Open Beta [B151127+] Feedback

[Packbat]

Aluminium Heads are also lighter, which can be valuable for weight balance. If we were doing the BRC 1955 over again in the new build, I would almost certainly accept the penalty just for that - especially if I were trying to build a rear-engined entry.

[Trifler]

Why would you ever want to do it in the game though since the reliability penalty is so devastating?

Yes, it has been reduced a lot, but also you are not getting the full picture here as the engineering portion of the game is not in yet. There will be metallurgy expert engineers in the game which lower the penalty you get from this.

Mmm. Well, I made that comment based on Monday's version. I'm sure you did reduce the penalty, but we're also dealing with it in 1950 instead of 1970 where it used to be.

If it was the block, I would understand the weight savings, but it's the head, so it really does very little for me, while causing lots of negatives. However, in a single race, as the BRC as Packbat mentioned, where reliability is of zero consequence, that would be one instance where I could see it. For a mass produced car though? Not really. I mean, I can certainly choose not to use it, but my concern is whether it's worth offering it when it's so limited in usefulness and will likely confuse some players (especially new ones). Moving aluminum from 1970 to 1960 was already a big bonus.

Anyway, my question is answered since it was intended.

[vmo]

The aluminium head had a easiest msnufacture, because needs a minor temps to cast, the liquid had minor viscosity and the micro structure of aluminium is only 1, and not like the iron, that had the austhenitic phase (if im remember well), per example, and the cooling temp doesnt need control in this way, but needs to prevent deformations.

The reliability is due the electrolytic corrossion due two different metallic materials makes an electrolytic cell.

The v12 cam isnt well positioned in the 5 valve dohc.
And i think that automation needs sounds modo. I was waiting a pagani zonda sound.

[Madrias]

I think part of the reliability problem with cast blocks and aluminum heads is also due to the thermal expansion rate between them. Get a car with a cast block and aluminum head hot, you're likely to warp the head and completely trash the head gasket in the process.

[vmo]

I think part of the reliability problem with cast blocks and aluminum heads is also due to the thermal expansion rate between them. Get a car with a cast block and aluminum head hot, you're likely to warp the head and completely trash the head gasket in the process.

Yep.

[Trifler]

I think part of the reliability problem with cast blocks and aluminum heads is also due to the thermal expansion rate between them. Get a car with a cast block and aluminum head hot, you're likely to warp the head and completely trash the head gasket in the process.

Indeed. The real life issue I have no problems with. That wasn't why I brought it up. I was only discussing the usefulness of having the 1950 aluminum head as an option in the game as it stands right now. IMO it doesn't really offer anything useful (except in the scenario of a single race, as mentioned by Packbat) to the player. If it doesn't really offer anything to the player, then it would be less confusing to players in general to simply have both the block and the head at the same date (whether that be 1950 or 1960). Feel free to disagree. I just thought it was worth considering.

[Madrias]

Actually, I can see the usefulness of having it in a few ways.

1: Engine Recreations. Some people do like to build engines from the real world into Automation, and having early aluminum heads can make it possible to get even closer to what the real thing was.

2: Racing/Challenges. If reliability isn't a big factor, but that cast iron head is throwing off your handling by weighing the nose (or tail) down, swap out to aluminum and take the penalty to reliability.

3: Career Mode. While we don't have it yet, everything I keep hearing about it seems to say that the more you do 'X', the better you get at doing 'X'. If you want to be great with aluminum heads in 1990, where it makes much more sense, I could see someone spending time to make lots of somewhat-crappy mixed-metal engines to get better with aluminum heads.

4: What I call the "sandbox factor." The thing I like about Automation is that it doesn't needlessly tell you, "Hey, this technology is really quite crappy, so we're not letting you do it." (there is one exception, but the tech they dodged is REALLY crappy. 90-degree V6. While I like the sound of one, there's no practical advantages to it.) I can build engines with a Magnesium block and slap cast iron heads on it if I feel that's the right move, and the game's perfectly happy to let me do it and eat the reliability penalty for doing such a thing, while gaining the one or two small advantages I might get from the cast iron head. Even if there's a practical 'real world' reason why we shouldn't do something, the game doesn't stop us, take our hand, and promptly tell us, "I know, (Player_Name), that you want to build a 5 liter Inline 4, with magnesium block and cast iron head DOHC, but that's not, you know, practical." Instead, we can build such a beast and find out exactly why we shouldn't.

I know, I'm saying Magnesium instead of Aluminum, and reversing the head/block material problem, but it's a perfect example of the game letting us pull a "Why the hell not?" move on it.

Sure, they could unlock aluminum blocks much earlier, but then again, it also throws in another problem. Why should you build a car in, say, 1953, with a cast iron block if aluminum block+head is available? Aluminum is indeed technologically superior (for the most part) and the marginally higher price can be taken out of something like the interior of the car without harming overall quality. Alternatively, if you pushed Aluminum heads out to, let's just say 1960, to match the block, you'll have people complaining they can't recreate specific engines.

For an example of people asking about specific engines and the inability to recreate 'em, just ask anyone about flathead V8's. Despite the fact that we start the game able to build OHV, Direct Acting OHC, Single OHC, and Double OHC, people still want to be able to build flathead engines.

Oh, great. I just went on a rant in the Open Beta thread. My bad. I guess to some extent, the thing that bugged me is that I understand both sides of the argument. On one hand, there's those who favor realism, and would want all the dates set to the 'common era' of that technology. On the other hand, there's those who favor fun, and would want all the dates set to the first ever appearance of that technology, regardless of when it actually becomes common.

Myself? I'm the wrong guy to ask. In the sandbox mode we have available to us, I'm the guy doing stupid things like putting cast iron heads on magnesium blocks, revving the crap out of my Low-Friction Cast pistons when I shouldn't be, and contemplating putting a V12 in an eco car because I think it'd be quite funny. I'm the guy who builds engines that shouldn't fit in anything, then tries to fit those engines in cars. (my latest being a 120mm by 120mm I4 because I was bored. Turns out, there's a lot of cars that hold that size of a beast.) I've had fun making use of SOHC 3-valve-per-cylinder, despite it having no practical advantages over 2 and being inferior to 4. I put carburettors or mechanical fuel injection on cars in 2015. I stick stupidity-sized turbos on cars that have no logical need for such a thing, and in the end, I go into this to have fun and not be serious about anything.

Apologies for halfway-derailing the feedback thread, I just had to say something about it.

My honest opinion: Let's have the dates set for common era for now, so that we can all find dates we agree on. Once the Career Mode is ready, then let's worry about whether these parts should be 'common era' or 'earliest known' for Sandbox mode.

As for me, I'm going to see about stuffing a V12 into an eco car. Possibly sideways and with front wheel drive.

[Trifler]

Actually, I can see the usefulness of having it in a few ways.

*snip*

As for me, I'm going to see about stuffing a V12 into an eco car. Possibly sideways and with front wheel drive.

Very good points. Thank you for taking the time to post that. I wouldn't call it a rant myself because you answered logically, honestly, and all of the detail was relevant.

I suppose my mind has been thinking in career mode for everything, but now that you mention it, I can understand having some differences between career mode and sandbox mode.

NormanVauxhall EDIT
Please don't quote post above, especially if long

[RobtheFiend]

The 3 valve head (aluminium) is not inferior to the 4 valve, in fact, it is better than the 4 valve in the early years (IRL),
because of trouble with cracks between the exhaust valve seats. Therefore the 4 valve aluminium heads were only used on racing engines. Up to about mid/late '70s.

[ArnRno]

Yes, it is intentional. A several of mass produced cheap car (FIAT 500C / Citroen 2CV / Renault 4 / VW Beetle) had aluminium head with steel block since late 40's/early 50's.

For what it's worth, the Volkswagens ran aluminum heads with iron cylinders, but a magnesium "block" (the crankcase and cylinder jugs are separate). Also, at least on the early ones, the rods and crank were forged steel - maybe the later ones, too, but I'm not 100% sure.

[Daffyflyer]

Yes, it is intentional. A several of mass produced cheap car (FIAT 500C / Citroen 2CV / Renault 4 / VW Beetle) had aluminium head with steel block since late 40's/early 50's.

For what it's worth, the Volkswagens ran aluminum heads with iron cylinders, but a magnesium "block" (the crankcase and cylinder jugs are separate). Also, at least on the early ones, the rods and crank were forged steel - maybe the later ones, too, but I'm not 100% sure.

Aircooled engines are a bit of a different beast materials wise though.

[Prasiatko]

Having a few cars where i am unable to alter the rear camber angle.

[Killrob]

Having a few cars where i am unable to alter the rear camber angle.

Because you can't have camber on solid axle suspensions

[Trifler]

Having a few cars where i am unable to alter the rear camber angle.

Because you can't have camber on solid axle suspensions

Kudos for that. It hadn't occurred to me before the patch, but it makes sense.

[ArnRno]

Because you can't have camber on solid axle suspensions

Yes! Finally! That used to bug me.

Although, since I noticed I could change solid axle camber in the past, I did a bit of research as to whether that was possible in real life.
Turns out, as long as it's not a driven axle, solid axle camber changes are not only possible, but according to Google and some forums it's pretty common and easy - just a matter of shims, usually, seemingly up to a degree or two, which is typically how a wishbone set-up changes camber, too.
I haven't checked in game if I can still make a front-drive car with a dead axle in the rear and adjust rear camber, is that possible with the current build?

there is one exception, but the tech they dodged is REALLY crappy. 90-degree V6. While I like the sound of one, there's no practical advantages to it.

There are some HUGE advantages to a 90-degree V6 in real life, and that's when it's based on an existing 90-degree V8 (or V4) - engineering and development time are drastically reduced, as would be tooling costs, and you gain the ability to share assembly lines, and usually (obviously variants could exist) a ton of parts, like pistons, rods, valve, timing covers/ belts/ chains/ gears, hardware, accessories, etc., etc.
GM didn't make the 4.3L V6 a 90-degree because it was a "better design," they made it to save millions by simply altering their existing small-block - GM did the same with the 3800-series Buick V6, which was developed from the Buick/Rover aluminum V8. Ford did the same when they made their old V4 motors, twice, the Essex and Cologne V4/6 families, and again when they made their Triton V10 from their exising Modular V8 family. Dodge did it with the Magnum V6/8/10 motors, as well - the newest Vipers use V10 engines which can trace their lineage back to the early 60s. I could go on, plenty of Italian and Japanese companies have done the same thing.

What I would absolutely love to see in the final game would be this sort of implementation - developing a 90-degree V6 from an existing V8, or a 60-degree V8 from an existing V6, or from an existing V4, etc. I know that it's not impossible, but that would probably add so much more to the devs work load - I'd buy the game a second time if that could happen, though. Fingers crossed for Automation II.