0.16 Discussion Thread

well if you think about it, the engine only needs to put enough force to keep the same speed so if it can keep the speed at 8th gear, then much better... so for the system to work it probably needs to sense the ratio of throttle and acceleration demand and see if it accelerates as much within a time frame... but you have to admit that since the fuel consumption if not RPM based... it does not really change much ;P if you idle and press no gas... the fuel does not decrease... the RPM should be 1 factor of the fuel drain and the throttle input the second... (third Engine characteristics.) too bad it is not set like

"fuel piston drain min" = 1 Fuel
"fuel piston drain max" = 6 Fuel
"fuel piston drain" = "fuel piston drain max" minus "fuel piston drain min" divided by "throttle max" times "actual throttle" plus "fuel piston drain min"
or at 60% throttle "fuel piston drain" = ((((6-1)/100)*60)+1)

Piston number = 6

Piston number times fuel piston drain times RPM
((((6-1)/100)*60)+1)=4
((6*4)*5600)=134400 fuel drain.

you also need a if engine = off
"fuel piston drain min" = 0
else
"fuel piston drain min" = config."fuel piston drain min" (do not copy past this thinking it is going to work... that is not how coding works but this is humanly readable math, just saying, tho feel free to use that schema!)

 

Fuel will definitely drain at idle. BeamNGs current fuel consumption system is actually very good. Fuel efficiency is based off of engine load. However, friction increases with RPMs, which hurts efficiency. The way engines work is, you basically input the base torque curve, and then the game will calculate how much fuel you will need to generate that much power, based on your current efficiency at engine load, and turn any extra into heat. Then, it will subtract friction, and turn that into heat too. It's actually a great system, if you lug an engine you will ruin your fuel efficiency by running at an inefficient load, and if you keep the devs up you will waste too much energy to friction. The current system is already better and more flexible than your suggestion.

 

I'm not sure if that is how things work.

To keep engine rotating, you need energy, that energy comes heat expansion from fuel/air mixture that is burned.

Efficiency of that burn varies with engine load, with petrol engine lot of it has to do with pumping losses increased by throttle butterfly that is not fully open, one of the reasons why diesel is more efficient is because no throttle butterfly.

This efficiency variable is simulated in game. During engine braking fuel is cut off like petrol fuel injected engines do, with carb engines this does not happen, but in game all engines cut off fuel with engine braking.

Air resistance, rolling resistance and frictional losses need to be overcome to maintain steady rpm, with any incline gravity causes more forces to be overcome, so steady rpm will require variable amount of fuel, it will not happen without fuel.

Transmissions, well old ones, I don't really understand anything that has come after 90's, don't really care about fuel consumption, you have torque and rpm, some valves close or open depending your shifter position and if you press throttle enough to enable kickdown feature, but other than that transmissions of old don't know a thing about engine.
Modern ones have all sort of electronic gremlins installed to them, some alter shift points based on how hard you drive, learning gearboxes, they might have eco modes to alter shift points, but basic operation still is similar on conventional automatic, it does not care about fuel burned, only about value of TPS, speed, changes in TPS over time and modifier by mode selection.

That is pretty much all simulated in smart aggression calculation, it may not be the most perfect, but nothing is, what automatic logic is in BeamNG is pretty much best you have in any game, it does it's job really well in incredible wide range of situations.

I find that ETK 800 drives pretty much like similar vehicle I have driven IRL, it can be super annoying at times, especially IRL when stupid learning box thinks it knows better than I do what kind of driving is happening, but also it can be quite awesome if not changing how you drive constantly, in a way BeamNG version is bit better in that

 

well i only tested it in V0.15 and the fuel does not drain on idle. it remained at 1L in the tank for 10 minutes and with the slightest press on the throttle going from 900 RPM to 950, the fuel was visibly draining. (made an engine that drained 160L per 100km at full throttle so 1% throttle drained it in less than 2 minutes)

and a engine does not use more than what you put in the piston so it can use less than the maximum but no less than what is needed to keep it running on idle. (not in precision but in principle)

assuming one turn fires all pistons and repeats each turn then (even if 1 RPM is not 1 turn, but 1 turn per seconds, only that part i really messed up in that math) it should use minimally the fuel of staying ON plus the fuel to accelerate if you use the throttle. hence why in the equation i remove the minimum, then scale the throttle, then add the minimum again to emulate the demand asked of it.

no matter the load you put, if you press on it, the nozzle will squirt what is asked and make the RPM and torque rise. so full throttle with nothing on the engine, it will just spin faster until it destroy it self without the rev limiter. adding one means the throttle is cut off at said RPM limit and re engaged when under.

so basically, without any ECU, the the physical engine, it is just a hose with a nozzle on each piston with a pedal being the valve. (super simplified example)

but i know nothing of how a ECU cuts on the nozzle when there is no load. but a muscle car definitely is just a water gun with a repeater and a volume valve on the nozzle. it does not feel load. (tho load might increase compression artificially. i doubt that this increase the L per 100Km efficiency... more like decrease.)

any how no matter how they do it, i never saw the fuel go down on Idle in BeamNG (not just the "blue bar" but the debug app in game, it stays at 0 no drain when parked on idle.) i should test if they fixed that. in V0.16 tho if it is the same. i should test a BeamNG car and not just Automation cars.


EDIT-----

i just tested it with an Automation can and the Default Truck in the Grid Map and the fuel now drains...

just funny that i have a 120 mm bore 120 mm stroke V16 maxed out and that it only took about 0.02L in 1 minute or 2 lol that thing drinks the sea when running ;P (21710cc or a 21.7L engine!)

 

Hmm, try this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption it might help to see why in game fuel consumption behaves like it does.

Also check these:
https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/bsfc-chart-thread-post-em-if-you-got-1466.html

Then in game bring up engine debug app to see fuel consumption and torque in real time.

At idle engine produces quite small amount of power and fuel, even efficiency goes out of the window there is not much of any power produced so actual consumption remains low.


I think that in game there is also some sort of automatic throttle adjustment to maintain idle rpm as stalling with a clutch use only is pretty hard, so load might affect to throttle amount even your input reads 0%. That is fine and ok with modern vehicles, but with carb there was no electric motors to adjust throttle to keep idling, so it was far much easier to stall, also idle fuel consumption might differ from modern ones as increased friction or load by AC etc. was not compensated with old tech.

Automation cars have some odd things among them, they are simpler not only in node beam structure, but they tend to lack some refinement of BeamNG cars in powertrain area too.

Also at least my higher powered ones that have ESC are not working so well, I suspect that Automation exporter used some values which did work fine with slower TC, but now with much improved one in 0.16 those Automation vehicles seem to suffer from issues, probably exporter might need some finetuning in how they set up ESC and TC parameters.

 

now every time i make a Automation car, i edit the Values by hand... the Exporter probably needs to be updated i guess. plus they should let us tune the LSD values and let us tune the brakes separately and have individual rim size for tires... also gears are a bit annoying to get right, gears are cogs, cogs needs size for strength or smallness for lower powered cars... they should let us tune all gears but make gear cog size based tuning... a 18 Tonne vehicle do not have Honda Civic gear cogs that is for sure! well it is like almost 10 AM here, so i am going to sleep and stop writing... i tend to not make sense when i lack too much sleep.

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I did a reinstall and everything is in order again

 

I found out that in the 0.16.0.2 the optimization makes the display smoother even the FPS is still the same as 0.15.
And if your computer is beefy enough to get 60+ FPS turn on Vsync to run smoother. If not, turn off VSync, for example if your computer can only do 45FPS, VSync on will make the graphic output do 30FPS-60FPS-30FPS-60FPS-30FPS-60FPS and make constant speed movement jerky.

 

It is also possible to turn vsync off in game, then turn adaptive vsync on in nvidia control panel play game at full screen, what that does is that it runs game with vsync, but if you drop under 60fps, vsync goes off, so you don't drop to 30, but maybe that 45fps instead, when fps goes back to 60 or more, vsync turns on again. That is a good compromise.

There was option of such in game some time ago, but it was removed from some reason.

I have no idea if AMD drivers have such option or how well it works.

Setting graphics to normal and turning off ssao and reflections can allow quite many computers to run 60fps, for example 1050Ti at 1080p runs most maps all the time and all maps most of the time at 60fps on normal graphics.

 

My thread about car wheel positions for after market steering wheels

https://www.beamng.com/threads/moonhawks-wheel-position-needs-correction.62436/

 

Unacceptable /s

 

Personally I dislike SSAO because it makes the dashboard too dark, unable to read RPM. I never had my fps drop to 30 because of the VSync. When playing other games if the FPS is above 60 turning on Vsync will reduce to 60, if below 60, VSync on or off(both nvidia control panel and/or ingame) does not affect framerate at all. When playing BeamnG if below 60fps(such as 45fps), turning on VSync does not affect framerates displayed(Ctrl+F) but if you drive 45mph your screen will looks like the car is jerking between 30mph and 60mph.

 

It does affect FPS, but it does not show up, yeah that jerkiness is from 30fps but you might see 55fps or something in fps counter, joys of technology I guess

It is indeed best to make sure hardware can do over 60fps all times, then with vsync on everything is super smooth.

 

What? Did you mean if your computer is capable doing 59.9999999FPS, turning on VSync will cause it to do 30FPS at ALL time, not a single miliseconds of doing 60fps? Not odd second 30fps even second 60fps? If so I would rather switch to a 144Hz display and turn off Vsync on every single game because I feel disgust(just kidding).

Imagine you are doing a road racing. Your PC is capable of doing more than 60FPS so you turn on VSync, then during a tight corner surrounded by buildings, this makes your computer only doing 59.9999999999FPS then the VSync make the motion jerk, and you lost control of your car then crashed.

 

As long as computer fails to get 60fps that results 30fps to your screen. If your computer can't get over 60, you will not see more than 30 in your monitor as sync just drops to 30 at moment fps drops below 60.

144Hz might not help, because even 200fps stutters like mad compared to vsync on and computer capable to keep that 60 in all situations. Some games stutter no matter what, can't play such.

Also it is pretty hard to keep up over 144fps to have vsync in 144Hz mode.

There is of course G-sync and such that might be smooth with lower fps, but then same money put to computing power might give solid 60fps. There is no win

 

i am not sure if it is with triple buffering but i think there is also a 45 FPS in the middle as well... on my Nvidia, i noticed with Crysis that the only way i could get full performance is using the fast mode of Vsync since it delays frames to be timed with your screen when above and cap it, of below, i think it also aligns the frame time but does not cap it at 30 or 45 line normal Vsync... not sure...

i tested that and got way better results, with Vsync i could only get 24 FPS due to a Bug, so you can try it on "Fast" if you have that mode... come to think of it i should put it as default and choose normal Vsync when it fails instead of what i have... (Vsync Default... i should put that to Fast.)
--- Post updated ---
just to say, it was tested with Crysis, i should Test with BeamNG and other games as well!

 

What I found out is that before 0.15 30FPSVSync on is better than 45FPS Vsync off. After 0.16 45FPS Vsync off is better

I just discovered FPS Limiter is very handy. If your computer is capable of doing X FPS, setting it to X-5 of X-10 FPS(while keeping Vsync off) will unload the GPU and makes UI much much faster.

 

i get like blue light/glow from some of the cars

 

I found problem with traction control, before 0.16 it was working just fine. It´s not a big problem but still in 0.15 it was better. One wheel had traction the other was on ice.

 

Just wanted to express my appreciation for the structure conversion done on the rear end of the of the D/H series - and the 6.0L diesel. Between the two of those, there is great potential for burnouts!

Don't forget that the 31x12.50 R16 All Terrain tires will eventually have to be added to the rear too - I'm really looking forward to properly taking a dually off-road!