I might be wrong here, but I believe that stripe might be under the Trim paints, not the Body paints. It’s that way on one of the larger ones I use from time to time.
2 Likes
Maybe, but all colour slots that I am able to change already show the car colour. There are a few others greyed out (e.g. tray, wing mirror) that still show the default red.
3 Likes
The engine bay of the body above (MWB) is much smaller than the engine bay of its SWB counterpart. The SWB has no issue fitting a 5L V8 (~60% engine bay fill and all drivetrains except FWD allowed) whereas the MWB with the same engine has a ~90% engine bay fill and 4x4 won’t even fit.
2 Likes
SWB Starion body, don’t know if LWB has same problem. The fender morph springs back to default as soon as you have pulled them out. Though the maximum tyre width does not…
3 Likes
There are strange little mirrors in the 1980 Hatchback Tall_Preview and VanTall_Preview cars. (Fixtures are not installed.) Also, the interior of CityCar_5Dr_Preview is strange. Reproduction of these states can be confirmed by setting the transparency of the window glass to 100.
4 Likes
What about a longitudinal placement for the same engine using that body (to allow for the option of 4x4?) Is that possible or not?
1 Like
Longitudinal does work, but there is no way to fit a transverse engine in the body, which is surely a bug.
3 Likes
4.2 - Not sure if an issue, but is it intentional for all variants of the 11_eu_super (06 coupe) to only have mid or rear engine options and no front engine option available?
It just seems odd. Mid bay is very small too, only allowing inline transverse or F4 in longitudinal configs. With more morphing to shift the cabin backwards a bit it could pass as a euro GT - or with a larger mid bay as a euro super.
1 Like
60s_Muntu_A_Cabrio has some of the trim slots being underbody material making it literally not possible to cut out
edit:
it turns out, this is the case for a lot of other bodies as well including:
this entire family
this entire family
this entire family
this entire family (and its different wheelbases, most likely)
this entire family (and the other wheelbase version of it)
5 Likes
I have encountered “The engine bay is quite full, resulting in elevated service costs” warning when I installed a 99-mm bore, straight-6 DOHC engine in JD_60sCoupe_01_260 (above), while that engine fits without a problem in 60sCoupe01Large and in JD_60sCoupe_01_280 (below).
Edit: The JD_60sCoupe_01_230 also have the same engine bay warning when I installed a 99-mm bore, straight-4 DOHC engine in JD_60sCoupe_01_230, while it fits without a problem in 60sCoupe01Small.
So the JD_60sCoupe should have longer engine bay similar to original 60sCoupe01 in 230, 260 and 280 variants because it has a long bonnet/hood.
The 1966 Coupe (both 60s_Muntu_A_Coupe and 60s_Muntu_A_Hatch) aren’t soft-top convertibles, they are just a regular coupe with a roof paint slot.
1 Like
Additionally, some of the car bodies below can fit a front MacPherson strut, although that option is missing from those cars at the moment I report: all sizes and variants of 78_US, 82_Gen and 93_JP.
Edit: I found a bug, which is 78_US_softtop and its sizes lacked roof paint slot (shown in default red paint material, and it is supposed to have it as the name suggests).
Edit 2: Added 78_US with bonnet/hood hid.
2 Likes
I can’t add anything 2D on the roof of the Charites_00_Saloon_4DR_MWB body. Not sure if anything else was affected.
3 Likes
Nevermind, something glitched, and after choosing the variant once more, max allowed size changed
Hi Guys, I’ve had a bug with the swb 10s coupe, its on all versions and shows up something like this:
Just checked and the larger ones are doing it too:
Hope this helps, keep up the good work guys.
3 Likes
A few observations from the current beta:
I) Short wheelbase sedans limited to 2+2
So I noticed some of the very short wheelbase cars got limited to 2+2, e.g.:
I think it’s a neat idea for market competitiveness to simulate a cramped rear seat space, however:
Why can’t I install a cramped bench in the 2nd row (so 2+3)? For Family market competitiveness there will be still a penalty compared to a proper rear seat bench, but it would avoid the seat count penalty. E.g,. in the original Mini, five people could theoretically fit, it wasn’t a four seater. (A +3 bench option would also avoid the cheese to fit a front bench just to avoid the seat count penalty).
The +2 also has the disadvantage of making life harder for forum challenges requiring ‘at least four full seats’, but that’s a matter of the challenge host to adjust the now-common ruleset to allow (or exclude) the city cars.
II) Tiny rear engine bays
I suspect the ‘unusable tiny rear engine bay’ issue in the 50s_Minicar and 60s_Minicar bodies is still on the list, but less urgent?
III) Missing 90s small car bodies
Also, will the 90s city car bodies (see my post above) return at some point? They seem to be absent from the current list of bodies, and there is currently no city car option between 1980 and 2000
IV) Merging 88_EU coupes into the regular body family?
Currently, the coupe variants of the 88_EU body are separate:
With variants of the same body going to become relevant for market share estimations / calculations - would it make sense to merge the coupe variants into the main families?
6 Likes
Given the lack of rear overhang on the Minis, I believe the rear engine option should be replaced with a mid engine option (that is, one that’s effectively only able to fit transverse engines), especially considering Automation’s lack of a transverse rear engine option.
7 Likes
Yes! We need more space in the R (and as @The_Stig_Is_A_Spy mentioned, M) positions for old minicar bodies!!