automationgame.com

Yeah, just no.. There are fairly broad limits to what you can do already, and they exist so we have resonable bounds in which to do realistic calculations, they've been set in stone a long time ago and they're not going to change I'm afraid.

Not even a check box in the options with a dialogue box saying "This box will break sh!t, but be awesome doing it."

Because, well... It is pretty cool to do things in a game that are impossible in reality. I mean, games are nothing if they're not fun.
Not to say this game isn't, but options are always good.

My point still stands that once we go outside certain bounds of real engines, that it becomes quite hard to get it to spit out stats with any realism, I don't see that its worth letting people set bore and stroke combinations that are going to produce unrealistic stats, and also confusing players that different bore and stroke settings are available in sand box than in the campaign. It also seems like it would add very little gameplay value as compared to the work it would require and the problems it would cause.

Only real criticism I have of the current setup. Is that the ratio seems to be a bit tight.

The tighter the ratio, the more accurate the calculations. It is a compromise, and we chose to place ourselves somewhere in the middle where players can build most modern engine designs to a good degree of accuracy.

What do you want:
a) small range, excellent accuracy
b) medium range, good accuracy
c) large range, poor accuracy

We chose b.

Been gone, life all that bs anyways back sort of now.

Anyways I agree, I like the middle ground option

I understand that calculation accuracy is why there's a limit of bore and stroke. However, the 959 engine is a problem engine (boxer engines in general can't be made, "yet" here's hoping).

As a compensator though, using the 959 for example at 95mm x 67mm (B x S), at 95mm we're limited to 70.4mm (3.4mm off), and at 67mm I'm limited to 90.4mm (4.6mm off), so immediately I know since Bore > Stroke I'm going to need to increase Stroke more than the decrease in Bore to fit within the bandwidth.

I decided instead to keep bore and stroke as relatively similar as possible and used 93.4 x 69.3 (-1.6mm x +2.3mm) which is still 2849cc, and retains a much larger bore to stroke ratio, so the characteristics would be as close as possible.

Is there a better way to get closer to the real engine parameters within automation's 'bandwidth'?

I can't imagine that making much of a difference, Conza89? The effect that workaround has on the performance of the engine should be on the sub-1% level, while the accuracy of the calculations as a whole is around 3%, i.e. any effect from that will be hidden away by the in-the-game-anyway inaccuracies.

If you really want to increase the difference between bore and stroke, you can use the engine family tab to do so. Possible is then e.g.: Bore 95.0/ Stroke 60.6

This thread is from waaaaaaaay before that feature existed

I'm trying to get a 2.4L V8 with 98mm bore and 39.7mm stroke. The lock is preventing me to do this. How do i remove it? Cheatengine does not work with the stroke; is there anyway i can remove the lock with a mod or such?
Yes i know, production engines not race cars ect ect. Just tell me how.

You probably can't.

You can try messing around with the engine variant thingies, but AFAIK you won't have that much range.

Well, yeah.. i tried everything, but i just can't get around it and it's irritating me to no end. I am purposely trying to get an oversquare engine (yes, with the 2008-2013 F1 engine size specifications) but i'm having no luck anywhere. This ratio lock should really, really be optional.
I would try looking into the lua files to try and find a workaround, except
1. All of the lua is bytecode
2. All lua decompilers i can find have broken links and nobody cares anymore

IIRC Another reason the lock is in there because the further apart you have the bore and stroke the crazier the calculations get, they chose this as a nice middle ground to keep the engines realistic in their calculations, any more and you start getting some really messed up numbers for outputs etc.

Don't modern F1 engines use hydraulic valves anyway?