as of right now, combustion engine efficiency is defined simply by engine load. electrical efficiency of a motor is even worse, just seemingly being a constant value. electric motors in general just need more work in terms of realism. i believe we need to be able to make some sort of table that relates engine efficiency to both RPM and throttle. electric motors are generally more efficient at a high rpm, compared to gas engines that are usually more efficient at lower rpms. if you look at the automation game, you can even see the efficiency curve of your engine at various speeds. turbos, or really any air pressure change greatly affect this. i think a table should be added that defines base efficiency based on RPM, and a second table should be used as a "modifier" or "multiplier" of that efficiency, based on engine load. for example, something like this: Code: "burnEfficiency":[ [800, 20.18], [1000, 21.12], [1500, 23.29], [2000, 24.99], [2500, 25.31], [3000, 24.51], [3500, 23.96], [4000, 23.62], [4500, 23.04], [5000, 21.39], [5500, 19.38], [6000, 17.27], [6500, 14.97], ], "efficiencyMultiplier":[ [0.00, 0.00], [0.10, 0.28], [0.20 0.48], [0.30 0.65], [0.40, 0.78], [0.50, 0.87], [0.60, 0.91], [0.70, 0.97], [0.80 0.98], [0.90 1.00], [1.00, 0.99], ], the rpm values are ripped from an NA automation engine i made. assuming the efficiency curve in automation is the maximum possible, then we can safely assume it's at a fairly high load. using this rough curve here i estimated some values for the multiplier to follow from this graph here: these will obviously be able to be changed using engine mods (sport intake/exhaust would be more efficient theoretically, but race tune and high boost wouldn't). an electric motor would look a little like this: Code: "electricEfficiency":[ [1000, 10], [2000, 20], [3000, 30], [4000, 40], [5000, 50], [6000, 60], [7000, 70], [8000, 80], [9000, 90], [9300, 93], [9400, 88], [9500, 76], [9800, 40], [10000, 0], ], "efficiencyMultiplier":[ [0.00, 0.00], [0.05, 0.10], [0.10, 0.37], [0.15, 0.55], [0.20, 0.98], [0.40, 1.00], [0.60, 1.00], [0.80, 0.99], [1.00, 0.98], ], in my opinion this is pretty important for calculating proper gas mileage, and would make tuning engines a lot more fun and involving of a process. there would also be a set default for both of these based on fuel type, in case somebody doesn't want to go through the work of making the charts. in automation the efficiency curve could be exported, so compatibility shouldn't be an issue there.
The engine efficiency maps use load, not throttle position. This is pretty accurate, since most IRL engines are judged using efficiency vs. load. RPM also matters, since friction and dynamic friction are will also take away power.
