|
Missing Donut posted:I have to hand it to you, MrChips, for making this competition so interesting to meet. I have a 1.2L turbo making more than 200hp, but my naturally aspirated 1.5L manages 150hp with decent efficiency. What to do, what to do... Same here, do I want the extra power from the turbo and be ~10 sec faster round the green hell, or do I gamble that having about half the fuel consumption will pay off in the long run. For my designs, the NA gets ~200km more from a tank of fuel, so as it is now, I am going for efficiency over power. My 1.5L is still fast enough compared to the 1.2L builds posting benchmarks, that I think I can get away with needing fewer pit stops to compensate for the slower lap times.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
You people should have learned from the last one that being two seconds faster is worth 10 additional pit stops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
It's not just the efficiency, though. The NA engine is cheaper, allowing me to spend more money on the car.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Riso posted:You people should have learned from the last one that being two seconds faster is worth 10 additional pit stops. This is why I'm kind of saddened that he changed the rules to allow turbos, because it's pretty much going to mean you're required to use them if you want to be even remotely competitive. Also makes me sad as the 70's were the last decade where NA engines were still the first choice in all forms of motorsport without every series requiring bans on turbos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
HotCanadianChick posted:This is why I'm kind of saddened that he changed the rules to allow turbos, because it's pretty much going to mean you're required to use them if you want to be even remotely competitive. I don't know about that; I mucked around with my Sportsman class car, put a new NA engine in it and it's now running deep into the 8:20s  E: It's becoming pretty clear that Sportsman is by far the most challenging spec of the three, with the cost limit and the skinny-rear end tires. More power != faster in Sportsman, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
I kind of like the variety of NA vs Turbo, though more power is incredibly hard to resist. Ultimately the strength of economy is heavily dependent on the allowable tank size if I am thinking this right. If a turbo car can do a lap of Track X in 9 minutes flat and needs a 35 second pit stop every second lap, you will take 557,5 seconds per lap on average. If a NA car can do a lap of Track X in 9:08 and needs a 35 second pit stop every fourth lap, you will take 556,75 seconds per lap on average. It is close, but faster. However, if the tank is larger, then the Turbo car pulls ahead. If a turbo car can do a lap of Track X in 9 minutes flat and needs a 35 second pit stop every THIRD lap, you will take 551,7 seconds per lap on average. If a NA car can do a lap of Track X in 9:08 and needs a 35 second pit stop every SIXTH lap, you will take 553,8 seconds per lap on average. The fuel consumption of the cars didn't change. Balancing the two looks practically impossible because ultimately we're talking about fractions of seconds over tens of minutes. And that will change with different tracks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Pit stops are going to take a lot longer in this round, reflecting the fact that instead of a crew of highly-trained mechanics using highly specialised equipment, you'll have a couple of dudes with big fuel jugs and 1970s-era air wrenches working on multi-lug wheels. Expect a fuel stop to last something like 30ish seconds for Touring and up to 90 seconds for Open, and that's before we add in in/out penalties, tire and driver changes. E: All of this will be detailed when I post the official rules for the challenge. Also, I am working on a Google Sheets workbook that will allow you guys to plug in your engine's stats and get a reasonably accurate estimate of what your fuel economy will be in the simulation...that'll be up and running soonish. MrChips fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Looking forward to it. I think I've made the Stealth about as fast as I can make it.  That is to say I painstakingly made it about as fast as I could make it yesterday and now the game has eaten my saves three times in a row. Always take a screenie of your loving suspension setup. Do it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Duuk posted:Looking forward to it. The game really is broken in this build.  Dudes need to release a new build with what I hope are some unfucking of the basic mechanics...
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
My game works fine, stop using the save button, scrubs. The open class is also not worth the effort. The weight limit keeps ruining my cars and my 990 hp engine gets beaten by one half the power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
My car just can't use any of the power I make so yeah open is just not worth it, maybe if 4 wheel drive was invented before 1975 it would be a ok class to try but with rwd or fwd only its not worth it.
wargames fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Duuk posted:I kind of like the variety of NA vs Turbo, though more power is incredibly hard to resist. Ahahaha, 'fractions' of seconds. I remade my Touring class car with a turbo engine instead of NA. N/A was getting 9:11 around the ring. The turbo version is currently doing 8:49 around the ring. There's no fractions involved, if you want to be competitive, it's turbo or nothing. E: 8:47.92 after readjusting the transmission to better fit the new engine. Militant Lesbian fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
I was feeling good about my Touring car until I read 8:49. In any case, in Sportsman it is still possible to make a N/A that goes faster than a turbo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
my touring it at 48 and is turbo'd
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
HotCanadianChick posted:Ahahaha, 'fractions' of seconds. You will note the difference per lap in my example was eight seconds, not fractions of seconds. What I was referring to was the effect of fuel economy, not the actual power difference. Granted, based on what you say, the difference between NA and Turbo is greater than I thought. I haven't tried making a NA engine for Touring yet. Mind telling how much power, roughly, you are using for that 8:48?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Duuk posted:You will note the difference per lap in my example was eight seconds, not fractions of seconds. What I was referring to was the effect of fuel economy, not the actual power difference. probably around 220 I suspect I know that is how much I am pushing for 48. http://wiki.automationgame.com/index.php/Main_Page
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Protip: Before you exit, check the cars folder. If it has not saved your car, rename the model in the editor and run the test again.wargames posted:probably around 220 I suspect I know that is how much I am pushing for 48. Thanks. Tried tuning my turbo engine up to 190kw just for the hell of it and I can confirm that is Too Much for the tires. 220hp sounds fair.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
You guys must be getting some incredibly bad specific fuel consumption figures if you're getting that kind of horsepower. Just bear in mind that my goal is to make fuel economy a hell of a lot more important in this challenge than it was in SA-GTE, especially when you consider that if I ever finish the loving thing, the Targa Florio track is three and a half times longer than the Nordschliefe; my guess is that if you're over something like 650 g/kWh and over 200 bhp you stand a good chance of running out of fuel on the first lap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Duuk posted:
wargames posted:probably around 220 I suspect I know that is how much I am pushing for 48. Close!  MrChips posted:You guys must be getting some incredibly bad specific fuel consumption figures if you're getting that kind of horsepower. Just bear in mind that my goal is to make fuel economy a hell of a lot more important in this challenge than it was in SA-GTE, especially when you consider that if I ever finish the loving thing, the Targa Florio track is three and a half times longer than the Nordschliefe; my guess is that if you're over something like 650 g/kWh and over 200 bhp you stand a good chance of running out of fuel on the first lap. OTOH, if you had a car that was 30 seconds a lap faster than everything else on the field, you may be able to still win the overall points race even if you can't complete a lap of the Nordschliefe or Targa Florio just by dint of being first in every other race of the season. (it gets 914.5 g/kwh, so ludicsously bad economy) Militant Lesbian fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
HotCanadianChick posted:(it gets 914.5 g/kwh, so ludicsously bad economy)  I'm doing 190 bhp and like 550 g/kWh. That strategy could work, but bear in mind these big races will be worth double and quadruple points, and you really do need to win at least one of those if you stand any chance of winning the overall title.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
MrChips posted:
I am not sure I can make an engine that bad.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
HotCanadianChick posted:Close! Thanks for the benchmark. For comparison, my current turbo is pushing 200hp for a hair under 600g/kWh. Also, pick your body shape carefully. As you may have noticed I tried building my racer on the Ye Olde Timey body at first. The weight is reported as very low on the chassis screen but there is some hidden magic going on that makes it heavier and slower. Apparently, performance ties back heavily to the body shape (not the modern chassis as I would have expected). I mean, the numbers say it is aero efficient and lightweight and all good, but the best I could make it was 9:00 flat around Green Hell. When I went and popped the engine into one of the newer bodies it ended up weighing 20kg less and and just ran a 8:56.77 with minimal tuning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
I'm so tired of adjusting something and then having the game break the whole car. If I adjust something on the motor it can give me a nil value for front or rear suspension. I don't use the save button. All of this started happening after the last build. And it doesn't just bork 1 car - it borks them all. I can get 3200cc at about 385g/kWh making 350/306, max speed of ~160. 185x14 or 185x15. I've had my 1200cc turbo making 220 at ~285g/kWh, max speed of ~145. 145 x 12. If I could just do suspension setups AND keep a car alive long enough I can get back down into the low 9s at the Green Hell. I'm so sick of starting over after a few hours of futzing. Is there a way to rescue my files? I guess this is the current official procedure for producing a car for those of you with continued issues: http://automationgame.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=7459 Oh dear god - learned to read the charts correct.... 680g/kWh for 471hp extreme_accordion fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Reinstall the game. Your post is difficult to read. kW or HP? Is your speed in mph? What does 185x14 mean? Those are some drat good economy numbers. Are you sure you are using 1975 as a tech year? You should have twice the values. Also, following this page, if your Touring car doesn't do at least 9:00, start over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Quick update: Simulation model changes are going well; things are working more or less the way I want them to. I have a couple more major things to add and test, but they shouldn't be too hard. Not that it matters to you guys but this new simulation is a lot more user friendly than the last one.  Who knows, I might even make a stab at making this into something a bit more serious...the biggest obstacle is that ideally the whole administrative side (scrutineering, race simulation and restult tabulation) would be web-based, but I know gently caress all about web programming. That would fall into the long-term, if ever, category.Track modeling, on the other hand, is going badly. The editors are so loving obtuse (even the "easy" web-based one) it isn't even funny, and there's so much guesswork involved that I don't really feel confident about my work so far. Hopefully I can get things down a bit better in the next week or two. As for rules, I am this close to just saying, "Open-class? Go nuts, I don't loving care what you build...it's legal". There might be a little tweak here and there in the other classes but overall I think they're interesting as-is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Riso posted:Reinstall the game. I'm going to - my numbers are going all over the place constantly. I can build the same engine 3 times and get 3 different sets of numbers for economy, horsepower, speed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Quick update: You should offer your racing sim part to the devs, I know one of the features they have planned is racing series stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
My Touring car is now rubbing up against 8:48 like some of the others here. It looks very happy about it. I don't think I'll do any more on this front until we know more about fuel economy/final rules. MrChips, when you have had time to finish the fuel economy estimator-tool, it would be great to have an update on tire model chat regarding QP/expected distance traveled.  I recognise you have your hands full with all this stuff, just it'be good to plan fuel and tires to run out at frequencies that match up.In other news my Sportsman is between 8:10 and 8:20 with lots of tuning to go. Also almost a grand over budget, the bastard. Edit: Lol, nevermind. The sportsman was on semi slicks for some reason. Goodbye ten seconds. Duuk fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
It'll be interesting to see the fuel economy model. Because the way I modelled it in excel, a car that does 8:48 around Green Hell would need to stop for fuel every single lap. Basically adding 30-45s to each lap, turning effective lap times into something over 9:20. Meaning a NA that gets a 9:08 lap time and that only has to refuel every 4 laps will dominate the race. Frankly I am waiting for more information on fuel economy before fidgeting with my touring class entry again. Time to focus on my open class entry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Deedle posted:It'll be interesting to see the fuel economy model. Because the way I modelled it in excel, a car that does 8:48 around Green Hell would need to stop for fuel every single lap Automation SA-GTE Championship - singlehandedly causing the 70s fuel crisis
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Is an economy of: 7.65lt/100km any good? Making 131hp. Green Hell in 9:35. :back edit: Found a converter that's nice: unitjuggler.com/convert-fuelconsumption-from-lper100km-to-mpgimperial.html?val= Put your Litres in at the end. Rough chart: code:extreme_accordion fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
I have since moved on to a different build for my Tourer, but I had this ad stuck in my mind so I went ahead and made it  
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
You missed a disclaimer about your car is going down the wrong drat side of the road! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
:double post:
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:You missed a disclaimer about your car is going down the wrong drat side of the road! That's because it is passing your jalopy! Edit: Also I don't know about that power or 7,65l consumption being good or not for a 1,5NA. I might later today. You should try to get that lap time down though because at 9:35 some of the cars in this thread can pit as often as they want and be faster. I recommend playing with your suspension, I have often found ten to fifteen seconds in there. Duuk fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:Is an economy of: 7.65lt/100km any good?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Deedle posted:I'm making 117.2kW, so about 150-160hp, doing the Green Hell in 9:08, getting a smidgeon under 9l/100km. How much of that 08 is in suspension setup? 20 more horse power can't be a solid 30 more seconds off of time. Suspension - it's a black art to me, anyone have a good tutorial? Duuk posted:That's because it is passing your jalopy! We at Victorian Hooray's will not stand for such talk! :drops posh driving gloves before you and pulls a sharp about face: Back edited a post and threw a link to a lt/100km converter for those of us that are all USG-afied.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
My 200 HP turbo guzzling 12l does the Ring under 9 minutes. See you at the finish line, suckers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
OK, here's the fuel economy estimator: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vKJyfj2Hwp0dLss1CHbuZtlWjbOKlkBf8ARjce8US7o/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
Riso posted:My 200 HP turbo guzzling 12l does the Ring under 9 minutes. Nice! Some burnt up old Austrian still has you beat. 1975 08 02 6:58,6 196,4 Ferrari 312T F1 Niki Lauda 1975 German Grand Prix, pole-position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 23:10
|
|