automationgame.com

Will we have 180º inline 3? Or only the more usual 120º?

I asked about angles in another thread, so I'm curious about something. Will your V6s be 60-degree or 90-degree engines? And V10s, 72 or 90 degrees? I only ask because the 90 degree versions of both are typically based on existing V8 designs, and behave a little differently.

Don't get what you mean with 180° ... If you have a 180° engine its a flat engine isn't it .

And if we talk about the angles of the v engines we should still have in mind that it is a game and not a simulator for a engine designing company

Cheers Casho

Its the difference between dual plane and cross plane v8's. It makes a big difference, if you only have dual plane then you cant make a Ferrari v8 and if you only have cross plane you cant make american v8's. If you only have 60* v6's then you cant take advantage of the cost savings of cutting the back 2 cylinders off a v8 and making a 90* v6. Ect.

But how many gamers know that?

It's still a game ... the biggest Problem will be if you have too many options which most of the people don't understand .

I would prefer all that too b, but if you want to have success with a game you should make it as easy too play and understand as possible.

Cheers
Chaso

Don't assume others don't know what you don't know. Of the five friends I know who have pre ordered this game, all but one of them know the information Leafy is talking about. In fact, I think calling this a game, or dumbing it down will only do it a disservice and only hurt sales. I think this is beyond a game, it's certainly approaching simulator levels. The crowd buying this "game" wants accuracy, options, and realism. This isn't a Need For Speed game geared toward 13 year olds and I hope you or anyone else is not thinking that this game will magically sell millions of copies. It won't, although I hope the team makes a fortune off it. This is a great game, on a great course, but it's clearly geared towards a more hardcore group of enthusiasts. Dumbing it down will only turn those enthusiasts off just like assuming that all of us are ignorant and don't know the difference between cross plane and dual plane engines. The level of enthusiast this "game" seems to be attracting is pretty high.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

The situation is of course even more difficult that that. It's not only about dumbing down but also about time, especially for a 4-person team with 1 (!) artist.
Our goal is to make a complex game that is easy to use and remains accessible. If we can build in features that will add value to the game (such as different planes in V-configurations) then we definitely will, if time permits us to.

Say: Daffy finds/knows a way to convert the plane and angle of a V configuration within a day with all art and stuff; of course we'd put it in as having that option would add game value.

We will dumb down things only in one unique case: it not being fun even to a car nut.
Cheers!

Killrob, that is perfectly acceptable of course. I think everyone understands that you have limited resources and not everything can be done. I was just trying to make the point that dumbing it down for the sake of people who don't know the difference is not acceptable. Especially when you guys are going through such effort to make this not only a great game/sim but to also educate in the process with the tutorials and in game info boxes.

sees Two-strokes, immediately draws up plan for blender.

Nah. I will make a Clarkson V8 blender.

The case for dumbing the game down? That would be selling the game to people not already on these forums.
Ever try the airline sim games with horrible interfaces, intense repetition (of course the head of an airline individually sets every ticket price for every flight daily) and no actual game play underlying the sim engine? I've also gone to their forums and watched them bemoan not selling more than a couple hundred copies when inferior simulations like Civilization and SimCity sell millions. At the same time they decry any suggestion of 'dumbing down', when what they need to do is simply create scenarios and goals for added gameplay, a clean interface and a way around the tedium of a thousand mouse clicks to do the job of ten that passes for actually playing the game.
You seem to actually have gameplay and having scenarios even in the engine designer demo is an excellent idea. The interface is ok if a bit old school. What you don't have is a way for the novice to easily create an engine. For now this is fine, but when you put the game out the door and bill yourself as a modern version of Detroit or a functional version of that mess Car Tycoon, it will matter.
Fortunately it is easily solvable by allowing someone who doesn't want to deal with building an engine from scratch to ask the pleasant AI engine creator type person who works for the head of the car company (aka the player) to create a new motor using 1978 tech for the new sports car I have planned. He can present the player with the motor while noting that it can be tweeked to make it better. Then the player is rewarded for working on the engine by having some extra RPM or a longer engine life or whatever, while the player who says great I've got my engine and moves on isn't rewarded, but doesn't know or doesn't care that it could have been a bit better. Best of all, the player who wants to do it all doesn't even hire this AI chap and never even misses him.
Dumbing down is Civ 5 where the gameplay is inferior for everyone, adding options to suit playing styles while still retaining the complexities for those who desire them is smart business.

Very good post, bigcat1969. Everything you say does make perfect sense and would be a good approach
to not dumb stuff down while making it more accessible. On the other hand you cannot forget that
working out, implementing, and balancing such a feature would probably take us months to accomplish.

Till now we have not had many complaints about stuff being too complex, I guess that is due to our
audience being wildly different compared to "normal" computer games. Heck, people even cry out for
it not being complex enough.

Thanks for your polite response. I was worried that I had been a bit strong with my opinions.
I'm not sure how you intend to implement AI rival companies, but assuming they will be similar to the player's company and their products will be viewable, wouldn't you have to have AI managers that create engines for their cars and for that matter create entire cars? This AI could just be available to the player. This would be somewhat like the mayors of cities in the last few versions of Civ that could be told to focus on certain areas like population growth or manufacturing using the same AI that non player cities use.
I really think you have a wonderful idea with this game and based on the execution of the engine demo good programmer(s) and a solid artist. I love car tycoon games even playing to this day Detroit and Motorcity/Oldtimer in Dosbox, so my hopes for this game might be unrealistically high. I'm just a bit worried that it might be closer to a much better version of Gearhead Garage than a dream version of Detroit with a great car builder as a wonderful bonus.

Edit for Plan B. Use your great and knowledgeable fan base to create several good but not great motors for each decade say one sports car motor, one truck motor and one family sedan type motor and include them with the engine creator when it ships so someone unsophisticated in the ways of motors (me) could use them as a baseline. This would what 25 motors and I'm sure folks here would be thrilled to do it for you for a mention in the credits.

that plan b sounds like an actually great idea

This is an outstanding idea that solves a difficult problem with a community-driven solution. It could be a competition.