0.20 Discussion thread | Use Safe Mode before reporting

I agree with everything but space complaint (because I like the way it looks) and the removal of the reset button - I think it's convenient to be able to do it there, instead of going through (for some vehicles) 50 configs.

 

I enabled spawn mods in traffic but when I spawn traffic all I get are stupid stock vehicles, how to fix?

 

What specific instances of these "alternative desired outcomes" do you have in mind?

To expand upon this, the Moonhawk's 4.0L straight-six still is oddly powerful and fancy for a base-model vehicle of the era. I like that it has parts like a two-barrel carb and a race tubular exhaust manifold (they would be fantastic tuning parts), but why would a cheapo base-model - that has a three-speed manual gearbox instead of a four-speed, blackwall tires, simpler hubcaps, and other cheaper trimmings - have such fancy and expensive engine parts from the factory?


Quick TL;DR: I appreciate that the engines listed below have fancy engine parts that would work great for tuning; I just don't think they work that well for stock configurations.

Just look at all those bends and curves - they look very race-car-esque. Not exactly befitting of a trim that has a three-speed manual, less chrome trim, and cheaper hubcaps for cost savings.


The Moonhawk's V8 also has fancy-looking headers - these look great on a race car (and again, would be great tuning parts), but are quite wack on something like a base-model V8 'Hawk. They don't even improve performance significantly enough to be worth the cost on a factory version - these headers are likely getting the 'Hawk V8 only two or three horsepower more.


The Barstow/Bluebuck 4.0L sixes are two more engines that have headers that are quite a bit more expensive than the V8 counterparts. These look like a mix between short cast and tubular headers...


...while these are definitely short cast or even cast log.


Even the Burnside 313 has these fancier headers - and while they would be great as tuning parts, they're...if not perfectly realistic, at least more understandable than the straight-sixes' headers. The Burnside is meant to be a fairly pricey performance car; it's understandable that it would have these short-cast/tubular headers to extract more power from the 313. I'd still prefer to see factory cast and aftermarket tubular headers for this engine, like the Bluebuck/Barstow (just so that the Burnside 313 can get something in the customization area), but I'm not bothered by it as much as I am by the Moonhawk, Bluebuck L6, or D-Series L6's header designs.


These criticisms are less about realism and more about a lack of consistency and the general why aspect. Why would Bruckell and Gavril bother with making their 4.0L straight-sixes performance engines from the factory when they already have their V8s for performance? Why would they bother with such expensive items like tubular manifolds on their cheapo base trims when these trims' wheels, transmissions, and suspension, and trim pieces are changed/removed for cost cutting? And if Gavril bothered with making expensive headers for their base straight-six trims as early as 1962, why would they then keep using cheap cast headers on even the most expensive V8 trims well into the 1990s?

 

Sorry to nitpick on this little bit, but the Special is supposed to be semi luxury car, sort of standing where Buick/Desoto would be. Only that it has a (very) powerful V8 to push the savvy business man up any hill. In fact am i the only one who thinks the 313 V8 is bit too powerful, or maybe the fact that it has a three speed auto as early as 1953 that really shouldn't be available until 1956 (hint hint nudge nudge devs), i dont know which one it is, the power of the 313 or the three speed auto, when equipped with the dual-matic it seems quite slow but makes good use of the low end torque whilst i see no problem with three speed manual because some savvy business men back then were a bit stubborn to change up to an auto

 

Oh, no specifics as not out to create conflict. But I'd generalise that more on this forum should do a bit more research into both the general advancement of cars and what real manufacturers did and why.

I can't resist this though; other than the mechanical 4WS and non-mechanical details, what about either Pessima screams Honda Accord?

Will mention it again though, a big part comes from my personal biases for 1 to 1 mechanicals and having a potential variety of mechanically unique vehicles of the same class and era.

Also can't resist, could the devs please focus a bit more on adding vehicles from the 21st century, was there the big financial crisis and the resulting cash for clunkers scheme?

Considering the time period, I'd chalk up the Moonhawk 6's G.O.A.T. ratings to the whole 70's mess of gross to net, cat converters, and low-octane gas. Those ratings are not too out of the world if it was advertised as such back in the 60's, especially since it was still acceptable to only state gross ratings for some reason.

Though of course, as net ratings are the physical reality and in Beam, the 6's ratings need to be reduced a bit.
The V8 mesh is probably getting reworked ATM so who knows, but the devs, what could change.

Have also posted previously about how the Burnside needs some adjustment to better fit in the time period.

Also, the Gavril pickup's 4.1 I6 now makes more low-end and peak torque than the early 4.5 V8, which leads back to the whole "why not just make the vehicles, with their high to low trim levels, closer to the real equivalents."

Just look at what the contemporary big 3 did instead...
(OK, stopping myself here, not the best place, maybe I'll do up a proper thread in the future)

 

Oh, no worries. Sometimes, I get things wrong here and there. But while it may be a semi-luxe Desoto-esque vehicle, the Burnside's 115 mph top speed and 10-second acceleration would have put it on close footing with the Bentley Continental R Type coupe - which was one of the fastest production cars of the early '50s IRL. It's definitely meant to be a performance car, as well as a luxury car - which is possibly why it has such a short 2.9m wheelbase for handling. The Burnside is basically a cheaper Bentley Continental R Coupe with two more doors, a weirdly short wheelbase, and a blocky and t h i c c body.

As for its power level, it's not too far off its IRL contemporaries - especially when accounting for the fancy headers and in-between displacement. And Gavril seems to have a history of advanced powetrains - the 5-speed manual in the Barstow Tracksport (10 years before they were first used in muscle cars IRL), the 6-speed automatic in the '85 D35 (20 years before they were first used in trucks IRL) - so the Super-Matic isn't too out of place for Gavril's history.

In fact, I'm surprised it doesn't have a factory four-speed automatic or manual, considering those were used on Imperials and Cadillacs of the era (although the automatic was the torque-converter-less Hydra-Matic). It would also even further cement Gavril as the highly-advanced "powertrain company", and would give us another transmission to play with.

However, it seems like the Burnside will be our only '50s American car for a long while, possibly ever - what with its combinations of early- and late-'50s tech, dimensions, and styling from multiple classes. (I sincerely hope this isn't the case, but the devs have shown no interest in making anything from late-'50s America - not even from the infamous concept list.)

My criticisms are not only about the ratings, but also about why Bruckell would bother making their cheapest Moonhawk variant with such expensive and (practically) unncessary parts when they changed the transmission, trim, and even the tires on the straight-six variant to make it cheaper. Yes, it's a coupe, but it's meant to be a cheap and quiet personal luxury coupe; a loud and pricey manifold isn't exactly in line with that objective, regardless of realism.

With the fuel injected intake (which was added in 0.20 and has not been used on an official D/H/Roamer config), the 4.1L six also makes just 14 peak lb-ft less than the '88 D-Series 4.5 V8 (217 vs. 231) and the same amount of power as the '85 D-Series 4.5 V8 (187 vs. 188). If the devs gave the Gavril 4.1L six any more tuning parts, like turbochargers or performance long blocks, it would be nearly OP for almost any application. That's probably why it doesn't have many tuning parts in the first place, to give the V8s a chance in career mode.

Look at the torque curve of the straight-six. All 217 lb-ft from 1200 RPM to 4500 RPM. This torque curve looks very diesel-like.


Meanwhile, the 4.5 V8s don't reach peak torque until ~4,000 RPM with either the early or late intakes. They seem to behave more like performance engines than towing engines.

 

I found the problem, really it wasnt "Corrupt install, or broken mods", the problem was that the game folder was called in russian, my main language, after recalling it in english, the game works correctly

 

yeah i guess so, hey maybe one day they'll make a converter-less Supermatic, when it becomes possible to simulate that if it not already possible, actually does anyone know if that is possible? i'm intrigued. Also isn't Tracksport supposed to be factory race car, something that wasn't advertised or only the those in the know can get one, so i don't think the Tracksport can really be counted but the rest is still pretty advanced... For what the public could buy

 

Was thinking of moving this part of the reply to the Moonhawk's thread since it isn't 0.20 specific, but it got eaten...

Honestly, I'll just wait for a possible Moonhawk engine and bay mesh update in the future. But assuming no incoming changes to the combustion engine code affecting power production, it might be better to reduce the torque values of the 6 cylinder now, especially if a wider range of V8 capacities is planned.

For the 80's Gavril 4.1, I wouldn't say solely Diesel like, having strong torque off idle is a hallmark of large capacity petrol engines too. Having just over 200 lb-ft around 2000 RPM indicates a conservative tune (at first, see below) but this detail is well suited for the capacity, age of the design, and the valve train used.

If anything, I'd reduce torque above 4000 RPM to reduce peak power, and the RPM at which it's reached, for both carb and injected variants by 5 to 10%. The power would be more plausible for the carb version especially, would also be more appropriate for a durability tuned engine expected to survive a hard life in a pick up, and would give some more room for the newer V8 design.

There is a limit to what can be done for peak power numbers when an individual cylinder's capacity is so big, and with the design aging and under-square. Even the last DOHC Barra couldn't breach 300 BHP without a turbo.

While peak torque for all the 80's-onward Gavril V8s (but the newest 4.5) need to be increased in general, they also need more realistic characteristics of power delivery. There is no way that an engine that large could make so little torque below 4000 RPM, especially so below 2000 RPM, yet still make it to production. Especially when a decent 4.1 is also available, unless there was no external competition.

A funny thing is that the weakest (208/188) 4.5 could be renamed 3.5 and be given the newer intake mesh and I'd wouldn't notice if it was in a older luxury sedan.

That said, a suggestion would be to look at manufacturer dyno curves of contemporary 4 to 5 liter V8s from across the world, or at least what RPM the peak numbers are from. Honestly shouldn't have to say any more on this, just surprised that this inaccurate detail has remained even when the old and late tunes were added.

 

I can figure out how to use mini maps. Is there an app?

 

Do you mean 'Navigation'?

 

the one from the devblog
LEVELS

• East Coast USA
  • Fixed a hole in the town base mesh
  • Fixed z-fighting on some signs
  • Added minimap
    

And in the controls, there is a binding to show a minimap. I am not sure if this is for the navigation app, or something else but it doesn't look like navigation.

 

It is the Navigation App

 

Oh, thanks.

 

Not exactly related to 0.20, but I think it's time to put the Soliad Wendover thread back

 

not sure why, but I'm unable to import the file bluebuck_extraparts2.dae into blender, it's giving an error saying there's a missing texture texcoord on line 34:31, which is:

Code:

              <texture texture="bluebuck_d_dds-sampler" />

(the meshes seem to load in-game fine, it's just a pain that I can't import them to edit them for a mod)

 

Oh, No! I need to report a bug! I have the latest version (0.20.1.2.10547)
My H45 Ambulance, The ambulance box's lights have a bug (Red and White lights replaced with a bug)
I deactivated all my 50 mods and then I reload the vehicle but it doesn't fixed
After this I started game in safe mode... and Wow has been fixed but I don't know what to do in normally mode
Can anyone help me?

 

First, clear cache in the support tools. If this fails, come back and someone more experienced than I will help you

 

So i encountered an issue with the Roamer, when i select any one of the configuration no matter what color it is always white, ive cleared the cache, disabled mods and cleared cache, and launched in safe mode. all the same issue. is this a bug or a issue with my game install?

 

Thanks Slugfest for help me. I know about game and clear cache, but I manually deleted the cache
and I don't tried the automatic method (Support tools ≥ Clear cache)
...........Oh! No! Now I spawned the H45 but doesn't work it, anyway Thanks a lot Slugfest
......Yeah Work it I deleted French skins pack by Raph54 and works! Thanks to all