Engines are wierd

[Unavailableartist]

So, I revisited this game after a year... also got the "Automation: Game" and after I researched some I noticed the engines here are just a bit strange XD.

This game favors stroke heavy engines, while Automation and the real world seems to favor varying degrees of bore heavy engines. When I'm building a compact motor for example Bore size should be dominant if only slightly, but here stroke makes the most power dense engines.

So, for example a formula engine (based on a website I went to), currently has a tiny 1.6 L. v6 and it is a bore heavy engine. In fact as much as I know,  If you want the most potent sport engine that revs. super high you want a bore heavy engine. However here, if I want to make a "race engine" with poor dependability I just lower respective research in that field and make a compact 5000 cc engine with a long stroke (as bore size drastically increases weight). And stroke aside from lowering your RPMs, doesn't do much in terms of increasing weight. However in real life, this design would fail because you would be essentially be making a lazy 5L diesel that has excellent fuel eco/low end torque properties (i.e. less wear due to lower revs, better fuel effiency due to lower revs and better thermal dynamics... etc.). Actually if you look in the past, that's why the GT40 wound up beating everyone in the LeMans race, because it had a lazier 8 cylinder vs the tighter wound Ferrari engines which were higher rev'ing and if you don't know LeMans ( is more a endurance race than on based on speed, speed still matters though).


Thoughts?

[Eric.B]

Essentially the game does not have a height dimension for engines. Thus increasing the stroke does not increase the engine height which in turn would increase the weight. I may make a note to increase the weight added to the engine via the stroke sliders to balance the proportions a bit more.

If the expansion is funded we will be adding a height dimension to the engine/chassis systems. In which case a proper fix can be implemented.

[Unavailableartist]

That would be cool. I know your budget is limited so is your team. So I'm not expecting animated engines and sounds, but it would be so nice of the sliders tied a bit more in designing a distinct/parts.

With the engine for example.

Rev./torque (I personally don't like the torque slider as torque is usually tied to stroke/bore, and actual engine parts like the fuel injection method, aspiration etc.)- plays more with fuel consumption, max power, and decreases reliability. The max revs. An engine makes is tied to how quickly it can cycle intake and exhaust. So things like the 2 stroke, L head etc will drastically change max revs. (As it already does).But I also think it should effect reliability because, think about it.. the faster something revs the hotter it burns and the more friction it exerts etc. And think of it this way, an engine that lasts the longest is never turned on. (It would provide incentive more like real world spec'd engines and places emphasis in making cars with 6000 rpm instead of like 13000 ~ formula 1 speeds).


Material. Should influence rev limit (it would also influence durability and weight), however fuel shoul be tied to revs and fuel injection process, components. So if the material quality lvl raises the revs it could raise fuel consumption.

Performance effects torque with little to change to revs.

Fuel eco. For slight hit in power. Deals mainly with air fuel intake and exahust.

Fuel eco research for research price increase fuel eco get better eco no performance hit. Deals mainly with octane, fuel air mix.

Components and tech should effect a little of everything, play with the slider to hit pockets of better performance, fuel eco, smoothness.

Haven't thought of the other sliders... But I think that would be a healthy compromise between your simple game and more complex games like automation and/or real life.

[Eric.B]

I increased the strokes' effect on the weight and decreased bore's effect (via engine length and width). I checked against Kent 1.6L, Ford 3.8L V6 and Ford 5.0L V8 to confirm that the bore/stroke/weight ratios are near correct.


As for the rest of the things you posted in your second post. We're way too far into development to make any major changes to development of the sliders. The game is only about 5 minor builds (2 major builds) from being released. You should have posted this stuff a couple years ago . I can't guarantee any of this will make it into the game. The above deal with the stroke/bore required no coding on my part, just changed 2 numbers, and I noticed an issue there my self as well... Anyhoo, I'll see what I can do.

As for Automation. That's what you get when you spend 8 years and $2 million dollars developing just a car designer while selling a "tycoon" game... We generate much of the same data, using many of the same basic engineering/physics formulas. We just have to abstract a lot of it away due to lack of budget for artwork. You'll find you can match specs for specs with real world consumer car engines inside GC. Yes, the sliders might not be where you think they should be, but it can be done.

[Unavailableartist]

True, gearcity 2 then somepoint or never. . Your making an airplane tycoon next. (I'll prolly get too, I like planes)
You are doing a great job I really like your market/UI stuff compared to automation. That's saying a lot for a game with a budget like yours.

So far as I know, you don't
-buy, sell, trade blueprints.
-There are no companies you compete against (you just worry about demand/budget).
-You start 46 yrs earlier.
-More engine types, H/U/W, Steam, electric Motor, diesel (though they said they might do a dlc with electric and diesel)... Though they do have pretty detail, more motor parts.

[Eric.B]

I made some additional adjustments based on your feedback on here. You'll see these changes in v1.23.3 or v1.24 depending on which build you're subscribed to.