Update Speculation thread

That's because it's in the current rule set?

I can almost guarantee if the mid-90's rule set didn't explicitly state V12 engines were to be used, then no manufacture would have used them.

 

Koenigsegg.. three cylinders, 600 horse power, with some innovation, you can make a supercar have some wild engine that makes horses from pure freaking air. To be fair it's 1.7 million usd to buy the car it comes in..

 

That reason is because it's dictated by the current F1 rules that they use V6s. If they had a different engine dictated, then it would be otherwise.
--- Post updated ---

Yeah yeah, 2000hp by 3 electric motors and a 3-cylinder that's been tuned like Stewie on steroids. Everyone can do that.

 

There are numerous examples against your claim lol

 

The V6s in these cars sound great actually (plus the one in the new NSX, but that also needs a good aftermarket exhaust to sound as good as it does on the inside). But I'm all for a V10 or a V12 engine in the new Civetta because, well, we hadn't had a car like this until now. And your V6 Supercar idea can be used for a baby Civetta Supercar, like the 296 GTB/S (we've also not had a baby Civetta supercar until now). That baby Civetta supercar can also be used in some driving tests/challenges in Driver's training or Career mode!

--- Post updated ---

"Rant Mode" On!
Ok, this has gone way too far, don't you all think? I can only imagine what would've happened in this thread had I NOT made that citation about what I personally truly like/want my Supercar to be like and sound like. Dodged a 50-caliber for getting away with only a Spongebob meme and some answers commenting on/critiquing my personal Supercar preferences (and some others being very well put, gotta recognize this).
Also, F1 cars aren't Supercars. They're race cars. Supercars are a road car category.
"Rant Mode" Off! Calming down, moving on!

 

Yes, imo a twin turbocharged high HP V6 will more than likely use more fuel than a N/A V8 in the same car. It's just what makes sense, more boost = more fuel required to not run lean and burn a hole in pistons. And yes, lead foot will get terrible mileage in any relatively powerful car. My FBO tuned Elantra barely gets 400kms on a tank of 93 if I'm lucky. I could run a map tuned for 89 and get 500+ kms on a tank...but that's boring lmao.

I would not be surprised if the new civetta has a twin turbo V6 option, with the top engine being a v10 instead of a v12. Based on the only teaser we have of it, in my opinion a v12 just wouldn't be reasonable based on how the car is probably designed.

 

Apart from economy, some old-school mechanics also say that it's good for a big engine to burn more fuel and oil because heat dissipates in a more balanced manner across the bigger block and it also gets weaker while doing so - and consuming more oil substantially helps to preventing overheating in that respect. So the "Power Capsule" phrase seems to be perfectly describing the small turbocharged engines with high power and torque figures. Add to this the fact that modern engines are programmed to work on some slightly higher temperatures for enhancing efficiency and we have the picture.
So the car companies passing us these smaller turbocharged engines as "fuel efficient" seems like marketing gobbledygook.

As for the new Civetta, yes, I wouldn't mind seeing it with a Twin-Turbocharged V6 either (provided that it has a different/unique V6 sound, of course, because the existing V6 sound is just unsuitable - but that seems a bit unfeasible in the current development stage of the game) but ok, it's just that my mind thinks a Flat-Plane V8 (at least) would be a more logical choice because of its notable operational characteristics. It all remains to be seen though!

 

I recall at some point that TDK posted videos of a moonhawk and a rally bolide with different sounds, If I recall correctly the bolide was using a really good, raspy Dino/Stratos V6.
(it's entirely possible however, that these samples were just ones TDK still had after working on F1 and DiRT)

 

But what is the reason it's in the current rule set ? Maybe i got a bit ahead of myself here, i'll let more knowledgable people explain.

 

Well ford GT is a V6 its hell fast
Some are Hybrid
Some are V12
some V8.

What ever the case it will be a sexy thing. That will be a car i will wish was real.

It will be hell fast to. and i can not wait

so when its ready it will blow our minds

 

For "ecological raison" and may be an economical one, a V6 hybrib engine consume less than a V8, it's the same reason why modern supercar got smaller engine ... By the way in 80's, in F1, engine manufacturer were more free to design engine, so we had a 4 cylinder with a massive turbo (lag) and in other hand a naturaly aspired V12

 

considering cars like the mclaren Artura and Ferrari 296 Exist, I think it's not unreasonable to presume that a "base model" version of the civetta would have a TT V6, with higher end versions getting N/A V8s, then probably TT V8s in the track-focused trims like the bolide.

as far as modularity goes, I'd imagine they might be adding some hypercar variant, they could go one of two ways: either an all-electric 1600+ HP monster that would wipe the floor with an eSBR800, or a classical "driver focused" manual, RWD, V12 Halo car.
i'd imagine the prior is more likely, since the objective of implementing a high-end supercar is likely mainly to display the capability of the physics engine with ridiculous vehicle performance.

 

using a smaller turbocharged engine with the same power definitly saves fuel when driving normally, about 5%... there is a reason basically all manufacturers moved to turbochargers. however weight at slow speeds and aerodynamics at high speed are a bigger factor.

 

I think it’d be very cool if we ended up with an NA V10 or V12 for the “purists” demographic that enjoy the high revving instant torque experience and a turbo V8 for those who just want to go really fast.

 

The engine can't handle "fast car fast," the aero and traction models break down and the wheels expand due to centrifugal force, not to mention you can't have maps big enough to truly accommodate that kind of speed. Makes sense that's what they would focus on, but it is a little concerning. If BeamNG can't really handle much more than the near-supercar SBR4, then why not focus on improving the SBR4 instead of just adding another car in the same niche?

 

Personally, I would prefer an update that does not contain any new content except the Covet remaster, but focuses on fine-tuning the AI, graphics, UI and the rest of the game.
The amount of content in the game is already sufficient, and some cars desperately need a remaster, so a completely new car is not the most important need

 

I totally agree and I'm half expecting that to be honest, I wouldn't mind if the supercar came at a later date as either a smaller update or in 0.26, but I can already see the "why did they take 5 months to do one car remaster!?" comments from people who don't know the work that goes behind the scenes.

OT: I wonder if the supercar will have a convertible/targa model, it would be pretty cool and serve as a "spiritual successor" of sorts to the targa Bolides.

 

the devs who make cars are a separate group to the ones who work on the game engine, different again to the ones who make maps, and the ones who do backend GE programming.
if they stopped making cars, that wouldn't allow them to make the rest of the game features any faster.

 

the team has different members developing different parts of the game. and while there is propably some overlap, there are only so much programmers that work on UI Graphics and AI. You cant just tell the 3d modeler or sound guy to figure out tire temperature. It would be stupid to have parts of the team work on nothing while the engine is getting finished. Apart from that i have to disagree with you on a basic level too. The game doesnt have enough content. Many crucial vehicular archetypes are still not in the game, and a truly big map is dearly missing and would be my first priority if i were in charge.

 

In the micro/short term is as you say but in the long term that is not so true. Resources are limited so if you have in the team, say, 4 car artists, and 1 AI expert, you are making a choice of priorities, and shaping the way the game will develop.

I like your archetype approach (much more that with the "we need more trims or facelifts") and agree that there are many of them (some very interesting, think DS) missing. But I think that finishing the game first and then add missing/extra content, should be the way to go.

And, wait for it, (once we had a feature complete BeamNG) DLC would be a legitimate and sustainable way to keep developing a 10 years old game where some of us haven't reward this awesome team in a lot of years.