automationgame.com

Posted: **Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:09 pm**

: image.jpg (113.49 KiB) Viewed 18607 times

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:39 am**

Sayonara wrote:With that said, is it possible to use the specific fuel efficiency data produced in the Engine Designer (the data must exist in a readable form somewhere, given that it's used to draw the fuel consumption graph) to simulate fuel burn by tracking it against engine RPMs during the race?

Yes, I'm doing exactly that.

Sayonara wrote:Regarding tire wear - could you use the tire quality slider value as an ersatz "soft vs hard" slider? Positive values being a soft compound - better grip but lower lifespan in the simulation, and negative values the inverse.

I think I will use the different tyre compounds Automation already offers instead of the quality sliders. Tyres are a very important balancing factor and I will probably make a rule to use only 0 quality and a maximum tyre width / minimum profile. This is best for close competitions. And it is like if there was only one tyre supplier for the racing series.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:43 am**

A tyre wearing, reliability (for example, if the car had a average reliability of 3, once the car makes 300km, the car stops.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:16 pm**

The thing is, that stat is average reliability.

Let say I made 5 cars with 5 reliability.

Car one might fail at 400km, car 2 at 600km, car 3 at 100, car 4 at 900 and car 5 at 500, and it would still be true.

Also, I thought MTBF was reliability x 1000km.

But anyway, if reliability is taken into account, there should be a random aspect to it.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:35 pm**

How did I miss this topic?! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY AMAZING MARTIN!
Keep up the good work!

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:13 pm**

At first I was lamenting the demise of the Car Tycoon Challenge, but after looking at this...Wow! Thanks for taking the time to create this new challenge!

I noticed in the UI you have columns for speed and fuel. Will we be able to choose between different units (so mph vs kph, and gallons vs liters)?

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2015 6:08 pm**

trackpaduser wrote:The thing is, that stat is average reliability.

Let say I made 5 cars with 5 reliability.

Car one might fail at 400km, car 2 at 600km, car 3 at 100, car 4 at 900 and car 5 at 500, and it would still be true.

Also, I thought MTBF was reliability x 1000km.

But anyway, if reliability is taken into account, there should be a random aspect to it.

Yes, reliability will have a random aspect, but the average reliability will be a lot smaller than MTBF because this is racing, not cruising.

Slim Jim wrote:I noticed in the UI you have columns for speed and fuel. Will we be able to choose between different units (so mph vs kph, and gallons vs liters)?

What do you mean with "choose"? There will be only videos, so you cannot choose actively. I cannot give the Matlab programs away or convert it to any other language and give the program away then because it contains core code from the game.

I don't know how much data I will show when I'm done. I would like to show a lot more, but I already have not enough space for that, so I will never show the same thing in two different units at the same time. And if I show something, it will be metric, sorry.

I cannot make 2 videos with the same race showing different units either because of all the randomness. No race is the same.

Maybe I will move away from showing a lot of data anyway. Timing without sector times could maybe be enough.

Fuel right now is shown in kilograms. Liters wouldn't be hard of course, but kg is the usual unit in motorsport.

Slim Jim wrote:At first I was lamenting the demise of the Car Tycoon Challenge, but after looking at this...Wow!

The CTC will be continued soon.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2015 6:41 pm**

Der Bayer wrote:The CTC will be continued soon.

I will admit... I just squee'd...

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2015 6:49 pm**

@Der Bayer - OK, I think that's where the confusion set in... I didn't realize these would be videos. Thanks for clarifying!

Metric only is fine. I'll probably be too busy watching the action to notice the numbers anyway.

I was just curious.

VicVictory wrote:
Der Bayer wrote:The CTC will be continued soon.

I will admit... I just squee'd...

Same here... :lol:

...and thanks Der Bayer! Looking for to that as well.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2015 6:51 pm**

I think running teams of one, two or even three of the same or different cars from the same company should be allowed if they pass a qualifying round. That way we have only the best cars on the track to have an awesome race. Then if there is one company whose car never qualifies, they can team up with another company.
Also if we run multiple cars from the same company I think it's be really cool if we have separate classes. One class for all out race cars and another for race versions of our street cars (lets say to meet that requirement the street version must be displayed on our Automationhub page??)

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:24 pm**

NiuYorqCiti wrote:I guess it'd be easier to calculate the fatigue of the driver based on the tameness of the car, rather than on its power.

More importantly, it'd be more relevant. The classic Porsche 911s were notorious for spinning out at the slightest throttle misapplication, and they didn't even have an engine output in the three digit kilowatts.

Even race drivers prefer a car that's easier to control.

Posted: **Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:56 pm**

AshleyBlack wrote:I think running teams of one, two or even three of the same or different cars from the same company should be allowed if they pass a qualifying round. That way we have only the best cars on the track to have an awesome race. Then if there is one company whose car never qualifies, they can team up with another company.
Also if we run multiple cars from the same company I think it's be really cool if we have separate classes. One class for all out race cars and another for race versions of our street cars (lets say to meet that requirement the street version must be displayed on our Automationhub page??)

I have an AutomationHub page but I don't think that ANY contest should require cars placed on Automationhub to be "allowed" to compete. Sending the car's .lua should be the only requirement as too much emphasis is currently being placed on Automationhub which is a third party site (which technically breaches the forum rules). Since AutomationHub charges real money for extra space over the basic allocation, making listing cars there is "forcing" people to use a site that they may not wish to use for financial reasons and will only serve to alienate some participants. I personally feel that it is needless bureaucracy which has no real benefit to the Automation community (users who want to use AutomationHub are already using it) and only serves to provide potential benefit to the creators of AutomationHub.

As for the qualifying cars so that only the "best" cars run; the simulation can handle a lot of entries so IMO that should be the cutoff. When there is over 30 unique entrants per race, that would be the best time to discuss qualifying...

No offense intended but I don't want to see 3 strop or leonardo clones racing each other, I want to see (at least!) 30 unique players of Automation win, lose and have accidents; all at the same time!!! (Thanks to Der Bayers excellent program!)

Posted: **Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:03 pm**

HighOctaneLove wrote:No offense intended but I don't want to see 3 strop or leonardo clones racing each other, I want to see (at least!) 30 unique players of Automation win, lose and have accidents; all at the same time!!! (Thanks to Der Bayers excellent program!)

None taken. I want to see variety in the field and the element of random chance, "human" error (our driver is a tad erratic, after all), and the potential for anything to happen!

Posted: **Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:04 pm**

HighOctaneLove wrote:As for the qualifying cars so that only the "best" cars run; the simulation can handle a lot of entries so IMO that should be the cutoff. When there is over 30 unique entrants per race, that would be the best time to discuss qualifying...)

yeah, I meant that qualifying rounds could give the cars their place on the starting grid. So if there's a max of 30 cars and 31 entries, 1 car wouldn't make the grid. As for the Automationhub homologation idea, I do see how that could be a problem for some people, but I personally think it'd still be cool to have seperate classes with some sort of homologation requirement for one

Posted: **Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:17 pm**

AshleyBlack wrote:yeah, I meant that qualifying rounds could give the cars their place on the starting grid. So if there's a max of 30 cars and 31 entries, 1 car wouldn't make the grid. As for the Automationhub homologation idea, I do see how that could be a problem for some people, but I personally think it'd still be cool to have seperate classes with some sort of homologation requirement for one

I have no issue with some sort of homologation requirement, just that it should be one based on Automation itself rather than a third party requirement. Usually things like minimum safety and reliability requirements are used to tone down the Krazy-builders (yes strop, I'm looking at you!

) and restricting applicable body choices can also go a long way towards a homologation style parity.

I'm all for clone cars when the entrants list isn't large enough and I personally feel that some sort of roleplay would make this aspect more interesting; as per my previous post a strop backed team locked in a deadly struggle with the leonardo backed team... Some drama would really spice up the action IMO! I just don't want the older players to be over-represented at the expense of newbies, if that makes any sense

automationgame.com

The BRC is dead... [NEW CHALLENGE DISCUSSION]

Re: The BRC is dead...

Re: The BRC is dead...

Re: The BRC is dead... [NEW CHALLENGE DISCUSSION]

Re: The BRC is dead... [NEW CHALLENGE DISCUSSION]

Re: The BRC is dead... [NEW CHALLENGE DISCUSSION]

Re: The BRC is dead... [NEW CHALLENGE DISCUSSION]

Re: The BRC is dead... [NEW CHALLENGE DISCUSSION]

Re: The BRC is dead... [NEW CHALLENGE DISCUSSION]

Re: The BRC is dead... [NEW CHALLENGE DISCUSSION]

Re: The BRC is dead... [NEW CHALLENGE DISCUSSION]

Re: The BRC is dead...

Re: The BRC is dead... [NEW CHALLENGE DISCUSSION]

Re: The BRC is dead... [NEW CHALLENGE DISCUSSION]

Re: The BRC is dead... [NEW CHALLENGE DISCUSSION]

Re: The BRC is dead... [NEW CHALLENGE DISCUSSION]