Cherrier Vivace & Tograc

well, they were modelled like that, so yes.

 

If you mean the 5-cylinder Vivace S 410Q Arsenic had a slow get up, it's actually not the "driver's" fault. For some reason, the 5-cylinder doesn't seem to be able to build up boost on the majority of cases where the player launches it with the Launch Control and it can clearly be seen in the video Diamondback uploaded to show us how quick the Scintilla GTx is. All other FCV engines build up boost almost immediately on Launch Control (with the diesel ones keeping it right 'till you get off the brake) but the 5-cylinder is quite sluggish. I understand that you can't have a car on Launch Control on every circumstance and it's also perfectly fine for a turbocharged engine to lose the boost when you keep it on Launch Control for too long but, in this circumstance, the 5-cylinder can't build it up in the first place.

 

Yes, in all other FCV engines, the boost is indeed limited on 1st gear for a more linear launch because FWD creates a lot of wheelspin. But we're not talking simply about boost limitation here, we're talking about a complete absence of it while building up boost is exactly the point on having a Launch Control system in a turbocharged car. Especially since the 5-cylinder is mated to AWD, which certainly helps in limiting wheelspin.

 

I'd really like to see the Tograc getting some high-performance versions. Versions like the Tograc 230SQ, S 270Q, S 310Q Arsenic, S 350Q and S 410Q Arsenic would expand the range of offerings to those who want high performance combined with the practical advantages of high riding and AWD (after all, lest we forget that not all high-performance Vivace versions are AWD). The Clutchex AWD system would clearly help the high-performance Tograc put the power down come rain or shine, while the slightly higher suspension would offer this car an advantage on peripheral visibility as well as urban/mildly rough driving conditions.
After all, the High-Performance Compact Crossover is a very hot thing nowadays, so versions like these would fill an open niche in the BeamNG lore!

 

I don't know if it's just me, but the Vivace/Tograc and Sunburst dual-clutch transmissions exaggerately retain first and second gears. Even leaving with 15% of acceleration, the revs go to 6000 rpm in 1st, then it eases a little in 2nd and 3rd, but there is still retention. These transmissions also reduce excessively with any acceleration (30% throttle and there goes the revs beyond 5500. The same problem occurs in the traditional 8-speed (converter) transmissions of the ETK and Bastion and in the CVT of the same Sunburst. While the old 3, 4 and 5 speed transmissions have an exemplary and much more realistic operation. I apologize if this matter has already been discussed here. Please let me know where I can find it.

 

Am I misunderstanding or do electric cars work somehow wrong? The number of engines doubles the amount of "fuel."

Vivace E - Single motor - 50kWh Battery Pack - "Fuel 50 L"
Tograc qE - Dual motor - 75kWh Battery Pack - "Fuel 150 L"

Same goes for eSBR;

eSBR 300 - Single motor - 40kWh Battery Pack - "Fuel 40 L"
eSBR 500 - Dual motor - 40kWh Battery Pack - "Fuel 80 L"
eSBR 800 - Dual motor - 40kWh Battery Pack - "Fuel 80 L"

Shouldn't the amount of fuel or energy capacity remain the same regardless of the number of engines?

 

Yeah, EV fuel logic is broken. The EVs work fine, except for they have basically bottomless charges.

 

It is basically an bug in how the game handles engines and power sources. Appearantly any motor/engine search for fuel tanks and then displays that numerical value. But if you have two engines/motors, you have two engines/motors searching for fuel tanks and then that value is aggregated. So you end up with double the kWh with two motors compared to a single motor.

It should be noted that while displayed charge value in kWh is doubled, power consumption from both motors is also aggregated.

Technically you have motor 1 consuming power from battery 1 and motor 2 consuming power from battery 2. Since there is however only one battery in reality, you are consuming trough the capacity at twice the rate you would normally.

In english, range is not affected because you get double the actual battery capacity consumed twice as fast as normally.

So doing 120 kmh in a dual motor EV in BeamNG will pretty much get the same range as with a single motor one. It is just displayed wrongly.

For dual motor EVs, you have to divide the displayed fuel consumption by 2 to get realistic values.






EVs do have some issues in BeamNG that hurt their fuel/power economy though:

https://www.beamng.com/threads/powertrain-feedback-collection.78669/page-5

EDIT: Game Version 0.27 released mere days after this statement greatly improved EV and their control logic.

 

There is no texture on the gauge when I have the race gauge installed.

 

I'm getting no motion blur in the driver cam, but it works in every other camera mode.

 

for me its the oposite, everything is way more blurry in this car then others.

 

Motion blur does not work through glass.

 

Did some MPG tests with 0.5 litres
the 110d got 34.29 mpg
the 110 got 34.54 mpg
and the E got 14. mpg
How could this be?

 

miles per gallon of what exactly? it's electric correct?

 

well true, I may have to do the conversion.
now its.. 0.14 mpge what?

 

Lets start with some calcuations:

1 liter of petrol = 8,65 kWh
1 liter of diesel = 10,03 kWh
1 kWh of electric power = 1,00 kWh

34.29 mpg = 6,859 L/100 km Diesel = 68,80 kWh/100 km
34.54 mpg = 6,809 L/100 km Petrol = 58,90 kWh/100 km
14.00 mpg = 16,80 kWh/100 km Electric Energy = 16,80 kWh/100 km

So the electric drivetrain is arround 4 times as efficient as the diesel one and arround 3.5 times as efficient as the petrol one. Which is a testament to the much lower partial load losses suffered by the electric drivetrain. At low loads, combustion engine efficiency is so poor that the superiority of the electric drivetrain is even larger than the usual and expected 3 times.


There are some odditities in your test:

• Diesel engine has consumed more energy than the petrol engine... it should be the other way arround in most cases

On your petrol car, you can go 34.29 miles per gallon of petrol
On your diesel car, you can go 34.54 miles per gallon of diesel
On your electric car, you can go 14.00 miles per kWh of electric energy

A kWh is far less energy than a liter of petrol or diesel, as such the value in miles per "gallon" goes down significantly even though actual energy consumption is far lower. Because it technically displays not miles per gallon but miles per kWh.

Hope that helps.

 

He did the math

 

Thank you, however what would the mpge be?