|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Looks promising even at this stage of it. Any challenges happening on the board worth being interested in?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
MrChips posted: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. I foresee many phallic submissions. . . . . What?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Yes, not-Porsche 930s are going to be quite popular.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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  For the second graph are we saying a prototype engine is more reliable in 89 than a production econo model over a 24hr period? extreme_accordion fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. Amusingly your reliability is more friendly than BRC:  By the way, minimum pit stop time at the 24h of Nurburgring was a mandated three minutes!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
Riso posted:By the way, minimum pit stop time at the 24h of Nurburgring was a mandated three minutes! Oh, I like that idea. Maybe not three minutes, but it's a solid rule vs pure guzzlers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Duuk posted:Oh, I like that idea. Maybe not three minutes, but it's a solid rule vs pure guzzlers. Well depending on the era a long race like le mans still has stops for driver change, fuel, and tires that go into the 2 minute territory. CHUMP car has a 5 minute stop rule for fuel and a minimum 2 minute stop rule if memory serves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
MrChips posted: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. So, where is that elusive mini challenge?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
MrChips posted: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. plus sheep game
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
What sheep game?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
I heard the next brc is going to start in the next one or two weeks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
IT'S ON. BRC 1976! http://discourse.automationgame.com/t/brc-1976-under-pressure-build/16817 Now with shiny rules booklet! https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4x5S3wQzQFlZHJXTjh2aGVIbW8/view
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Ok I might throw something in for this. I'll see how time goes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
I forgot how painfully slow this game updates 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Playing around with a few designs I am not happy with the rules. The 25 multiplier on production units really screws me over for pretty much everything but a small poo poo turbo that barely gets to 280hp.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Remember to check the BRC thread regularly. For example there's a new BRC tool because the cost limit has been raised to 10k! Plus, there's a practice every Monday until the season opens, starting, this very Monday! Try to at least enter one to gauge fuel consumption and tyre wear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
MrChips posted: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. You have nearly a month to work on the car, don't worry. My car was certainly quick but have you seen the fuel consumption? It can barely do 12 laps. Economy is something like 960 g/kwh when the turbo kicks in. Absolutely ridiculous. I will probably go back to NA; it's just easier to deal with. On ATT, I'd say your car needs to do at least 2:12-2:13s for the top 10. There are however several other tracks you can tune your car for instead. Green Hell and Hockenheim are both on the calendar and the proper tracks are available. GH is a rather twisty track while Hockenheim is high speed. Spa is also around but it has been changed for BRC so I wouldn't test on that. For people who want to compete but don't have time or just make unbearably slow cars I will probably release a "customer" car around the last test. That car will be about two seconds slower than the top 10. Right now it's doing mid 2:14s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
May I ask what car bodies you are using? I see that it's set for 76 with the vehicle body being within the last 11 years. Does this mean we could go back as far as 65 for available body styles?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:May I ask what car bodies you are using? I see that it's set for 76 with the vehicle body being within the last 11 years. Exactly. Subscribe to this collection, it's all mods allowed in the competition. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=469666352 The Porsche will probably be very popular but the Lotus also looks like a good choice. The Pantera is probably what you want to use for very large engines because it's very heavy by default.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Man, the pre-season tests are really irregular. Next one tomorrow!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Riso posted:Exactly. I should also mention that this collection will be allowed in my upcoming challenge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I should also mention that this collection will be allowed in my upcoming challenge. Cool! Wish there was a way to turn certain parts off. Something is wrong with the community hub - it is absolutely not loading up for me. extreme_accordion fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Another dev update showcasing the Unreal Engine build: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r2NBf46Mmk
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:Cool! Wish there was a way to turn certain parts off. You mean like.. not subscribing to the parts you don't like??
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
Second test. https://youtu.be/lfk9iLZI6QA Something's way off there because the car I sent was doing 2:12s in-game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Riso posted:Second test. https://youtu.be/lfk9iLZI6QA That seems to be the case all around though. Mine was running something like 2:11.3 on ATT ingame and then 2:12.5 on the test. The top speed at the long straight before the sweeping curve is also like 25km/h slower than I had ingame. Could be weight of fuel or something. The NA seems to be doing alright on ATT, but I am likely to test with Sports tires for reduced wear next... And seriously have to consider going turbocharged for the faster tracks. NA just doesn't seem to cut it on the straights. I should also mention for anyone going for the Pantera that it seemed to be about 1000 automadollars more expensive than the wedge and notporsche when I did my first tests. Edit: Christ, Betonschleife is basically two kilometre long straights. Kassel Calden is literally a couple of loving airport runways. Diepholz and Norisring could be OK depending on what versions will come... Or could also be a couple of straightaways glued together. And then there's Spa. Edit 2: Actually the speeds on the straight are closer together now, except for Puffster's infernal machine of course. I was being worried about Leo's and Riso's 250+km/h speeds but you've toned it down for economy it seems. Duuk fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
quote:That seems to be the case all around though. Mine was running something like 2:11.3 on ATT ingame and then 2:12.5 on the test. Sure, tyre wear and fuel do affect the car but 1.6s? I'll have to send it again to see if it wasn't a fluke. The first car with turbo I sent had pretty much what I expected from the game but lol pitting every 12 laps. quote:The NA seems to be doing alright on ATT, but I am likely to test with Sports tires for reduced wear next... And seriously have to consider going turbocharged for the faster tracks. NA just doesn't seem to cut it on the straights. Races are going to be 90 minutes and one stopping wasn't really worth it last time in 66. Also the turbos have to be considerably faster to be worth the additional stops. On that note, the first test turbos were all better. On time and/or fuel consumption. quote:I should also mention for anyone going for the Pantera that it seemed to be about 1000 automadollars more expensive than the wedge and notporsche when I did my first tests. Funny, the wedge 2.0 is more expensive than the other options from my tests. Its aero is not too good on ATT but at the same time gives a nice result on high speed tracks. Don't forget you can lower quality on body and fixtures for a bit of extra cash and weight reduction. It affects reliability only a bit. quote:Edit: Christ, Betonschleife is basically two kilometre long straights. Kassel Calden is literally a couple of loving airport runways. Diepholz and Norisring could be OK depending on what versions will come... Or could also be a couple of straightaways glued together. And then there's Spa. Some of these are stop and gos, so not as bad as you think. quote:Edit 2: Actually the speeds on the straight are closer together now, except for Puffster's infernal machine of course. I was being worried about Leo's and Riso's 250+km/h speeds but you've toned it down for economy it seems. Look closely and you will see they weren't turbos. Leo's saying the times are bullshit and will probably go back to hellfire turbo, lol. Riso fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
2:18 on a test lap - obviously not all that competitive. Going to work on it. Everyone using the notporsche? Also - traction - I cannot get a car to get less than 20% wheel spin in most cases. extreme_accordion fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:2:18 on a test lap - obviously not all that competitive. Going to work on it. Probably. Although you should watch out for Der Bayer. It's a wedge 2.0. A turbo that has fuel for 20 laps, sports tyres that last 20 laps and lap times of <2:13. Post some images of the car so we can give tips. Also you might want to try the official chant on irc.afternet.org #automationgame Usually gets going late Euro afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
Riso posted:Probably. Although you should watch out for Der Bayer. It's a wedge 2.0. A turbo that has fuel for 20 laps, sports tyres that last 20 laps and lap times of <2:13. Ok so I'm not far off in engine capacity with where I've been. I just need to recreate it. I was able to create a 1770cc turbo motor putting out 320hp and a reliability of 57. Could not keep tires under the car (32% wheel spin) or 0-62 time of 14 seconds. I probably need to have a far heavier frame and do something about tire width. With the notporsche I had a 260hp motor putting me in the 2:25 range and I couldn't make min weight. I've been through so many ideas and I've seen your customer car so I know I'm hitting around the right area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
I think you misunderstood. He is using the Wedge 2.0 model, not that it has a 2l engine. He won't say what engine. I can tell you however the two turbos at the top in test 1 were a 2.8l v8 and a 2.6l v6. Keep your engine around 30 reliability. You can over-cool it later to that number as well. 57 means you sacrifice too much performance to be worth it. A turbo should have an even power line from 6000-9000 if possible for drivability etc. You want tyres at the max of 265. I suggest 14", 650mm. If mid/rear engine, front tyres have to be smaller. Also 30%+ wheelspin looks right for FR. IRL mid-engine is the way to go for sports cars. If you car is too light, don't add stupid poo poo like entertainment and heavier interiors. Up safety. Edit: 1770cc is way too small. I know, because I tried 1500 and 2000 without much luck! Edit2: AND DONT GEAR THAT loving CAR TO TOP SPEED IT AINT WORTH IT. Riso fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:07
|
|