One thing you see in a lot of driving games is the rotation of the car due to the high amounts of torque. I would love to see how this can be added(with it being soft-body physics and all). Just imagine letting off the clutch in an upgraded vehicle(anything really), and seeing it twist to the right. If this does get implemented, hopefully they put effort into it. Does anyone else want to have there vehicle roll a little when your revving a beast of an engine? I certainly do. This picture shows what I am talking about.
im pretty sure the drag moonhawk already does this. the drag barstow does this too probably edit. yup. it does
Yes, but not at a noticing state. I was talking not just about those two cars, but all of them in general. Don't a lot of the vehicles at time seem a bit "lifeless"? When you go to rev up your car at idle, it doesn't do anything. Not even a twitch. Don't you feel that if there was some sort of feedback such as a pitch or a roll, that it would be more than just noise?
I think having a 1989 economy car twitch while revving isnt realistic at all, same with a lot of other vehicles in game.
Yes, I did notice that they move a little when you rev them, but I was talking more drastic. Like if it was the whole car and not just the engine.
Ya, your right. That wouldn't be very realistic, but what about a souped up engine that rolled the car at an idle state? That actually happens.
On my 89 GMC 5.7 V8, a good rev doesn't move the body. Under the hood you can see the engine torque pull it one way thus on the outside, all you see is the exhaust rise up a bit.
Even then, the moonhawk doesn't even rotate to the right. Signifying that the "roll from the torque" element still isn't in the game. It would be nice to have it though.
You do? No it doesn't. The driveshaft beams to not transmit torque at all. You are seeing the car lean to one side. This could be due to differences in tire slip, bounce, etc. In fact... didn't you have to bounce the front in purposefully for that screenshot? Why? The drivetrain could be setup to go either clockwise or anticlockwise, that's what would determine the direction of the "torque-twist". They do? I just spawned the Moonhawk with "drag" config, removed the hood, put it in "Real Automatic" / Neutral, removed the hood... and rev'ed the engine repeatedly. No movement at all besides the butterfiles opening/closing and the mechanical fan speeding up and slowing down. I think that you can get a 'twitch' out of a lot of vehicles. Certainly you can throw the engine around violently under the hood. With poor (old, damaged) engine mounts interesting things can happen too. I'd say that it's all worth simulating and would be fun.
i stand corrected. i could have sworn the engines moved. they seem to move on acceleration(due to the forces pushing it backwards or something like that) though, so thats probably what i saw
Your right, it would be fun. At least i'm not the only one who would like to see this in the game. Hopefully it gets recognition.
It mostly depends on the orientation of the engine in the car, the weight of the car, the weight of the crank shaft, and the rate at which the RPMs in the engine can change. An engine orientation that is set up for a front wheel drive car will impart rotational forces along the car from front to back... since this is the case, the acting torque is usually not even noticeable on the car body. If the engine is set up for a rear wheel drive car, however, then the torque will be acting side to side. This means that the distance the torque is acting on is much smaller then the front wheel drive set up and that is why when you rev the engine of a rear wheel drive car you can usually see the body rocking from side to side. The weight of the car and the stiffness of the suspension can also come into play here. This is pretty simple here. The heavier the car or stiffer the suspension, the less the car will rock when reved. The lighter the car or softer the suspension, the more the car will roll when reved... pretty simple. The weight of the crank shaft in the engine will be one of the biggest factors in this. The heavier the crank shaft, the more torque will be transferred to the body of the car when reved... also pretty simple. Lastly, the rate at which the RPMs change in the engine will also make a huge difference in the torque applied to the body of the vehicle. The faster the engine revs, the more torque is transferred and the more the vehicle will rock and roll. Now while iheartmods GMC has a fairly large V8, it might be a somewhat slow reving motor in a fairly heavy vehicle. This would keep you from seeing the rocking that would be caused by reving the engine. I on the other hand have an 88 Ford Mustang with just a dinky little 4 cyl (I know, it only has half an engine, I have heard that one before) which is a very heavy engine for its size in a relatively light car that revs fairly quickly. This causes my car to rock like crazy when reved, especially if I am brave and really plant it.
I like the way you explained the situation. A lot hast to do with torque rocking the car's body, but it's all very simple if you just take a look at it.
Ah, probably so. The '96 Pessima is a good example where this can be easily seen (with the hood off). I don't know if it's realistic or not, but the 'drag' Moonhawk doesn't seem to have rubber engine mounts (so you don't see the engine wobble even when the vehicle is in motion). Certainly at some level of HP / tuning the engine mounts must become very hard to deal with the power... I know I probably sound like a broken record sometimes, but the devs have certainly already thought about torque twist and realized that they want to implement it. I can't imagine that the devs built the drag moonhawk, dropped it ingame... and then said "yeah, that seems good enough". They want that thing to twist! Still, it can't hurt to let them know we agree. ;-) Note that the game isn't devoid of the type of thing you are looking for (eg it's not entirely lifeless). Tapping the throttle or brake while airborn will have the expected effects. Also various aerodynamic things are apparently happening (drag at least), although I have no idea how accurately they are modeled. Moving quickly enough through the air will tear parts off of a vehicle. Like I said - no harm in suggesting torque twist! As far as I can see, the devs would rather try and build complex, interdependent system systems rather than cheap arbitrary tricks when it comes to most of the behaviors we want to see. In the end that should result in the most variety of behaviors but slows down development a lot. @atv_123 - Nice explanation.
The moonhawk has torque twist just like a real ridiculously powerful dragster. The devs said it themselves.
Right now we have the most important ones for overall behavior which are the brake reaction torque and wheel drive reaction torque (representing the torque at the differential output) which counter the torque applied at the wheels and put the correct loads back through the hubs/suspension/body/transaxle, whatever is applicable to the specific car. We don't have the transmission to differential torque/counter-torque (which causes the drag car twisting) for FR style cars. It is a challenge to do without creating "phantom" forces because its a purely internal set of reaction forces instead of a reaction from a physical body like the tire. But, we will see if we can. FF, MR, RR cars don't have a need for this, our existing torque reactions work fine. You can watch the engine of the fwd cars rock when applying torque (in gear). The Bolide and SBR4 probably have stiff engine mounts but they work the same way. Free revving engine rocking is because the engine is applying a torque internally to accelerate its flywheel. If we implemented the flywheel reaction torque without an actual physical flywheel to accelerate, the car would spin around stupidly in 0g or put the incorrect forces through the suspension when on the ground. This is a fairly big problem to solve for a small effect, we might not get to that.
Alright, it's fine with me if it doesn't get into the game. Especially if it can cause a multitude of problems. It was just an idea, and I'm glad that I got some answers back. It's good to know sometimes than to always wonder.
