like
Looks like a material issue, as I can see from the B-pillar that the material you’re using for the roof has no backfaces.
It happens when cloth is used as the material for the roof. If you use leather or normal paint it shows the roof from the inside
1 Like
Posted this on discord as well, reposting here just to make sure this doesn’t get lost:
I)
For the 65_XMB body, the hatchback and coupe bodies are identical, and it says 5 doors for the hatchback (see tooltip) while the actual body just has 3. Guess the 5-door hatchback isn’t wired in?
II)
For both 00sHatch bodies in the screenshot, engines seem to fit better when made larger. 
And currently NO engine fits into the 2.1m wb 00sHatch02Mini (the one with the tooltip).
III)
Is there a reason why the 88_eu_coupes (of all wheelbases, showing the 2.4m as an example) are separate from their corresponding sedans, hatches etc.? This split isn’t that helpful for campaign when you just want a coupe variant and not a separate car project.
If it is because of the rear engine possibility for the coupe, the 50s minicar has this option as well for all except the pickup - so there is a mix between engine positions already somewhere else, and more variants and less separate types are more convenient for campaign play.
The '00 Porsche bodies also have varying engine locations. Also, I think it’s worth pointing out that the front UVs on those 88_eu bodies are broken (as brought up on more than one occasion in the Discord).
Is this an example of the UV issue in the 88_eu carbody? The mirror cutouts appear in the wrong colour (fuel cap / exhaust). They survive mirroring/unmirroring and deleting/recreating the fixtures.
Independent of that, there is also a minor glitch in the bumper wraparound.
Yeah, that sounds about right based on what I’ve seen. If I had to guess, the creator of those bodies was relying on a mirror modifier that wasn’t set up properly to mirror the UVs as well, meaning that any asymmetrical fixtures will create holes on the other half of the body.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the 10Roadster_FB (2.32m wheelbase) body seems to have its engine farther back than it should, unlike its real-life counterpart:
This results in a more rear-biased weight distribution as shown below, which yields a tendency to oversteer unless staggered wheels and tires are fitted.
Why not consider moving the engine bay slightly farther forward to make non-staggered wheels and tires a viable proposition? Especially since I know from experience that using staggered wheels and tires will increase service costs as well as weight.
As a further suggestion, why not make it possible to move the front and rear wheel arch morphs further inward?
https://images.cdn.circlesix.co/image/1/640/0/uploads/articles/2682-55cc7d57dc113.jpg
(ND2 with the 2.0L)
I must admit that, unless it clips through the firewall, I don’t see what the problem is. 
Another one? Ouch.
1 Like
So, you don’t want a weight balance closer to 50/50? Personally I want the engine as far back as possible to make it as close to 50/50 as possible, 52/48 is as far as I’d want to stretch it for a sporty little car like a Miata. I think LCV4.2 has some sort of engine bay slider thingy option coming anyways.
In view of what’s been said, I’m taking back my argument, and am happy to just leave the engine bay placement for that particular body as it is for now - I’m confident that I can work with (and around) it.
Not sure whether this is a body or a fixture issue but this body
has some issues with putting round lamps into the spaces for round lamps:
The issue disappears at some point but only with lamps which are arguably too small for the available space.
Edit: AND the issue disappears when switching back and forth between other bodies of the same model without lamp cutouts.