[FIXED]Engines layout

[Celeste]

When designing engines, it would be great if you could design or adjust some technical features as

- valvetrain configuration (sv, ohv, sohc, dohc)
-number of valves per cylinder (2, 3, 4, 5)

these things have a big impact how powerful of fuel saving a engine gets.

[Arakash]

When we are talking about abstraction(the level of detail), i think it is useful to have something to compare it to. Once i show the comparison ive got a question based on it.

Automation, another car company tycoon game being developed at the moment, is great for this kind of comparison.
It also allows you to desgin engines, but it is still being developed, so for now, is limited to i think S4, S6 and V8.
They go into a lot of detail, allowing you to choose most parts of an engine, from the materials of each engine component to fuel mixture and much more. This includes the valves you mentioned.

If youve played that game, is that the kind of detail you would like to see in Gearcity?
How do you decide what parts of that detail in automation are important and which should be abstracted through sliders?

Personally, i actually enjoy Gearcity more, because i don't have detailed knowledge about engines and engineering required to really know how to play Automation competently.
So much of the specifics is just beyond my knowledge. Business management simulators and complex strategy games however, are well within my knowledge/ability

[Celeste]

When we are talking about abstraction(the level of detail), i think it is useful to have something to compare it to. Once i show the comparison ive got a question based on it.

Automation, another car company tycoon game being developed at the moment, is great for this kind of comparison.
It also allows you to desgin engines, but it is still being developed, so for now, is limited to i think S4, S6 and V8.
They go into a lot of detail, allowing you to choose most parts of an engine, from the materials of each engine component to fuel mixture and much more. This includes the valves you mentioned.

If youve played that game, is that the kind of detail you would like to see in Gearcity?
How do you decide what parts of that detail in automation are important and which should be abstracted through sliders?

Personally, i actually enjoy Gearcity more, because i don't have detailed knowledge about engines and engineering required to really know how to play Automation competently.
So much of the specifics is just beyond my knowledge. Business management simulators and complex strategy games however, are well within my knowledge/ability

You are right, I think automation is too detailed. I don't want to spend hours designing until one engine is finished. So Gear City fits almost perfect for me.

But I want also to see some essential technics (I am not a technican!). Until now we have only very few technical differentations when designing engines (number of cyl., typ of motor (straight, V, H,..), displacement and adding an compressor, etc. This is great, but adding a very few numbers of technical issues would be great. Car designing is a technical thing. As you can see, I only suggested two more features which would be quiet easy to handle without much knownledge.

[Arakash]

But I want also to see some essential technics (I am not a technican!). Until now we have only very few technical differentations when designing engines (number of cyl., typ of motor (straight, V, H,..), displacement and adding an compressor, etc. This is great, but adding a very few numbers of technical issues would be great. Car designing is a technical thing. As you can see, I only suggested two more features which would be quiet easy to handle without much knownledge.

That's a fair and reasonable point you've made. Especially about only two changes.

The main reason i brought up the comparison:
I was wondering, how we (or more more accurately the game designers) would go about deciding what engine feature stays abstracted through sliders and what is directly chosen.
Again lets use the Automation comparison. Im not suggesting we use all or any of that game, or that you would want to, its just a useful comparison as an extreme example.

Major design categories seem to be:
Displacement/layout - Part of which is in Gearcity
Head type/number/design - the category where the valves of your suggestion were
Aspiration system - Part of which is in Gearcity
Fuel system (carb/injection)
Exhaust design

What i was wondering, was if you had valve number, whether it might be equally justified to have carb/injector decision or to select the type of Cam.

Anyway, its just something to think about. As i said earlier, i dont know enough about engines to actually say what is important or not.

[Celeste]

First of all, I think we have (almost) the same opinion about what Gear City should be (and is definitely going to be). A business simulation with some but not too much technical details. Automation for me has too much designing and too much technics. I am not a fan of designing hours and hours to develop one single engine. So I think the balance between business and designing in Gear City is almost perfect for me.

That's a fair and reasonable point you've made. Especially about only two changes.

The main reason i brought up the comparison:
I was wondering, how we (or more more accurately the game designers) would go about deciding what engine feature stays abstracted through sliders and what is directly chosen.
Again lets use the Automation comparison. Im not suggesting we use all or any of that game, or that you would want to, its just a useful comparison as an extreme example.

Major design categories seem to be:
Displacement/layout - Part of which is in Gearcity
Head type/number/design - the category where the valves of your suggestion were
Aspiration system - Part of which is in Gearcity
Fuel system (carb/injection)
Exhaust design

What i was wondering, was if you had valve number, whether it might be equally justified to have carb/injector decision or to select the type of Cam.

Anyway, its just something to think about. As i said earlier, i dont know enough about engines to actually say what is important or not.

Well I think it is quiet difficult to decide what is important for an engine. But I think that you have allready listed the major components of an engine. So I would suggest three more categories at the beginning menue of engine design with not to much options:

Head design (sv, ohv, ohc, dohc)
Number of valves (2 to 5)
Fuel system (single carb, double carb, fuel injection)

I think this would not be too difficult to handle as the differentation is only from low tech (and low cost) to high tech (of course not everything will be available in 1900).

Why I would love to see these things? I dream about playing a multi marque company (like GM or British Leyland) and would love to differentate (correct in English?) the marques with low-tech and high-tech engines at some point. A little example: In the thirties, Morris (GB) owned three other marques: Wolseley, Riley and MG. Morris was the butter and bread marque, but Wolseley hat some special engines, small 6 Cylinder ohc engines. These were also used by MG to create something famous as the MG K3 Magnette Roadster with a 6 Cylinder 1.087 ccm ohc compressor engine with about 120 PS. At the same time, Morris used some really old school sv-units.

[Frankschtaldt]

I personally think that the level of detail in the component design is just right as it. Some more words to describe some details for the abstract choices you make couldn't hurt (ie: once the technology level goes past a certain point the game tells you you've upgraded to OHV from side valve and then to OHC and eventually DOHC etc). Obviously there would be some work involved in setting different thresholds at different dates (OHC won't happen in 1900 no matter how high you set the tech level and side valve won't happen in 2010 no matter how low you set it) but I'm guessing it'd be a lot less work than introducing new parameters to the existing calculations as well as new UI options for selecting valve train options etc.

[Eric.B]

Sorry I'm a bit late replying to the thread.

Any way to work them into the existing system?

Perhaps if layouts were a selection such as: DOHC Inline, SOHC Inline, SOHC V, DOHC V (Quad Cams)
Valves can be adjusted like bore/stroke (finer amount of course)
Not sure about the fuel delivery system stuff though...


How much demand is there for something like this?

[Frankschtaldt]

Was my suggestion not viable?

I'm still firmly on the side of "the engine design process is perfect as is". Here's some of the reasons I feel it's a bad idea to include valve train selections and different number of carbies etc
1 - It'll push you towards competition with Automation which is a bad idea as they have a massive head start on the engine details side of things and as such will win that competition. You're better off keeping things simple so you catch people that find the concept interesting but don't know a great deal about the finer details of cars. Also, it'll differentiate the games enough that some people (myself included) will buy both. If you over detail things that will happen leas.
2 - Its a hell of a lot of work. If you introduce separate parameters for valve train and different types of fuel delivery systems you're also going the have to regigger the numbers associated with the sliders that are currently intended to incorporate those things so that people don't end up designing 400hp 1L 2 cylinder engines. It'll also mean instead of having the 5ish different engine layouts you currently have you'll have over 50 (if you include all valve types that have had major use through history, I can think of at least 10 off the top of my head that should be included. There may be more). You'd also go from 4 types of fuel delivery to at least 12 . That's not just a lot if work to implement but a massive effort to balance!

Incorporating these details into the descriptions you already have in the game is a much more elegant solution and will allow people to have their 4 valve engines with much less effort.

[Arakash]

Was my suggestion not viable?

I'm still firmly on the side of "the engine design process is perfect as is". Here's some of the reasons I feel it's a bad idea to include valve train selections and different number of carbies etc
1 - It'll push you towards competition with Automation which is a bad idea as they have a massive head start on the engine details side of things and as such will win that competition. You're better off keeping things simple so you catch people that find the concept interesting but don't know a great deal about the finer details of cars. Also, it'll differentiate the games enough that some people (myself included) will buy both. If you over detail things that will happen leas.
2 - Its a hell of a lot of work. If you introduce separate parameters for valve train and different types of fuel delivery systems you're also going the have to regigger the numbers associated with the sliders that are currently intended to incorporate those things so that people don't end up designing 400hp 1L 2 cylinder engines. It'll also mean instead of having the 5ish different engine layouts you currently have you'll have over 50 (if you include all valve types that have had major use through history, I can think of at least 10 off the top of my head that should be included. There may be more). You'd also go from 4 types of fuel delivery to at least 12 . That's not just a lot if work to implement but a massive effort to balance!

Incorporating these details into the descriptions you already have in the game is a much more elegant solution and will allow people to have their 4 valve engines with much less effort.

Hmm... Some good points there. Especially on the amount of work required, that alone might make such a thing impractical.(that's probably something to ask Eric)

How much demand is there for something like this?

Personally, i don't really support or oppose the carb/valve ideas, beyond my original statement that part of my preference for Gearcity is that it doesn't require a lot of engine/engineering knowledge, which can't be said of Automation.
Seeing as i don't have a lot of the engine/engineering knowledge i mentioned, i really cant say whether its important enough that it needs to be included.

[Celeste]

Sorry I'm a bit late replying to the thread.

Any way to work them into the existing system?

Perhaps if layouts were a selection such as: DOHC Inline, SOHC Inline, SOHC V, DOHC V (Quad Cams)
Valves can be adjusted like bore/stroke (finer amount of course)
Not sure about the fuel delivery system stuff though...


How much demand is there for something like this?

As I mentioned earlier (see the MG - Morris example) I would love to see it implemented in an easy way.

I would suggest that head type and the number of valves could be quiet easy done with a selection at the beginning of the engine development menue (like number of cylinders, etc.). Also you could keep the selection quiet simple (4 head types (sv, ohv, ohv, dohc - V-Engines would not be seperated) an 4 valve types (2, 3, 4, 5)) when choosing an engine that these features has (not a Wankel engine ).

My least priority would be the fuel delivery sytem, as there are only about three differentations.

I don't know how much work that be for you Eric, but the result would be much clearer than just having an a "tech-slider". So I think the engine designing would be much more realistic without going too much in the automation-area und also quiet simple and more obvious than a tech-slider for the players with not so much technical knownledge.

[Eric.B]

Combining valvetrain with layouts would be no problem.

Valves would be a little more work as I would have to add AI selection code and more balancing. (It's enough to break the game like it's broke now! )

Considering the fact most DOHC's engines are 4 valves, and a good number of SOHC are 2 valves, I think adding this extra layer of detail is a little much.

So valvetrain configuration will probably make its way into the game (combined with engine layout) but don't expect valve numbers or fuel delivery systems.

[Celeste]

Combining valvetrain with layouts would be no problem.

Valves would be a little more work as I would have to add AI selection code and more balancing. (It's enough to break the game like it's broke now! )

Considering the fact most DOHC's engines are 4 valves, and a good number of SOHC are 2 valves, I think adding this extra layer of detail is a little much.

So valvetrain configuration will probably make its way into the game (combined with engine layout) but don't expect valve numbers or fuel delivery systems.

That would be great! For me the valvetrain configuration is the most import of my three suggestions.

[Frankschtaldt]

Considering the fact most DOHC's engines are 4 valves, and a good number of SOHC are 2 valves, I think adding this extra layer of detail is a little much.

So valvetrain configuration will probably make its way into the game (combined with engine layout) but don't expect valve numbers or fuel delivery systems.

I've just realized a problem with this approach. 2 stroke engine don't use any valve train at all. They just use holes cut into the sides of the cylinders to port gasses in and out. That means you would need to add 2 stroke to all the layouts as well as having it as it's own fuel type.

My alternative suggestion is to have valve train built into fuel type instead.
Giving you the following:
2 stroke gas
4 stroke gas - sleeve valve
4 stroke gas - side valve
4 stroke gas - ohv
4 stroke gas - ohc
4 stroke gas - dohc

That covers all of the major categories whilst actually reducing the number of different new entries you need to make in the XML files.

[Eric.B]

I've just realized a problem with this approach. 2 stroke engine don't use any valve train at all. They just use holes cut into the sides of the cylinders to port gasses in and out. That means you would need to add 2 stroke to all the layouts as well as having it as it's own fuel type.

My alternative suggestion is to have valve train built into fuel type instead.

That may be a better way to do it. I'll look deeper into it when I get to it.

[Celeste]

Considering the fact most DOHC's engines are 4 valves, and a good number of SOHC are 2 valves, I think adding this extra layer of detail is a little much.

So valvetrain configuration will probably make its way into the game (combined with engine layout) but don't expect valve numbers or fuel delivery systems.

I've just realized a problem with this approach. 2 stroke engine don't use any valve train at all. They just use holes cut into the sides of the cylinders to port gasses in and out. That means you would need to add 2 stroke to all the layouts as well as having it as it's own fuel type.

My alternative suggestion is to have valve train built into fuel type instead.
Giving you the following:
2 stroke gas
4 stroke gas - sleeve valve
4 stroke gas - side valve
4 stroke gas - ohv
4 stroke gas - ohc
4 stroke gas - dohc

That covers all of the major categories whilst actually reducing the number of different new entries you need to make in the XML files.

Oh, I thought that that was clear. Only 4-stroke-engines have these kind of valvetrains. Also Wankel-engines or of course electric engines have no valves. And I forgot that also 4-stroke engines with no valves exist. Some quiet famous engines in the early twenties had the Knight system, an engine with sleeve valves (p.a. the first Daimler Double Six V12).

I would only allow a possibility to choose different valvetrains if you preselect a 4-stroke engine (like Frankschtaldt suggested). But the player should be able to see the valvetrain configuration in a list when choosing an engine when designing a vehicle.

[Frankschtaldt]

Considering the fact most DOHC's engines are 4 valves, and a good number of SOHC are 2 valves, I think adding this extra layer of detail is a little much.

So valvetrain configuration will probably make its way into the game (combined with engine layout) but don't expect valve numbers or fuel delivery systems.

I've just realized a problem with this approach. 2 stroke engine don't use any valve train at all. They just use holes cut into the sides of the cylinders to port gasses in and out. That means you would need to add 2 stroke to all the layouts as well as having it as it's own fuel type.

My alternative suggestion is to have valve train built into fuel type instead.
Giving you the following:
2 stroke gas
4 stroke gas - sleeve valve
4 stroke gas - side valve
4 stroke gas - ohv
4 stroke gas - ohc
4 stroke gas - dohc

That covers all of the major categories whilst actually reducing the number of different new entries you need to make in the XML files.

Oh, I thought that that was clear. Only 4-stroke-engines have these kind of valvetrains. Also Wankel-engines or of course electric engines have no valves. And I forgot that also 4-stroke engines with no valves exist. Some quiet famous engines in the early twenties had the Knight system, an engine with sleeve valves (p.a. the first Daimler Double Six V12).

I would only allow a possibility to choose different valvetrains if you preselect a 4-stroke engine (like Frankschtaldt suggested). But the player should be able to see the valvetrain configuration in a list when choosing an engine when designing a vehicle.

Note that I have the sleeve valve listed in my list of 4 stroke options =)

I've began working on a mod (see the mod section for more info) and one of the first things I did was to create these different valve trains.

[Eric.B]

Alright, I have went ahead and added valve trains configurations to the game, however I did not add the number of valves. It will be included in 1.18 patch.