0.20 Discussion thread | Use Safe Mode before reporting

Bug report: BEVs with completely depleted batteries do not recharge their batteries when going downhill. Tested with the Vivace and eSBR4 on the Aerodynamics Benchmark map.

 

That's not true.
Source: made a scenario in 0.20.1 where you need to recharge your fully exhausted batterys by going downhill

 

It happens when you manually set the battery to 0%.Tested in safe mode

 

ill look and see if i can disable it
--- Post updated ---
i couldnt find anything for the FOV thing.

 

That's where I got the idea from, in your scenario the battery isn't completely depleted but as @Br3by said when it is they don't recharge.

 

I haven't noticed this before, is this normal or just my problem:

Pessima tail lights gets very bright in shadows if sun is behind.

Tested in East Coast Usa -> Gast station parking lot - > Pessima 96

Lights are off in both images, only car turned around. Tested also in safe mode.

 

It should be. The battery charge is set to 0 at the start of the scenario.

 

yeah i always noticed the pessima brake lights looking weird but good you've figured out what causes it

 

I'm going to be bringing this discussion from the Piccolina thread over to the 0.20 discussion thread, to put it in a more relevant thread.

I can confirm, this is a thing.

I tried it out with the ETK 856td automatic, Sunburst 1.8 CVT, and Vivace 410Q Arsenic DCT, to give the biggest range of drivetrains and transmissions to see how much each transmission type is affected by D and S mode. I would be running the WCA drag strip (no reverse, no rolling start), Utah Asphalt Hillclimb (no reverse, no rolling start), and Industrial Curved Racetrack (2 laps, no reverse, no rolling start) to get the best range of disciplines that players would use their cars for.

I ran all these vehicles with their standard ESC modes (comfort/normal for 856td and Sunburst 1.8, sport for Vivace Arsenic) on a keyboard. I am not the most consistent driver, so any differences smaller than 2 seconds or 2% are typically because of my erratic driving.

Sunburst 1.8 CVT:

D Mode______________________________S Mode:




Average:
D: 198.993 / 3 = 66.331
S: 197.698 / 3 = 65.899

Difference: 66.331 / 65.899 = 0.6% in favor of S mode

ETK 856td (8-speed Automatic):

D Mode______________________________S Mode:




Average:
D: 178.65 / 3 = 59.55
S: 178.85 / 3 = 59.617

Difference: 59.55 / 59.617 = 0.1% in favor of D mode

Vivace Arsenic DCT:

D Mode______________________________S Mode:




Average:
D: 162.9 / 3 = 54.3
S: 163.5 / 3 = 54.5

Difference: 59.55 / 59.617 = 0.4% in favor of D mode

Averaging out how much S mode improves your performance: 0.6% - 0.1% - 0.4% = (0.1% / 3) = 0.033% in favor of S mode

Overall...S mode doesn't really do anything different than D mode. It maybe shifts a wee bit more aggressively, but it's certainly not as "sporty" as you might think. Apparently, S mode had a purpose for modern automatics before the 0.19 update (according to @default0.0player), but I still don't know why these modes are so incredibly similar. Why does D mode have to be so sporty, when S mode is literally called "sport mode" and takes only one button press to select and use? Was this done for ease of use or realism? Are sport modes on real automatics this useless?

 

S behaviour is much more realistic compared to older versions. They do not implement a "LOWEST gear ALL the time mode" by default when driving gently IRL, instead bumping up the shift point a bit. With about 15% gas in the petrol ETK 8-speeds, one would get shifts closer to 3000 in S instead of 2000 in D, not identical, but much closer to reality.

Have never recorded footage of my IRL driving, but do recall that in gentle conditions in "comfort" engine* mode, D would shift around 1800-2000 and S around 2300-2600, note that IRL cars do not always have linear throttle maps, pressing a gas pedal down 30% of its travel could mean 50% on the engine side in comfort engine* mode and 75% in sport engine* mode. Overall gear shift mapping is also not linear either, and even real life manufacturers can't get this down to a T either.

*In my IRL petrol turbo-4 case, there is a sport mode for the engine and steering that is separate, yet complimentary to the transmission's S mode. So much complexity, but the Jekyll and Hide effect can be hilarious in "ordinary" cars.

Beam's D mode in smart autos is too aggressive, gears should not be held in the absence of a steady G (e.g. when cornering or when hill mode is activated IRL, depending on the specific car). In a general sense, D should be reactive and S almost proactive, and the extent of D's reactions lower than S.

S should lock out top gear, especially when top speed is reached in a lower one. The IRL ZF 8-speed and many other planetary gear automatics also have input RPM limits in the overdrive gears.

Unless a car lacks a dedicated S mode, "fast lift" is rarely present in D mode. After accelerating hard to autobahn speeds and then reducing the gas abruptly, the car should short/eco-shift fairly briskly to higher and higher gears.

Even in S mode with many torque-converter based autos, they will upshift, though only once to the immediate next gear, if the RPM on gas pedal lift is within 5-10% of the optimal shift/max/fuel cut RPM, depending on model.

In the absence of gas and brake input, S should not downshift at the high RPM that keeps the car in the power band, though it at least holds the current gear for longer and, as the car coasts slower and slower, would eventually downshift at a slightly higher RPM than the norm for D mode.

In my IRL 8-speed, S gear and sport engine mode will activate "aggressive" and fast positive torque (rev-matched) downshifts too, as they happen at higher RPM under braking (note the above paragraph) and the corrective effect is required to prevent sudden excess engine braking.

Without gas application and when not driving downhill, elevated RPM downshifts in D-comfort will only happen if manually requested, not even automatically under moderate braking. Also, the milder drag torque control will kick in instead of the sharp rev-matches.

To sum up all these; the best modern autos IRL perceive driving aggression and control shift behaviour based not only on the degree of recent inputs, but also the immediate momentary combination of the inputs. A wider selection of inputs is also utilised compared to Beam.

On CVTs, the Sunburst's S mode (shown in the game UI) behaves closer to a L mode (and the mesh shown in the car's gauge cluster is L), where the target RPM is set around peak power. I've experienced a older one with PRNDSL, where L was similar to this, and S would default to around 3500-4000 (near peak torque) on 0% gas application if vehicle speed is high enough.

In other words, IRL S holds the car in the power band instead of strictly at peak power RPM, giving some mechanical sympathy to the components of the CVT. D should drop RPM a little faster in Beam on gas pedal lift, similar to the behaviour of old automatics shifting near immediately to a higher gear.

TLDR; figuring out the electronic control systems of real cars is super complex, Beam needs some improvements here and there, but getting even 99% of exact real life behaviour will probably result in code that resembles a (tasty) party platter of Spaghetti Bolognese.

 

Well, this so-called realistic is almost useless in game. People would play M in racing or aggressive driving and play D in gentle driving, completely ignore the S mode, the only use of S mode is to show which gear in D mode. Also D mode is still too aggressive in game, simply drive the DCT Sunburst and Vivace, accelerate in D very very very gently, and watch the shift RPM from 1st to 2nd gear.

NOT good for engine braking.



And another problem with automatic gearboxes is the when driving over water, they fail to downshift.

Even with FULL throttle

 

This is very good to know, and this is indeed what happens with Beam's modern automatics. But I should perhaps give some context to the quote from Default. He was replying to a list of realism-oriented additions and revisions that significantly affected gameplay for casual players that I had made in my post that he quoted.

This list - which I will quote below and which should lead to my post on the Piccolina thread - was made as a "demonstration" of how not having a realistic 900cc engine for the Piccolina for "gameplay reasons" is...odd, when many updates (especially 0.10's shift delays) have made gameplay for keyboard/gamepad users and casuals harder for the sake of realism.

I appreciate the realism that S mode now has, and I agree with your statement that D mode should be less aggressive to give S mode a reason to exist. I wasn't mad about it; I just wanted to know why this was the case, and to give a bit of clarification to Default's statement.

 

Vehicle fine tuning aside, as low shift points are set by the vehicle's human creator/modder, the initial global startup aggression is set at 0.75.
So give it a bit of gentle driving to drop down or change it in the LUA.
I'd say this initial aggro setting and implementation could do with some adjustment.

On the shifts, try adding the shift debug app that lists aggression, the shift RPM, and the shift not/allowed conditions. I recall that wheel spin, lockup, and IIRC, vehicle airborne-ness will prevent shifts. This needs adjustment on a car by car basis.

No worries, your various vehicle testings and findings are great data to digest BTW. Time to see what a dev says.

Just feel that at times, when a Beam problem is pointed out, the community sometimes comes up with alternative desired outcomes that are also odd.

Have to say though, Beam vehicles suffer from combine-itis, a mix and match of cars that aren't identical in: (choose one or more) torque/power/weight/size class/suspension design/chassis design/tire sizing/brake specifications/country of origin/tech level at year of production.

Similar to the wishes for laser scanned tracks, I do wish that Beam's cars will try to be more like real world equivalents in size, spec, and engineering, though with appropriate styling changes to avoid infringements and the corresponding effects on aerodynamics. It's kinda weird because I did not feel this strongly about this back in 2013. It's why I still hold on to 0.17 for modding use; have edited the control LUAs and JBeams for nearly every vehicle. Waiting for the DSE to be implemented on everything before updating to 0.20 and beyond.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Since this is the 0.20 discussion thread:

• The new facelift Gavril Roamer's 3-spoke wheel would be pretty much rubbing against the front brake caliper, could the front brake components be slightly oversized or the wheel's inner diameter too small?

• Alternate engine fan blades on the Miramar are still pointing in the wrong way, guessing that it will be fixed with an unannounced doing over?

• Should the Pigeon's engine fan blow air forwards?

• To back up a post here, the fuel warning light in the Covet has the handle/nozzle on a different side compared to the gauge cluster's printed face.

• The older Gavril 4.5 and all 5.5 engines still lack torque, and with the modern upgrades for the 4.5, there shouldn't be such a large effect on peak torque numbers. The 4.5 are even weaker torque wise than an emissions strangled Porsche SOHC 4.5 from the late 70's. Peak Gavril power should be found below 5000 RPM. Torque wise, there is some truth to the whole "no replacement for displacement" saying. Advancements in tech for a certain capacity of engine don't really make such drastic changes to the amount of peak torque generated, though the shape of the torque-RPM curve could be changed.

• I'm guessing the 00's Roamer facelift is awaiting the DSE's eDiff function, since factory diffs are now open. Similar to contemporary equivalents, also suggest implementing some form of switchable on-demand based AWD on 4-speed auto Roamers in general, especially since they have 4-wheel ABS, to differentiate them more from the D-Series. Say, with RWD, auto reactive F/R activation from 0/100 to 50/50 (maybe in 10% increments), and 50/50 lock modes.

• For that late 80's/90's truck feel, I'd also look into implementing torsion bars at the front on the low duty IFS AWD/4x4 variants of the older Gavrils. (It's interesting to find out just how many older American vehicles used these instead of coils. Also need to find out the packaging whys/why nots as RWD models sometimes got coils instead.)

 

speaking of torsion beams, the pigeon also should be converted to use one, as it's also already kind of modeled that way anyway.

 

Randomly my AI cars that I were controlling suddenly turned into traffic cars, and now the car inside my box truck is gone.

 

The list of wheels is totally out of whack for me, even in safe mode.

 

Looks fine to me. BeamNG has some different sorting mechanic, so it puts x10, x11, x12 etc. at the beginning instead of the end

 

I'm just used to having them sorted by the company which made them (All Alder rims used to be in one area etc). But if its a feature then I'll just have to get used to it.

 

A few nitpicks regarding the parts menu UI:

The search bar has a lot of empty space above and below it, making the already small parts menu area unnecessarily smaller.


Compared to the tuning menu, the "APPLY" and "RESET" buttons are switched around, which can cause confusion.

(Come to think of it, why does the parts menu need a "RESET" button anyway? It has the same function as just spawning in the configuration again. There would be no downside to removing it and doing so would result in less accidental clearings of selections.)

The new auto-thumbnail feature while saving configs might be nice for regular players, but it's hell for modders. If you've already spent (a considerable amount of) time generating thumbnails for all the configs of your vehicle mod, then at the last minute decide you want to change a few parts on one, prepare to have your vehicle selector look like this:

And then, unless you remembered to back up those thumbnails, you have to wait for the thumbnail generator to generate all of them again because there still isn't an option to only generate a thumbnail for a single config. Why is there no option to turn this auto-thumbnail feature off?

And finally, this is kind of unorthodox, but if possible it'd be nice to have the option to set a hotkey for the "Apply Parts Automatically" checkbox, which would emulate the old method of pressing "J" to pause and apply several parts at once.