1. Intel iGPU (6xx series) crashes
    Fixed drivers available!
    Instructions here

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Before reporting issues or bugs, please check the up-to-date Bug Reporting Thread for the current version.
    0.20 Bug Reporting thread
    Solutions and more information may already be available.

Will There Be More Engine Tuning Parts for K/800/FCV and Smaller Engines for Piccolina?

Discussion in 'Troubleshooting: Bugs, Questions and Support' started by DriftinCovet1987, Jun 26, 2020.

  1. DriftinCovet1987

    DriftinCovet1987
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,012
    So, I've been wondering about a few things over the years with regards to vehicle content (specifically tuning parts and engines). I have a lot of them, but these are the ones that I feel are important and easily-fixable. I don't expect the devs to read this, but here we go.

    Why don't the K/800 and FCV have adjustable race ECUs/turbochargers/other tuning parts that the Hirochis (and a lot of other cars) do have?

    This is something that I somewhat overlooked with the K/800 twins, but the FCV - a car that presumably would get these features to promote its tuning capabilities - didn't get adjustable anything in 0.19. Not even the race ECU on the 2.5L L5 is adjustable (requiring different stages to unlock more power). When even the '96 Pessima has an adjustable ECU, and cars as lowly as the Covet have adjustable turbos, this lack of playability is mildly disappointing.

    I have to ask - why haven't the K/800 and FCV received these parts yet? Surely, it'd be very easy to take the code for the adjustable ECU from the Sunburst or the SBR4 and plop it into the engines for the other modern cars. The turbos and long blocks would require some more fiddling to get them to realistic values, but that would allow for greater adjustability and (in the case of the K/800) more power with little development and maintenance cost.

    Why hasn't the Piccolina received smaller engines yet? (besides "gameplay reasons")


    This is another big question I've had for a while, which I feel has never been answered properly - what's preventing the Piccolina from receiving a realisticially-small (about 900cc) engine? Yes, I know, it's "mechanically based on the Beetle", but that doesn't mean that it has to have such large engines in the factory 1957 versions. The Piccolina's a lot smaller than the Beetle (3.57m long vs. 4.08m long) and lighter (730kg vs 800kg). The current engines work fine for Corse specials or for the 1969 final versions, but they feel wack in the '57s.

    You can't really say it's for "gameplay reasons", as most factory versions of the bus only hit ~60 mph, the Covet Skidplate can barely hit 47 mph, and the cannon can only go 13 mph. Yes, that last one is technically not a vehicle, but it can move - and few have complained about how slow that is.

    Neither can you really say that it's because the Piccolina is "mechanically based on the Beetle". Technically, you could say that the T-Series is "mechanically based" on the Citroen Acadiene (both '70s utility vehicles) and power the front wheels with a tiny air-cooled flat-twin putting out 20 horsepower.

    You could claim that because the Wentward is rear-engined, it is "mechanically based" on a Porsche 911 Turbo. You could then stick a 700-hp flat-6 in the back, suspend the wheels on multilink suspension, and make it into a 27,000-pound "sports car".

    You could even claim that the old cannon is "mechanically based" on the T-Series because they weigh about the same, and stick the T-Series's 10.6L six into a 16th-century piece of artillery.

    It's not like it'd be all that hard to make a 700cc or 900cc engine. I've done it, and I barely know the first thing about modeling and Jbeaming and texturing and all that jazz. You can say that the Piccolina's "mechanically based on a Beetle" all day long, but it's not a Beetle. It's in a completely different class. It's more like a Fiat 850 or Renault 4CV/4L than a Beetle or Fiat 1100.

    It'd also add cheaper trims to the Piccolina, allowing it to be more accessible as a "cheap hot rod" in Career Mode. Instead of having to pay $7,000 for a 110, I could pay $5,000 for a 70 and upgrade that (or leave it stock).

    And honestly, how would it affect people who want to drive fast cars? There's about 100 configs in the game that can reach at least 150 mph - plenty fast enough for the small maps in BeamNG. Every car in the game has at least one "fast" config - some, like the Sunburst, are almost entirely performance configs. There are thousands of power mods and high-performance vehicles, but there are very few regular '60s city cars in the game, official or modded.

    I just don't get it - how can you guys throw so much effort at the driving electronics, D/H/Roamer/GM, Vivace, and recent updated maps, but not want to add these simple Jbeam-based options for people to play with?
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  2. iPle

    iPle
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    65
    because this is aka new cars, for realistic thinking there's no too much tuning options.

    At least i think so
     
  3. esesesel

    esesesel
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    292
    Haha big engine goes brrrrrrrrr
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. DriftinCovet1987

    DriftinCovet1987
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,012
    This would be a fair excuse for the FCV to not have an even bigger plethora of tuning parts, but people adjust the ECUs and turbos in cars like the FCV and K/800 all the time (at least, once they're a year or two old).

    The SBR4 (which has adjustable ECUs/turbos and Stage 1/2 Performance blocks) is a 2013 car. The 800 Series started production in 2013; the K-Series started production in 2015. The modern ETKs would be plenty old enough for someone to have tuned them.

    It'd be perfectly reasonable for the K/800 to receive adjustable ECUs/turbos and performance blocks on at least the 3.0L L6s.

    The FCV could use an adjustable race ECU on the 1.6L/2.0L L4s and the 2.5 L5; maybe an adjustable turbocharger for those engines, as well. It already has a fair few tuning bits - those last few options would really complete the car.

    I don't get why people are so against smaller engines for the Piccolina...more options are better, right? Like...what's the issue with having smaller engines for the Piccolina for those who like them? Nobody had an issue with the inclusion of the straight-six in the Bluebuck or the 1.2L L3 in the FCV.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Rainvest

    Rainvest
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,829
    Didn't the Supra come out about a year ago and now there's a bunch of tuned Supras?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. esesesel

    esesesel
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    292
    I'm not against it, but ultimately it's the devs decision, and its not unrealistic, just because most comparable Italian cars of that era had smaller engines, we don't know how history went down in the beamng universe
     
  7. DriftinCovet1987

    DriftinCovet1987
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,012
    Yeah, there's people out there 2JZ- and manual-swapping the Mk5 Supra. Tons of bodykits for it, already, as well.

    I'm not talking specifically about you; I'm talking more about the forums as a whole. Although it's good that you clarified your position on smaller Autobello engines.

    Having the mechanical parts (flat-four air-cooled engine, torsion-bar suspension) from the Beetle in the Piccolina is totally fine, but having the engines so large and powerful throws off the experience of driving a '50s Italian city car to me.

    And this is really odd when the car that released right before the Piccolina was a giant bus - a bus that's the slowest-accelerating vehicle in the game, and which barely tops out at 90 miles per hour on a downhill without NOS or JATO rockets.

    That bus has had way more influence on the game and lore than the Piccolina - there was a whole new game mode made specifically for the Wentward, as well as map alterations and a new campaign, Hustle and Bustle. The only way you can find street/location names is through playing the bus mode.

    If the devs were so concerned about 'gameplay', why would they make bus stops and a new game mode and a new campaign for a giant, slow, poorly-handling city bus? There are many alternatives - H-Series passenger bus, taxis, delivery missions, etc. - that we could have gotten instead if the devs were concerned about gameplay and vehicles that are 'too slow' for players.

    That's
    what really doesn't make sense to me.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. DriftinCovet1987

    DriftinCovet1987
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,012
    So, I've found another major issue with some of BeamNG's vehicles:

    Why are some of them so unrealistically aerodynamic?

    I'm specifically discussing the Burnside. I know that the SBR4 is also outrageously aerodynamic (300 mph with 900 hp in a 3,000-pound shooting brake?), but this one is also one of those weird machines. I thought for a long while that this car was reasonably aerodynamic - it turns out that it's not.

    The Burnside is a relatively boxy sedan with a frontal area of approximately 2.97m^2 (2.02m wide by 1.47m high) - one of the highest in the game. It's more like 2.9m^2 because of the narrow cabin, but this is still a very high number for a BeamNG vehicle.

    The only vehicles that have more frontal area are the H-Series, T-Series, and Wentward. Even the Roamer has a lower frontal area, at approximately 2.93m^2 (1.99m wide by 1.47m high).

    Of course, you can make vehicles with high frontal areas more aerodynamic by bringing down their weight and their area coefficient of drag, or CdA. But the Burnside is an early-'50s sedan weighing over 1800 kilos and shaped like a rounded brick. It's not going to be very aerodynamic.

    However, despite its shape and weight, this car can reach 115 mph with the three-speed manual and accelerate to 60 in a little over 10 seconds - which would have been rapid for the era. For reference, some of the hot cars of the early postwar era (thanks to Automobile Catalog):

    *1955 Chevrolet Corvette V8 Powerglide (2-speed auto): 1290 kg curb weight, 195 hp gross / 160 hp net, 0.48 Cd, 1.92m frontal area, 120 mph, 0-60 in 8.1 sec

    *1953 Jaguar XK120 SE Coupe (close 4-speed manual): 1372 kg curb weight, 180 hp gross / 148 hp net, 0.5 Cd, 1.76m frontal area, 125 mph, 0-60 in 8.9 sec

    *1953 Desoto Firedome 4-Door Sedan (3-speed manual): 1790 kg curb weight, 160 hp gross / 131 hp net, 0.6 Cd, 2.59m frontal area, 98 mph, 0-60 in 12.3 sec

    *1954 Oldsmobile 88 4-Door Sedan (3-speed manual): 1760 kg curb weight, 170 hp gross / 139 hp net, 0.55 Cd, 2.56m frontal area, 103 mph, 0-60 in 11.3 sec

    *1953 Bentley Continental R Coupe (4-speed manual): 1650kg curb weight, approx. 130-150 hp net, approx. 0.45 Cd, 2.34m frontal area, 115 mph, 0-60 in 10 sec (est.)

    1953 Burnside Special V8 4-Door Sedan (3-speed manual): 1810kg curb weight, 153 hp net, approx. 0.6 Cd, 2.9m frontal area, 115 mph, 0-60 in 10.1 sec

    The Burnside is no ordinary mid-level sedan, according to its specs. It's a proper super-sedan. 115 mph was blazing fast for the era - most supercars of the early-'50s were able to crack 120 or 130 mph.

    For the Burnside to be able to keep up with a Bentley Continental - one of the most expensive cars of the era - while being "based around a Desoto" while having the wheelbase of a Chevy and the width of an Imperial is...well, frustrating, to say the least. I want to like the Burnside; I really do; but...what is there to like about it compared to the Bluebuck and Grand Marshal?

    While yes, the Grand Marshal is pretty wide for a car of its class and era (2.01m vs. 1.98m for the '92 Vic and 1.96m for the '92 Caprice) and it has a fairly long wheelbase (2.99m vs 2.9m for the Vic and 2.94m for the Caprice), it's at least close enough to be fine. It's different enough to be interesting, but not so different as to ruin the experience.

    The Burnside's low Cd also means that when you upgrade the Burnside to the 423, it can keep up with cars like the top-line K's and Vivaces.

    With 244 hp, the Burnside goes 160 mph.____With 359 hp, the Burnside goes 183 mph.
    screenshot_2020-07-01_16-25-23.jpg screenshot_2020-07-01_16-46-55.jpg

    For comparison, the other big American cars in Beam (all of these runs are done with 4-speed drag automatic gearboxes):

    240-250 hp_____________________________340-360 hp___________________________
    Moonhawk:
    screenshot_2020-07-01_16-29-29.jpg screenshot_2020-07-01_16-54-26.jpg

    Barstow:
    screenshot_2020-07-01_16-32-43.jpg screenshot_2020-07-01_16-57-50.jpg

    Bluebuck:
    screenshot_2020-07-01_16-36-45.jpg screenshot_2020-07-01_17-04-06.jpg

    Grand Marshal
    screenshot_2020-07-01_16-40-14.jpg screenshot_2020-07-01_17-07-20.jpg

    I don't think this is realistic. How can the Burnside (a blocky sedan with 2.9m^2 frontal area) possibly travel through the air better than the Barstow (a fastback coupe with 2.3m^2 frontal area) or the Grand Marshal (a much more modern vehicle with a frontal area of 2.65m^2)? Yes, some of the other cars (Moonhawk, with 2.46m^2 frontal area) have fairly low drag coefficients for their age and size, but at least they're still somewhat within reason.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. BrynCoops

    BrynCoops
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2015
    Messages:
    468
    Easiest way to understand and compare vehicle aerodynamics would be to completely ignore the physical meshes and look only at the shapes made by the JBeam’s collision triangles.

    I’d like to believe that you could get a 50’s sedan past 180mph IRL, simply due to the generally more rounded body lines - the trade-off being that it won’t be very good around a corner, which in my experience is very true for the Burnside.

    BeamNG also isn’t perfect.
    There are a lot of little things that aren’t 100% and you’ve just written 10+ paragraphs about 1 (one) of them.
    Aero in BeamNG is at least passable, it’s at a believable state for most players at this moment in time and works fairly predictably. And I can imagine that the devs are still working on perfecting it, like most other things in the game.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. btcb48

    btcb48
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages:
    74
    I'll start with the objective bits.
    Apart from car specific fine tuning, there are a couple of other global factors going into inaccurate top speeds.

    Total drivetrain losses are too low across the board at the moment, probably low priority, but would be good to look into since on-demand AWD can now be properly simulated.

    Tire rolling resistance has been a notable problem with Beam since the beginning. There are certain speed ranges where a certain tire with a certain vertical load could have a spike in rolling resistance. This is why the 5-cylinder Cherriers and TT sport ETKs have disproportionate 300+ kph top speeds while reasonably powerful lower models struggle past 255. The recently introduced speed limiters actually make it more click intensive to diagnose since they have to be removed. Realism would still be lacking with them as the car would rush to the limiter like quarantine-wary folks to the barber.

    Apps showing wheel power readouts will fluctuate much more than usual when in the high resistance resonance zone, I speculate that this contributed to the delay/cancellation of the real time physically simulated dyno, which could have tried to measure the true wheel power of the car, taking even factors like tire and wheel deformation into account.

    To compensate, car aero drag tends to be set lower so low end models can still reach decent speeds.

    There is also another notable weaknesses in the aerodynamics model, though the flaw is shared with other vehicle driving games

    Fluid dynamics is not simulated.
    Hence phenomena like a car having the same top speed even if the body was fitted back to front.
    Removing a body part will remove the front facing bits of collision triangles and boost speed in Beam as the turbulent effects from exposing the rough mechanical bits are not present.
    Opening the tailgate or back cargo doors will boost speed, the fastest possible pickup is one without any body attached, etc.

    This is only not noticeable in other games as they lack the flexibility of Beam's part-by-part system.

    A shower thought is that Beam's ability to remove parts in the eventual career mode would be a big exploit if allowed. A lighter and more aerodynamic car would result when non-essential parts like fenders, hoods, doors, and bumpers are removed...

    There's an upside to Beam's damage/aero model, if a car is crumpled but the deformed parts are still sufficiently attached to the frame, there will be the added drag as long as a significant number of collision triangles face the direction of travel. The real-time effect is calculated, not an artificial "+10% drag or -10% power when 10% general damage" that I imagine that some other games use.

    Top speed is the key mystery that hounds all, even arcade style, driving games, even if power and the overall rpm to vehicle speed ratio was 100% accurate, other common flaws are in the use of really artificial speed limiters to fake the effects of drag (glares at non-SMS Need for Speeds post-2006), or a total lack of significant drag and speed limiters so a stock F82 M4 can nudge 320 kph (glares at recent Gran Turismos and Forza). Think the last decent aerodynamic drag model was in a number of cars in GT5. AC is a bit too conservative with top speeds even in perfect conditions.
    _____________________________________

    Subjective rant coming up!

    Have to admit, from a strictly personal perspective, the initial Italy "themed" car should have been a modern hatch similar to the modern Fiat 500 or 500X. Looks home on that island, wouldn't be too out of place in the US maps, saves the argument over mechanical origins for another day, is still manufactured today, and results in less pressure on the Vivace to be the modern, supposedly non-Germanic, European compact.

    With the Beetle being Italian, I now wonder if there's an analogue for that wonderful real world German sports car brand starting with P. And what about the extended VW rear engine family and the Manx kit car?

    Beam's cars are generally on the wide side, take note of track-widths too.

    This is a bit of a turn off to the Vivace, the archetypal European compact hatchback, while not the smallest common type of car, should still be suitable for darting around congested inner city streets. Choosing a large and wide car with flared fenders in its class as an inspiration, possibly also to minimise work for conversion to the Tograc crossover, is a bit questionable considering that the base Vivace ends up near identical in size to the 800, apart from length like from the engine bay.

    As much as I like the Tograc's versatility and the general asset quality of both Cherriers, it should be noted that modern real world French cars don't have particularly large petrol engines even in top trims, even petrol CUV and MPV models don't go anywhere near or beyond 2.0L unless they are twinned with, say, an internationally sold Japanese co-developed model.

    Pretty much all FWD French vehicles also strictly stick to torsion beam rears, even stuff like the Megane RS and the 308 GTi. The petrol 2.0L and up Cherriers effectively have German mechanicals. Is the French Cherrier company supposed to be part of a large Pan-European conglomerate, similar to the Spanish SEAT?
    French cars have not been sold in the US for quite some time too.

    The SBR is fine since it's so unique, but I hope it didn't take the place of something like a S660 or BRZ.

    The Sunburst's body is too lightweight and airy/small to pair with the turbo, dual clutch, AWD powertrain. It's mechanically based on the last Lancer, but the last Lancer had really "heavy" style and engineering.
    And why give it a ram style hood scoop when the intercooler is front mounted because a tall inline-4 is used instead of a short flat-4 and it therefore can't fit above? Why/how does Hirochi justify production of both inline and flat 4 cylinder designs?

    Hirochi's products seem to be more like those of a specialised consultant who combines modern engineering into the smaller bodyshells of the 90's. Is there a mass production business case for that outside of high priced sports cars? Even Yamaha abandoned their concept sports car, and the S660 and MX-5 are made by manufacturers who sell conventional products.

    The Sunburst should have been something from the early to mid 00's, still modern, though only with ABS without trac or ESP, but with an enthusiast cult following and adherence to the older rally regulations and homologation requirements.

    Making the Hopper into the more lifestyle/recreational focused Jeep thing over the more utilitarian Land Cruiser is odd, and the military tribute config is peculiar considering the origin of the vehicle and all the pre-mid 20th century baggage that entails, regardless of the original mechanical base of the Land Cruiser being an actual WW2-era Jeep.

    The Hopper is literally a coil-sprung Jeep but with 4-speeds for the auto. Nothing about it is outright Japanese, why not just badge it as a US make?

    Admittedly, I was hoping long ago that "Hopper" was a reference to a small insect, and would be something more like a compact Jiminy Cricket Jimny with an available Kei spec.

    Making the Pigeon Japanese is also odd.
    In the 80's economic boom, who would get a 3-wheeler over a 4-wheel Kei truck?
    Japan left the 3-wheel trend back in the 70's.

    And if the Kei car class doesn't exist in Beam lore, well...

    An even smaller 3 wheel truck fits in perfectly with the farms, harbours, and markets of Europe. If anything, the Pigeon should have been Italian.

    A >25 year old imported Kei truck/van would still be able to serve the purpose of being the backup vehicle to prevent a permanent game over situation. They are not particularly fast or stable either, but it's not too far fetched that some Americans would pick one up (over an ATV) for getting stuff around their property.

    _____________________________________

    TLDR:

    My overall opinion is that playing too much with history should be a no-no considering how massively the Automotive industry was affected by the culture and events each country faced, whether in peace, unsteady isolation, or all out war.

    Having such a realistic car themed physics simulation without content that is analogue to the real world just doesn't seem right. Some artistic license is welcome in styling, and in consolidation of various makes within the same country into 1, like Ibishu, but all out deviation in country of origin and mechanical base for everyday cars really should have been avoided.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice