The Import folder worked for me - I took all the .zip files and dropped them in there and it loaded them in the game, no problem.
…would anyone object if I gave my top-three engine ratings, or would that be considered manipulating the vote? I can assure you that the PAW Star 5.0L is not among them.
[quote=“Packbat”]
…would anyone object if I gave my top-three engine ratings, or would that be considered manipulating the vote? I can assure you that the PAW Star 5.0L is not among them.[/quote]
I think an objective statistical analysis would be welcomed.
[size=85]Unless my motor isn’t in the top three… 
[/size]
Well, technically, there weren’t any statistics involved, but I guess it’s mostly objective. I started with a modern saloon-car body (0-quality on body panels, chassis, and fixtures, double-wishbone suspension front and rear, big gaping grille and vents for cooling, two lips plus wing, and flared wheel arches for 325-mm tyres) and loaded each engine in turn for testing. One of the first things I noticed was that, at least with the body I used, there was zero cost pressure (with +15 transmission, +15 tyres, +15 aero, +15 driver assists, and +15 suspension, none of the trims worked out to be over $110,000), so basically the procedure for each engine turned out to be:
[ul]]Adjust interior and safety quality to get weight to 1400 kg./:m]
]Adjust engine cooling to set reliability to 50./:m]
]Adjust rear wing angle to maximum drivability (undertray and front wing angle were both 100 for all cars; sportiness continued increasing after drivability peak)./:m]
]Adjust final drive ratio to maximum prestige (i.e. maximum top speed)./:m]
]Adjust spacing to minimum 0-100 kph time, then to maximum drivability with that 0-100 kph time./:m]
]Adjust brake pads to minimum aggressiveness that still produces 0.0 brake fade./:m]
]Select “Race” suspension preset, then increase damper stiffness in front and rear so long as doing so increases both drivability and sportiness./:m][/ul]
It wasn’t perfectly objective - there was definitely room for variation in my procedure in interior quality vs. safety quality to get weight correct - but it was enough to get track times on BitTwiddler’s version of Suzuka (which I chose basically arbitrarily, because I like testing on tracks besides the Automation Test Track and happened to have downloaded that one) that can be compared. 
Using that method, my fastest three vehicles were those powered by Nialloftara’s engine (2:39.47), UMGaming’s engine (2:39.73), and Microwave’s engine (2:39.85). The slowest was powered by Packbat’s (2:40.65). So, yeah - my condolences. 
[quote=“Packbat”]
Using that method, my fastest three vehicles were those powered by Nialloftara’s engine (2:39.47), UMGaming’s engine (2:39.73), and Microwave’s engine (2:39.85). The slowest was powered by Packbat’s (2:40.65). [/quote]
So we’re talking about a 1.18 second gap between the fastest and the slowest engines which were achieved with very minimal variations in tune. Therefore, we’re talking about having the possibility to tune even the “fastest” motor within such strict tolerances that the less fast motors may, in-fact, produce a quicker car based on how the tune performs on a given track.
I don’t think I need condolences. I’m very confident that my motor will be very competitive with its high end construction techniques since there’s no price pressure as you’ve stated. I think my motor benefits from using the best possible components while still being very competitive. 
Edit: added commas
[quote=“Packbat”]
Using that method, my fastest three vehicles were those powered by Nialloftara’s engine (2:39.47), UMGaming’s engine (2:39.73), and Microwave’s engine (2:39.85). The slowest was powered by Packbat’s (2:40.65). So, yeah - my condolences. 
[/quote]
It’s great to hear that all of the engine’s in the same car with that method of tuning would make for some great compiditive racing. (#can’t spell) If the chassis are like this that this will be a very close compitition which was one of my personal goals for this comp. 
My engine made one of the fastest cars? There is a first time for everything!
only 2-3 days left and only 7 people voting.
im gonna give a bit of a boost.
i’ve screenshotted all the engines and their stats. so you guys dont
i can put them here, but it would be long, so i just put them on an album on imgur.
here’s the link
imgur.com/a/2Ms7Z
also up for the strawpoll link
strawpoll.me/5761048
also, short description for the engines (my opinion at least)
**
mine/koolkei**: mediocre performance, with mediocre efficiency, with mediocre weight, but the most reliable engine out of all at 75.6
and is 1 out of only 3 guys whose engines production units are in the 300s
**
packbat**: the only one with SOHC 4v, peak power below 690HP, although peak torque is still comparable to the competition. but also the heaviest engine and are at the edge of the rules, at only 20.05% eff
**
tycondero**: the most efficient engine on the competition at 23.04%, but have the lowest peak torque, mediocre weight. also the second engine with 300s production units and are super durable at 70.1
**
UMGaming**: is the second lightest engine on the field. have a relatively high torque, but have the lowest reliability at 49.9. relatively good at everything else
**
Klinardo**: quiter similiar to UMGaming but have significantly higher torque peak, yet more than 30kgs heavier. also have the best throttle response in the field.
**
Oskiinus** : an engine between UMGaming and Klinardo, higher torque than UMGaming but lower than Klinardo, higher weight than UMG, lower than Kli. but it has the power peak exactly at the redline and the efficiency is just barely passing at 20.01%
**
Nialloftara**: the only engine that is not on the exact 5l limit but at 4951cc. is the lightest engine on the field yet have the highest torque. but the reliability is just on the edge at exactly 50.0
**
Microwave**: is second most efficient engine, with mediocre everything else but the weight. is considered on the lower weight category. therefore, is considered at a good power to weight ratio engine
**
MadamVastra**: is the 3rd engine with 300s production units. have peak power on the redline, considered to have better than average reliability, and efficiency. yet is the engine with lowest performance index on the field
[size=125]
before you choose. consider these:
-the higher performance engine, tends to have lower reliability, yet are also expensive because almost all of them have 1000+ production units
(these are good for going all out strategies)
-the lower production units engine, while having lower performance, surprisingly have a significantly higher reliability. yet are A LOT cheaper. so you can put the money onto the chassis, transmission, brakes, aero, suspension, etc.
(these are good for going steady strategies)[/size]
I appreciate that you did this. I think it’s a good snapshot of what the engines look like. It’s certainly great to see them all in one place with units standardized. I just wish you were a little more even with your opinions. Mine is a sentence long because you simply refer to other motors.
[quote=“koolkei”]
also, short description for the engines (my opinion at least)
…
UMGaming[/quote]
: is the second lightest engine on the field. have a relatively high torque, but have the lowest reliability at 49.9. relatively good at everything else
**
Klinardo**: quiter similiar to UMGaming but have significantly higher torque peak, yet more than 30kgs heavier
**
Oskiinus** : an engine between UMGaming and Klinardo, higher torque than UMGaming but lower than Klinardo, higher weight than UMG, lower than Kli. but it has the power peak exactly at the redline and the efficiency is just barely passing at 20.01%
…
I’d like to (as a point of self interest - totally selling my engine right now) point out that my motor ranks higher in reliability than UMGaming’s (51.7: it is still the 3rd least reliable, but that’s because I used race intakes and am one of the top torque producers) and it has almost 21% (20.88%) efficiency. I also have the third highest performance index with a peak power before the rev limiter, and the highest throttle response. I also think that you’ll find that my engine has the broadest and smoothest torque curves of any engine submitted. I even have one of the lowest required cooling stats for how much power I put out, which means that extra sliver of fuel economy, straight-line speed, or drag that can be spent on aero instead of cooling. (I’m done forcing the laurels of my engine down your throats now.)
I will say that I think Tycondero’s motor is probably the best competitor to me. It makes less torque and 1 less HP, but because of the lower peak, the torque band is broader than most of the competitors. High Torque motors may exacerbate wheelspin in tight corners and Tycondero might not have to deal with it as much. The engine is also rock sold with a reliability rating over 70 which is frankly phenomenal for a racing engine. It’s also much, [size=150]much, [/size][size=200]MUCH[/size] cheaper than mine without hurting the performance index or responsiveness in large quantities while being super efficient. I think this would be the bargain crate motor to my highly tuned race engine.
Also if y’all are looking to abbreviate my name, KL is a good one. My username is KLinardo, not Klinardo. [size=85]If law school has taught me anything so far it’s that capitalization matters.[/size] It incorporates my first initial and my last name so KL will work. Not that anyone would have known that prior, so not ranting or anything…, but for future reference for the humble readers of this topic.
[quote=“koolkei”]only 2-3 days left and only 7 people voting.
im gonna give a bit of a boost.
i’ve screenshotted all the engines and their stats. so you guys dont
i can put them here, but it would be long, so i just put them on an album on imgur.
here’s the link
imgur.com/a/2Ms7Z
also up for the strawpoll link
strawpoll.me/5761048
also, short description for the engines (my opinion at least)
**
mine/koolkei**: mediocre performance, with mediocre efficiency, with mediocre weight, but the most reliable engine out of all at 75.6
and is 1 out of only 3 guys whose engines production units are in the 300s
**
packbat**: the only one with SOHC 4v, peak power below 690HP, although peak torque is still comparable to the competition. but also the heaviest engine and are at the edge of the rules, at only 20.05% eff
**
tycondero**: the most efficient engine on the competition at 23.04%, but have the lowest peak torque, mediocre weight. also the second engine with 300s production units and are super durable at 70.1
**
UMGaming**: is the second lightest engine on the field. have a relatively high torque, but have the lowest reliability at 49.9. relatively good at everything else
**
Klinardo**: quiter similiar to UMGaming but have significantly higher torque peak, yet more than 30kgs heavier
**
Oskiinus** : an engine between UMGaming and Klinardo, higher torque than UMGaming but lower than Klinardo, higher weight than UMG, lower than Kli. but it has the power peak exactly at the redline and the efficiency is just barely passing at 20.01%
**
Nialloftara**: the only engine that is not on the exact 5l limit but at 4951cc. is the lightest engine on the field yet have the highest torque. but the reliability is just on the edge at exactly 50.0
**
Microwave**: is second most efficient engine, with mediocre everything else but the weight. is considered on the lower weight category. therefore, is considered at a good power to weight ratio engine
**
MadamVastra**: is the 3rd engine with 300s production units. have peak power on the redline, considered to have better than average reliability, and efficiency. yet is the engine with lowest performance index on the field
[size=125]
before you choose. consider these:
-the higher performance engine, tends to have lower reliability, yet are also expensive because almost all of them have 1000+ production units
(these are good for going all out strategies)
-the lower production units engine, while having lower performance, surprisingly have a significantly higher reliability. yet are A LOT cheaper. so you can put the money onto the chassis, transmission, brakes, aero, suspension, etc.
(these are good for going steady strategies)[/size][/quote]
Thankyou for doing this,this is defunitly something i’ll have to do for the chassy’s(#can’t spell)
[quote=“UMGaming”]
Thankyou for doing this,this is defunitly something i’ll have to do for the chassy’s(#can’t spell)[/quote]
meh. i had nothing to build yesterday anyway. so why not.
anyway. might putting the vote link and the engine image album on the OP may help with the voting?
also. i think the deadlines are gonna need to be pushed back a bit
[quote=“koolkei”]
also. i think the deadlines are gonna need to be pushed back a bit[/quote]
Why do you say that?
Thanks a lot for your kind words. Let me show the stats of the Astana Supersix Engine so everyone can understand it is a good and relatively cheap engine compared to the competition.
It is relatively economical, reliable and cheap in everything but performance, as it still produces 699hp. Furthermore, less high end-torque means less sudden stress on the wheels. Think of all the extra boosts you can give your car when going for a cheaper and more economical engine.
This is quite a difficult choice to be honest. There are different approaches and they all have significant advantages and drawbacks, as the analysis has pointed out.
There’s currently a 3 way tie for the 2nd engine!
the deadline’s are like that so that i can hopefully get the racecars before the next update, I don’t want what happened to the original to happen to this one
Well, in case of a tie, you know my top three.
Don’t worry, I have a plan in case of a tie
[quote=“UMGaming”]
the deadline’s are like that so that i can hopefully get the racecars before the next update, I don’t want what happened to the original to happen to this one[/quote]
okay then. i take that back…
Engine Voting is closed, Engine Reveal Show will be in about 12hrs from the time I post this.
well… my engine definitely wont be in the show… time for some chassis designing then
ex aequos don’t count I guess? (two engines had the same percentage at 27%, and other two at 18%)
