the joke is that the pickup version can have seats in the bed, much like suzuki vitaras could.
2 Likes
But what with the panel van?
If it’s 4.1, it’s been changed already in 4.2 with the automatic generation of seat rows. I checked all the bodies last Tuesday and the seat row issues should get fixed if they haven’t been already.
2.55 metre “78 US” body - is there any good reason why strut suspension can’t be used up front? It doesn’t seem to me that it has a particularly low front end that won’t have place for the shock towers?
3 Likes
Maybe they forget to add front McPherson strut support.
Not only 78_US body of all sizes and variants - 82_Gen (all sizes and variants) and 93_JP (all sizes and variants) are also unable to use front McPherson strut as I tested those bodies (I have reported in December 2021, where I proved that front McPherson strut is possible in all of those bodies).
2 Likes
6 Likes
the body was created at a time when there were no morph sliders, i’m german, so i used german names for my bodies up until now. 
it also highlights the corresponding morph, so for now i would classify this as a luxury issue to take care of when everything else is working fine. the new bodies will of course be given the english names 
5 Likes
I understand german too, so not an issue for me either, just a thing I noticed that you may or may not want to fix. 
4 Likes
I don’t understand a word of German, but… It’s not really a huge issue for me, either. Most of my use of the sliders has been to fine-tune an area, or to blindly move the slider and see what happens. Non-English names haven’t changed how I use those sliders.
4 Likes
08_US_Hardtop has a glitch when I slided A-Pillar morph backwards (it occured when Y-Axis of A-Pillar is less than 0.42), where all sizes of 08_US_Hardtop (2.70, 2.90 and 3.00 m wheelbases) are affected, but the soft-top variant (see below for comparison) doesn’t have a glitch.
3 Likes
This body with a MacPherson strut front and torsion beam rear
bottoms out even under maximum ride height at all but the stiffest springs (its much worse ofc with more sane ride height settings)
and has quite a low max load capacity even with maximum ride height and progressive springs (again, quite a bit lower at more sane ride height settings).
It has also too much minimum rear brake force at the lowest settings
but in the age of ABS it’s probably not a big deal.
Safety is also quite a bit lower than comparable tiny wb bodies of the era (this one from 4.1 had 36 safety instead of 28 with basic 90s iirc)
4 Likes
All of the 11_eu bodies have 2 different kinds of mpv body except for the 2.8m M version. Is this a feature or a bug?
Some have windows behind the rear doors and some don’t. I think the real question is why the 2.8m wheelbase set lacks a version without such windows.
Edited reply because I don’t feel like cluttering up the thread: Sorry, I’d assumed that you were wondering if the bodies were redundant.
3 Likes
That was the question.
Relay_85_SUV has an upper D-pillar glitch, where I shortened Rear_Length morph and inclined D_Pillar morph to the max.
Affected variants as I tested are: 3-door, hardtop, soft-top, and panel van of all (2.03, 2.38, 2.62, 2.85, 3.10 and 3.38 m) wheelbases, but interestingly, the 5-door and MPV variants are unaffected.
Additionally, I can see a chassis glitch (Relay_85_SUV has a rear-engine support) when I also shortened Rear_Length morph to the max, where the 2.38 and 2.62 m wheelbases are affected.
2 Likes
Strut towers protrude through body when choosing McP in the rear and there is no morph to fix it either.
4 Likes
'88 2.7m jp XL cpp body resets morphs every time the car is opened.
4 Likes
93_JP2_Convertible_ST (soft-top convertible) has an unadjustable window transparency on all wheelbases.
3 Likes
