|
I think it's high time we had ourselves a thread for Automation - The Car Company Tycoon Game; I mean, it's only been four years since the game first appeared in public!  Automation Website posted:Automation is a car company tycoon game in which you design and build cars from scratch. It is you who designs everything from the very core that is the engine, over the chassis, to the suspension and the car's looks. Several games have tried this before... but were able to merely scratch the surface. Go ahead, build your dream-car company, or simply aim to dominate the world markets with your superior design skills! Well, there's this vidya game being made by Camshaft Software called Automation (Get it here on Steam) or at AutomationGame.com that is basically a car company tycoon game, except this one is made by a team of serious car guys/gals, just like you and I! Unlike most tycoon-style games that kind of gloss over nitty-gritty details about the products you make, Automation has a very in-depth engine and car designer; in fact, it's kind of the defining feature of the game, and will be going forwards as well. Additionally, a small but very creative community has generated all kinds of mods and additional content for Automation, from new trim pieces, custom test tracks modelled on race tracks the world over, to all new bodies and other goodies - much of which is found on the Steam Workshop. With that in mind, the possibilities for your creations are almost endless. Want to build your empire on SUVs? Yep, you can do that:  Base your company on vehicles that drive the economy:  Build cars for the everyman...  ...or build them for the elite!  Build a classic muscle car? Sure!  Or how about a little sports car?  Old racing cars...  Or modern ones!  Cars with little engines...  ...or big ones!   Well, I'm not going to argue with that. The game is very complicated, and has had a long gestation, but with the current build in testing right now, LCV4.2, more and more of the game is complete, and a lot of the structure upon which the campaigns will be built will be finished. LCV4.3 will see the Car and Engine Designers functionally complete, and LCV5.0 will be a very campaign-intense update, which will start Automation into the home stretch to full release.  Well first off let me say good on you for buying this! Yes, the car designer is pretty complicated - ok, VERY complicated. Put simply, the best way to learn about the car designer is to actually mess around with it...see what you can come up with! Maybe try some of the scenarios that come with the game too - they're all pretty informative and endlessly challenging too. If you are still thoroughly confused, I have written a guide discussing how to build a successful racing car for an Automation design challenge I ran recently. In fact, that brings us to my next topic...  You can build cars of course! Until more of the tycoon aspect comes out, there is admittedly not a whole lot we can do...so I've taken it upon myself (along with many other members of the Automation community) to run design challenges, ranging from rudimentary business simulations where cars compete against one another for sales, comparison tests similar to what you see in car magazines, all the way to full-blown simulated endurance racing series. I run the big racing challenges every four to six months; you will find more information in the third post on what the current challenge is all about, and there will be links to the two other challenges I've run so far. Additionally, I am concocting some non-racing type challenges, so keep your eyes peeled for them as well! MrChips fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Apr 27, 2022 |
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
 There is an official Discord channel for Automation, the invite link is https://discord.gg/automationgame Also, follow us on Twitter at https://twitter.com/AutomationGame, and on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/automationgame/! CURRENT DEV UPDATE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73LXYsXTc9s More to come soon! MrChips fucked around with this message at 03:00 on May 23, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
 There are no challenges live on SA at this time; go check out The Automation Forums Community Challenges and Competitions Section in the meantime. MrChips fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Apr 27, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Riso posted:We actually had a thread already http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3733316 but maybe this one will fare better Oh jeez, I had no idea about that thread! Yeah...let's hope it will be a bit more successful. As for your certain sports car, there is a good chance it will fit into one of the planned classes...the rules aren't very well defined just yet, so for now I will say, yes...yes it will! Also, if you have anything you're willing to contribute in terms of content for the thread, I'd love to see it!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Riso posted:next BRC 1966 race For those that don't know, BRC is the largest and highest-profile design challenge on the Automation forums...typically there are over 60 participants in these contests. It's a series of short-ish races (typically an hour and a half), streamed live via YouTube from the tournament master's simulation program, called BROBOT. It's a neat thing to watch, and I think I will throw my hat in the ring for the next round when it comes around...you all should too! E: Here's the link to the Automation forums thread http://www.automationgame.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=8998 MrChips fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Mar 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
BRC Round 4 is streaming live shortly! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5959UKp-xc
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
New dev update - talking mostly about the upcoming open beta, which should be live in a day or two tops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E6FoLi_ILI
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
I've taken a little time to look into the open beta to see what's up, and there are a number of interesting changes, but it's going to make some things a lot harder to administer from a tournament organiser's point of view. Not impossible, mind you, plus it opens up a few interesting new overall limitations - an actual homologation rule, where the rules specify you must build X number of cars per year, for example, is now much more of a possibility. I haven't yet checked the new save format, though...that could be a sticking point going forward. Riso posted:Some things I've learned about turbos recently: I would go even further and say that unless you absolutely need a turbocharger to make the power you desire, the driveability penalty associated with a turbocharged engine can offset most, if not all, of the gains you have made from the additional horsepower. Additionally, turbocharged engines (at least in their current state) produce less horsepower per weight than a naturally aspirated engine of similar output, as any decent turbocharged engine needs to be intercooled (which adds weight), and to work most efficiently they need large-diameter exhausts as well, which also add a huge amount of weight. Some other things I have found about turbocharging as well: -Boost levels beyond 1 bar are not worth chasing in any situation other than a "build the best dyno queen" challenge. That much boost requires a very large turbocharger to achieve, which not only produces massive amounts of lag and adds weight (both of which reduce driveability, which is the dominant characteristic driving good lap times), but also comes with a serious reliability and fuel consumption penalty. -As I mentioned in my tuning guide, high AR ratios produce more power, but do so at the expense of turbo lag (which reduces driveability) and specific fuel consumption. Ratios greater than 1.0-1.2 almost always have more drawbacks than benefits. -Water-to-air intercoolers are not always the best choice, as they are relatively expensive and heavy. Also, if you keep your boost levels reasonable, they can be made completely unnecessary too. I also cannot emphasise your point enough; the most expensive option, not just in terms of suspension type but also many other components as well, often isn't the best possible choice. A prime example of that (for now) is differentials; not only do their costs go up acom hilarious rate from type to type, they are heavier and often end up being slower than a simpler type. This not only applies to the type of springs and dampers you use, but also to the suspension type you select when building your car. Double wishbone suspension at all four corners, despite being the fastest option typically, might not be the fastest option when cost or weight is factored into the equation. MrChips fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Mar 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Riso posted:Brobot powered endurance race. Oh nice; if I can find the time (and there is no guarantee I can right now), I think I might put together an entry for this! Looking at the rules, I should be able to adapt my SA-GT 1975 car to meet them - all it needs is a new engine and a few tweaks I suspect. That said, a cursory glance at the rules makes me think that big, heavy cars will be the winners here; I mean, a 700 kilogram entry gets an NA engine of roughly 1200cc, which in 1976 should be good for about 130 horsepower, while a 1400 kilo car gets something like 7300cc, which should be good for at least 650 and more like 700 horsepower. Considering it is running on old Hockenheim, with relatively few, gentle corners, horsepower (and thus top speed) will be king here. Also, turbo cars are still heavily penalised; they will get something like 15-20 percent worse fuel consumption for equivalent engines, to say nothing of their driveability penalty. I mean, I used to think I was the king of clunky, obtuse Automation challenge rules, but I think this might take the cake! 
MrChips fucked around with this message at 11:50 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
Well I'm in the BRC test now, with the CMW Rennsport M5100R. Let's hope
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
On further investigation, it seems as though there is a sweet spot for engine power in this competition, beyond which any added power (for a given specific fuel consumption) slows the car down when you factor in the time it takes to refuel. Of course, that sweet spot depends on the body you chose (both in terms of aerodynamics and fuel tank size) and the specific fuel consumption of your engine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
The results are in from the BRC 1976 test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4YgdYpnxFk Seems I have a tire wear problem - not surprising considering how I dialed in the maximum camber front and rear... Still, 27th isn't exactly awful for my first ever run in a BRC event. I'm reasonably confident I can find some more speed and efficiency without too much trouble too, if I can find some time in the next week.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Riso posted:The times some cars do are ridiculous. I don't know how they get there. Something tells me that at least a few of those cars setting the top times are doing so at the expense of, well, everything else...notice that some of them didn't even finish the full 20 laps because they were out of fuel. That said, there are a lot of very fast cars out there that seem to be the full package. Hopefully I can find some more speed to try and keep up! Also, I am pretty sure nobody is actually making 500 turbocharged horsepower out of a 1.6L engine in 1976...it's just not possible; i mean, it's barely possible when the game year is set to 2016, and even then only if you're willing to have terrible fuel consumption and reliability. Is that 930-esque body actually allowed in the challenge? See, that sort of thing is why I am very much against allowing third-party mods into these events. MrChips fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:Does the tire formula mean all tire qualities need to be 0? Yes. The tire quality slider needs to be at zero; anything else is fair game within the rules.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Riso posted:Edit: and they're gone again because there's a problem with the cooling figures that affect reliability of the engine. Ask me how I found that out Cooling provided vs. cooling needed was something I had to enter in manually - there is no neat solution with the .luas to determine it automatically.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
BRC 1976 trump cards are up now, if anyone wants to have a look. https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4x5S3wQzQFlV0tEY0p6WWk4WW8&usp=sharing Also Automation has migrated their forums to Discourse, which is super annoying to read. Anyways, here's the new link for that (also updated in the OP): http://discourse.automationgame.com/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
New dev update: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voEjNtpsmUI Talking about the status of the current open beta (we are about a week away from the next version of the beta, and likely another week from the next release), some discussion of a few new features in-game (scenarios work again!) and the new forums. Riso posted:Practice for the 1000km Hockenheim race. Interesting; my FR car finished in 32nd and the rear-engine car finished 59th (for those that didn't see, Riso finished P26 and P33). I think I'm going to drop the the rear-engine car, as like you I've found it's just not capable of going fast enough with these rules. Even with the revised version I've made, which should be a second a lap faster, it isn't enough. As for the prime entry, the added horsepower didn't add much in terms of lap times, but sure added a hell of a lot of wheelspin, so I'm going to have to get that under control - not an easy task with an FR car under these rules.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Riso posted:You can't change cars now, only pit strategy. You might want to add another stop or two. Your top car lost like 18 seconds at the end because of bad tyres. Which is another thing I don't get - my tires were far from the worst, but the differential between my best lap and my last lap was almost 18 seconds...yet other cars, with worse tires, were in the 5-7 second range. What gives?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Riso posted:Based on camber I think: -3 camber cars lose a lot more time than -1.5. It's also influenced by driver errors IIRC. I might add another stop myself to have fresher tyres. I backed off the camber on the prime and the secondary has less still; neither is above -1.5 for any axle. The prime's tire problem might be caused by massive wheelspin, and the fact it seems to work it's tires harder than most cars. Also, I came up with what appears to be the most efficient pit strategy for both cars. Frankly, the result of my calculations was pretty damned shocking; let me put it this way...if you have chased efficiency at all cost, you've already lost the race. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
I've gone through your calculations and there are a few issues in them; mostly with some of the assumptions made in some of the calculations. After looking at my cars and a couple other entries , I found that there isn't a significant lap time degradation until the tires wear beyond 20-25%, at which point the lap time degradation becomes very severe...as in the case for my prime car, over a second per lap past that point. Collecting each lap time as it came across the ticker, I used that information to plot the total amount of time to complete the 148 laps based on how many laps per stint the car completed, for my car as well as a few others, just as a sanity check. The resulting curve of time vs. pit interval looks sort of like this (it varys considerably for each car; this is for my alternate entry); On on the short interval side, you are wasting more and more time in the pits as you move to the left. As you move to the right, tire degradation begins to slow your car down overall. Anyways, from this plot you choose the minimum value, figure out approximately how long it takes the car to complete that many laps, then feed it to BRCTool.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Riso posted:I only wanted to see how it will possibly shake out. Unlike MrChips car, mine's not bad enough on tyres to have to find a strategy besides drive to max fuel range. Well in fairness, my car is naturally at a huge disadvantage to yours, what with being front-engine, rear-wheel drive and having almost 650 horsepower to put through these lovely, made-in-East Germany tires that somehow ended up being narrower than I intended. The car absolutely roasts its tires, and I am more than a little worried about the possibility of rain...Still, I am optimistic that I might have a bit of a leg up with my tire wear and stint length calculations. Either that or I got something horribly wrong and it's gonna blow up in my face. Regardless, it should be good for a laugh! extreme_accordion posted:Next time I'll have to submit an entry and share specs with you guys in order to work the system a bit better to find an optimum for the given event. It's too bad you didn't make an entry for this! Even if it turned out to be dog-slow, it's a good learning experience...I know I've learned a lot, both about car setup and some interesting ideas I have for my upcoming challenges.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Qualifying! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h5JDLV3SBE It's a disaster!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
And in the next version, likely due out in July, we will have inline-3 engines, more fleshed out factories and finally, the first tastes of a campaign mode! After that, the game gets ported over to the Unreal Engine, which should make things a lot easier for everybody involved than fighting with the Kee Engine as they are now. And since I have seemingly neglected it, an update on the upcoming SASC-89 challenge; I have come up with a functional dynamic weather simulation, which simulates not only precipitation, but also temperature as well, along with the effect that precipitation and cloud cover has on it. The tire wear and grip model has been rewritten to take this into account; for example, soft tires suffer high wear in high temperatures, and if you leave your car out on wet tires in the dry they will also suffer extreme wear too - a full wet in the dry will last something like 20% of a dry tire's life. I have tweaked the fuel economy model slightly; after further experimentation with the old model, some cars were slightly too high while others were slightly too low. As for the rules, I have determined that trying to do a proper homologation, where you are told how many cars of that type must be built in a year, is just too much of a mess, so we will be sticking with cost limitations for the time being. Also, there will be relatively few engine restrictions in this challenge; basically, the only restriction will be a fuel burn limit - each class will have a maximum fuel burn per hour that must not be exceeded. Don't worry, a calculator will be provided so that you can easily figure out where you stand. There are a lot of other things I need to do before I am ready to put all of this stuff together in the new model, but I assure you, progress is being made!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
OK, the work on the new simulation model for this and other challenges continues apace, so let's have a bit of a discussion about a new feature; the driver simulation and some of the things that go with it. Bear in mind that at the moment this is only a preliminary take on how this will work, and could change dramatically between now and the beginning of the challenge. Basically each car will have a team of three unique drivers, each of whom will have unique traits, skills and weaknesses. Things like, how fast are they in wet or dry conditions, are they hard or easy on their car or their tires, do they drive efficiently or wastefully. Some of these traits, like wet and dry speed, will be on a scale of 0 to 10, with 5 being no effect. Other traits (or weaknesses) will be a simple bonus/malus to some aspect; for example, a driver tagged as "Aggressive" will be more likely to be involved in an accident than a driver who isn't. And weaknesses will be unavoidable; even the highest-rated drivers will have something to give you something to think about. On the subject of driver ratings, this affects how much money it cost to hire them and run them for the season...high-rise drivers will be the most expensive obviously, while low-tier drivers will be cheaper; in fact, more often than not, they will be pay drivers, in that they actually bring money to the team in the form of sponsorship rather than cost you money. Before the season begins, I am thinking what we will do is hold a draft of sorts, where each entrant gets to choose their driver lineups from the pool of available drivers. Before you fret about the number one entrant picking the six best drivers and that's it, first of all it would be prohibitively expensive to do, and second of all, the drivers will be streamed into tiers, from which you will be allowed to choose only a limited number of drivers from each. For example, with a three-tier system, each entrant can choose a maximum of one top-tier driver, two middle-tier drivers and unlimited bottom-tier drivers. This also beings me to the next subject; the economic simulation that will be baked into the SASC-89 Challenge. For now, the details are up in the air as to how this will work, but the basic idea is that each team will have a fixed budget to develop and build their cars, with add-ons for each additional class entered; the add-ons will not be the full basic amount either, so commonality between classes, in as much as possible, might be a good idea! Additionally, there will be sponsors (chosen by draft as well, similar to how the driver draft will work), TV money and merchandise sales that go up with success and down with poor results for revenue. On the cost side, transportation cost will be factored in (so each team will have to declare the city and country where they are based, so it might not be a good idea to be based in North Korea or on Pitcairn Island). Additionally, accidents and failures will incur more costs, as will design revisions. If any of you have ideas that you would like to see, by all means suggest away! Nothing is set in stone just yet, and these are just the ideas that I have come up with.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Riso posted:Sounds like you would make Edward Grabowski proud MrChips. I am leaning towards the lua values personally because it's easier and I'm lazy, but I haven't made a decision just yet which will be used to interface with the weather simulation. I will say this much though; cars with higher driveability/tameness will have a lower spread between dry and wet laps, at the very least. Also, there will be a production unit limitation on both engine and chassis; I'm not a fan of it because it isn't all that well balanced at the moment, but it's still the best we have nonetheless. The money limitation in this rule set will be the final production value too, after factories are taken into account and whatnot. I haven't found a clean way of doing that just yet though either.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:Seems cool enough but we are then raising the bar on entry without some good explanation to those new to it. As an example: The BROBOT stuff seems pretty impressive with the pit ins, visual simulation, lap count, etc. What threw me off is no easy way to calculate fuel consumption in order to determine your pit strategy. After reading several linked posts I still couldn't make heads or tails of how to calculate fuel consumption within the confines of the BROBOT sim so I just did not submit my entry. Looking back on it I would have had a low top tier to middling entry but without being able to determine pit and fuel who knows. Supporting sheets or tools would go a long way to help determine what a team would need as a driver and pit strategy (assuming you are adding this to your sim) given the added variable of: driver. Don't worry, there will be as many supporting tools for this challenge as I can possibly make. There will be a calculator that will tell you whether your engine is over or under the fuel burn limitiation, as well as graphs (or possibly even calculators as well) that will show you the effect of temperature, moisture and driveability on your car's lap times, and the effect that reliability will have on your ability to finish the race. As for the timeline, I will actually be releasing one part of the rules very, very soon - the prototype challenge car is basically ready to go, I'm just writing up the "Customer Guide" for it!
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
New dev update! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4HI0usE_I8 Talking about campaign mode and inline-3 engines. Also, they are putting in a huge number of new bodies as well for the next update.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Riso posted:The crazy bastards actually did it. Well, that was bittersweet for me; my prime car failed after only 16 laps with a fuel system failure, and my secondary entry, which ran as high as P16 for quite a while, had an exhaust failure on Lap 48.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Riso posted:The displayed errors are just randomised fluff. You had rather low engine reliability so I wasn't surprised. The one car was low, but not outrageously so - the average across the field is something like 30 reliability or so - and the second car was slightly over average at 33. They should have a ~75% and ~90% chance of finishing this race respectively based on the data that Der Bayer posted early in the design phase.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
A new dev update (of sorts) which gives us our very first look at the forthconing Unreal Engine build: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJTn1MD-sIk If you ask me, even in the mostly non-functional state of the new build, it's looking like it will be a serious improvement over what we have now.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:Looks promising even at this stage of it. Any challenges happening on the board worth being interested in? Not at the moment...BRC 1976 proper will probably be starting sometime in the not-too-distant future. Also, my SASC-89 challengr should drop sometime in July...and before that, there will be a mini-challenge to design the second chassis to be used in the prototype challenge class.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
So, let's talk about engines for a moment, specifically how the rules in SASC-89 will work. Apart from a production unit limitation (which seems to be the best way at the moment of controlling the cost and size of engines by itself), the dominating limitation will be a maximum permitted fuel burn; in other words, each class will only allow entrants to burn a certain amount of fuel per hour. The reason why I have chosen this is two-fold; first, there have been numerous racing series that have had similar rules over the years, especially post-1980, and second, it helps avoid what I see as being a fundamental flaw with a lot of Automation challenges (including both of my previous efforts, as well as BRC 1976); that being, building an engine with little to no regard for efficiency and calling it a day. With a fuel burn limitation, it forces entrants to make their engines as efficient as possible, because without maximum efficiency, you will not be able to make maximum horsepower. This graph illustrates the relationship between the preliminary class restrictions for SASC-89, specific fuel consumption and maximum permitted horsepower:  Of course this is meaningless without the production unit limitations, but I have found that it is going to be very difficult to come under 350 grams per kilowatt-hour using 1989 fuels and technologies. I should also mention that in my experimentation for the engine formulae, turbocharged engines seem to get a production unit advantage over their naturally aspirated counterparts...almost enough, in fact, to overcome their fuel consumption and driveability penalties. The second thing I will talk about is how reliability will work for this challenge. It is going to be a fair bit simpler than before, but much more punishing than before. It will also use a similar system as before to determine what malfunctioned and how lengthy the repairs will be, if they are even possible at all. This graph will give you an idea how long an engine will last given a certain level of reliability (and assuming it is running on a worst-case scenario track for full-throttle time, like Le Mans, Monza or old Hockenheim, which we will be visiting):  More to come later!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:Which one is purple, which one is blue? I can sort of tell but they switch colors on me. (I can actually tell but have a heck of a time with it). ROYGBIV me please The colours mean different things in each graph - kind of an oversight, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Riso posted:I hope your fuel limit stuff means you'll give out a reference number for minimum engine fuel efficiency (% or g/kwh) because I don't want to have to go back and forth with a spreadsheet and calculator. Oh, don't worry about that, the Sheets tool I have built will tell you how much fuel you will burn per hour (and if it is legal for a given class or not) in addition to telling you both the maximum power you can make for your specific fuel consumption as well as what the maximum permitted fuel consumption is for a given power level. I've even got it set up to do all the conversions between SI and Imperial units too, for our American friends. And yeah, I had a chuckle when I saw that Der Bayer and I seemed to have reached a similar conclusion at about the same time for reliability calculations. Except I decided, "let's make a graph for the worst case scenario and go from there". I think if you took out my 75% full throttle assumption for the graph you'd find our numbers are very close. Duuk posted:Oh, I like that idea. Maybe not three minutes, but it's a solid rule vs pure guzzlers. And also cars that are very hard on their tires too...hmmm... MrChips fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Riso posted:So, where is that elusive mini challenge? It will come before the main challenge; things have been a little slow in that regard, as I have had real life intervene for the last couple of weeks or so, plus I am redoing some of the stuff I had in the model to make it simpler and easier to work with.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Riso posted:IT'S ON. BRC 1976! Oh, I'm in on this! Considering how my cars did in the test round, I'm thinking a totally clean sheet design will be needed. And, well, rules aren't made to be loved...I'm sure when my challenge debuts there will be some gripes too. Top Hats Monthly posted:I forgot how painfully slow this game updates Well, I've said it before, but it's a very small team making Automation, and in spite of the relatively slow updating speed (every 2-3 months), they do actively engage their fanbase and keep them apprised of what's going on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Missed the deadline for the first test day, so I'm going to work on my car for another few days...looks like I have to considering Riso just punched up a 2:11 on the Automation test track, where as my car with the same body and everything, is doing just under the 2:15 mark.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Riso posted:Exactly. I should also mention that this collection will be allowed in my upcoming challenge.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Another dev update showcasing the Unreal Engine build: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r2NBf46Mmk
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Not a bad showing for my entry, P17 and reasonably favourable tire wear and fuel economy to boot - I should mention my car is on sports compound tires and not semi-slicks. I already have an upgrade package for the car that has already shaved more than a second off its ATT lap time, and there is likely room for more now that I have a better estimate of fuel consumption. And on top of that, I can gain an easy half to two-thirds of a second if I give in and switch to semi-slicks. E: I should also mention that compared to my first "I Can't Believe It's Not A 911!" entry in the BRC Test, engine reliability has gone up by 50% and the difficulty rating is now down below 1, with the upgrade package below 0.8 as it is. MrChips fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 00:28
|
|