Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Reworking B&S and engine sizes
#2
(02-16-2015, 02:44 AM)Frankschtaldt Wrote: The current system for bore and stroke and calculating engine sizes is weird and produces a number of odd results. Like V12's being wider than they are long or a 3L I8 being the same length and width as a 3L I3 (or very close too it).
These are only the case if you choose to make them odd shape. I don't agree that it's weird if increasing bore increases width, or if increasing width increases the maximum amount of bore...

Quote:Remove the effect length and width have on these values. The bore slider has access to the full bore range and the stroke slider has access to the full stroke range (from 40mm all the way up to 260mm or whatever it happens to be that year). No, this wont make length and width sliders irrelevant, keep reading.
This would break just about every other rating in the game, also there will be noticeable price difference between a 40mm engine and a 120mm engine. This would break the game balance for engine sizes.

Quote:The bore and stoke are now used to calculate the minimum engine size, along with a few other factors. Now, the lengths and width sliders determine how much effort you've put into making the engine as small as you can for the displacement you've chosen.
These equations will also eliminate the previously mentioned anomalies as well.

Having the length slider all the way to the left would make the engine as short as possible (so, multiplying the above equation by 1) while sliding it all the way to the right means you've not invested any time in reducing the size of your engine at all so it would multiply the length by 1.25 (or, maybe a bigger number if you think that's necessary)

You would still have the same issue of V12's possibly being wider than long IF the user moves length to the right and width to the left. That doesn't solve your original issue.



The current issues with width/length is due to me moving from slider values to direct specs due to the complaint you had with high torque. I have not had time to balance it out. That being said, it does need some tweaking, but I don't agree with your system above. Width/Length will effect min-max bore/stroke. I will not give you access to the full range of sizes. As for removing bore/strokes effect on engine size. Even your formulas above do that by creating a minimum engine size for the bore and stroke. Same thing our system does. If you had width/length sliders at 50%, and you changed bore/stroke, then it'd be at 50% of your new minimum size. So in effect, your system does the same thing, except width/length does not change the range bore and stroke does.

Our numbers are unbalanced because I had to chop out chunks of code. But in a nut shell your concepts are nearly the same.
"great writers are indecent people, they live unfairly, saving the best part for paper.
good human beings save the world, so that bastards like me can keep creating art, become immortal.
if you read this after I am dead it means I made it." ― Charles Bukowski
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Reworking B&S and engine sizes - by Frankschtaldt - 02-16-2015, 02:44 AM
RE: Reworking B&S and engine sizes - by Eric.B - 02-16-2015, 12:58 PM
RE: Reworking B&S and engine sizes - by Eric.B - 02-16-2015, 01:41 PM
RE: Reworking B&S and engine sizes - by Eric.B - 02-16-2015, 11:10 PM
RE: Reworking B&S and engine sizes - by Tridon - 02-17-2015, 04:37 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)