[FIXED]4WD and new rating proposal

[freeman2344]

There is currently little incentive to design a 4WD chassis for a non-performance vehicle. I believe that this should, if possible, be rectified in the future. In the real world, the vast majority of 4WD cars are purchased to increase the vehicle's usability in adverse weather conditions and especially during the winter months.

The most elegant way to do this would, in my opinion, be yet another rating category ("Usability"). This category would also encompass other factors, such as the vehicle's proportions (a very long or wide vehicle limits usability to a significant extent) and be influenced by other rating factors, like "cargo" (in a manner similar to "power" influencing "performance" ... at least I believe that's actually implemented). "Usability" would generally refer to how easy the vehicle is to live with on a daily basis and would naturally be of less importance for certain vehicles types, such as sports- or supercars.

Of course, implementing a new rating type might be a significant timesink...
Alternatively, it would also be suitable to have the "Safety" rating be influenced by the chassis type (maybe that's already the case?) and achieve a comparable effect in this manner. This function, should it not be implemented already, could also be used to have "Automatic" transmissions affect the "Comfort" or "Luxury" ratings, as automatics don't seem to be particularly advantageous in the current build (again, I might be wrong, surely Eric can explain whether or not something like this is already going on "under the hood").

[Eric.B]

I do agree the numbers for f4 and m4 should be tweaked.

I don't think chassis layout effects safety however. To me, safety is weight and size.

Instead of usability, it should effect driveability more. Such a rating already exists, although without looking at the code I don't think chassis layout effects it any more than the performance/steering rating.


Anyhoo I'll take into account your ideas when I get around to tweaking RnD again.

[Frankschtaldt]

I disagree that chassis layout doesn't effect safety.
However, I think I might be looking at it from a different angle than you.
Chassis layout absolutely doesn't effect crash survivability, however, 4wd or awd (or choice of suspension for that matter) effects safety in the sense that it reduces the risk of an accident in the first place via greatly reduced threat of loss of traction in adverse conditions. The overall effect on a safety rating would be small but I agree with freeman that it should be there.

[azzbla]

I'd have to agree with Frank here, a huge reason to get a 4WD is for traction in rain/snow and it should definitely contribute a lot more to the end car statistics, especially safety.

Also, in terms of chassis design, safety should be a huge factor since the chassis is essentially what absorbs the energy from impacts and modern day chassis design incorporates all sorts of safety features like crumple zones, reinforcement bars in the doors pillars for roof strength, etc...

[Eric.B]

The chassis it self does effect safety. However the layout effects driveability and steering which also effects safety. My point was I don't think layout directly effects safety.

I think traction would be considered steering would it not? Every time I've ever lost traction, there wasn't much steering going on.

[Eric.B]

I've balanced out stats some, increasing 4 wheel drive variants and nurfed others.
The sum of F4's ratings are equal to FR's now. I've increased its durability and steering, both of which effect driveability and strength which in turn effect safety. As stated above, layouts them selves do not directly effect safety or cargo space, but it does effect things that effect those stats.