ios-personmd-notifications md-help-circle

Profile

  • Guest
    medal 0
  • Posts: 21
  • Post Likes: 3765

Notifications

  • No Unread Notifications

Forums > Global Forums (English) > Suggestions

Suggested
Fuel and Tyres

warning
This thread is closed. Threads older than 6 weeks are closed automatically. To continue this discussion, create a new thread.
angle-double-left ios-arrow-back 1 ios-arrow-forward angle-double-right
md-send
James Greer medal 5000
3 years 291 days ago
Hiya,

I know yous are busy, but in the next update. Could yous  possibly change how the economy points are working?

It needs to work better so that the minus 6 in engines will actually do something to the car.

A car with 32 fuel economy uses the same amount of fuel as a car with 75 fuel economy.

Begs the question is the game using fuel economy as "energy efficiency" of a particular vehicle, given as a ratio of distance traveled per unit of fuel consumed or as "fuel consumption" in liters per 100 kilometers (L/100 km) or kilometers per liter (km/L or kmpl)?
md-quotelink
Deus me Ajude medal 5000
3 years 291 days ago
they say that fuel economy helps in qualifying, but I never saw any difference 
md-quotelink
James Greer medal 5000
3 years 289 days ago
Fuel economy here pretty much sucks like fuel efficiency in the F1 game when it comes to one shot qualifying. Efficiency is that good that it takes 5 laps to use the 3.7 laps worth of fuel. LOL 
md-quotelink
James Greer medal 5000
3 years 288 days ago
Iv'e been thinking. 

Me thinking is never a good thing, but here goes.

Would it be possible to force default fuel per lap for standard car designs.

0-36 points standard fuel for Brazil 2.8 per lap
37-56 points 2.7 per lap
57-76 points 2.6 per lap
77-96 points 2.5 per lap
97-116 points 2.4 per lap
117-136 points 2.3 per lap
137-156 points 2.2 per lap
157-176 points 2.0 per lap
177-196 points 1.9 per lap
197-200 points 1.8 per lap

Currently we have 2.0 per lap with 32 points, bit of a bummer for us that spend points on fuel economy, as I have 2.0 with 75 points this season. 
md-quotelink
Kevin Bissell medal 5000
3 years 288 days ago
IMO there is nothing that needs to be changed. Fuel consumption values for me in Brazil:


  • 26/11/2019 - FE 182 - 1.856 litres/lap (actually it was 92dp in FE in old 0-100 range)

  • 06/06/2020 - FE 18 - 2.279 litres/lap

  • 30/06/2020 - FE 37 - 2.142 litres/lap

  • 27/07/2020 - FE 10 - 2.400 litres/lap



I always see a difference in MPG or Litres/100km when I add design points to Fuel Economy. This translates to fuel consumption in litres/lap changing. I'm really surprised that for you Brazil is an identical 2.0 litres per lap for both 32 and 75 design points in FE.

BTW.

Begs the question is the game using fuel economy as "energy efficiency" of a particular vehicle, given as a ratio of distance traveled per unit of fuel consumed or as "fuel consumption" in liters per 100 kilometers (L/100 km) or kilometers per liter (km/L or kmpl)?

I don't understand what you are saying, as far as I can see your definitions of both Energy Efficiency and Fuel Consumption are both the same... distance travelled per unit of fuel consumed.
md-quotelink
James Greer medal 5000
3 years 288 days ago (Last edited by James Greer 3 years 288 days ago)
Practice and race viewer both say 2.0 per lap 32 & 75 points economy

And Energy efficiency as in fuel burning power output increasing speed of the car rather than lowering fuel needed.

Singapore 
Last season 2.4 with 32 on Dry tyres
Now 2.3 with 89 on Wet tyres 
md-quotelink
James Greer medal 5000
3 years 286 days ago (Last edited by James Greer 3 years 286 days ago)
Super soft 2.3 per lap in the dry same as the full wets. 

So what you have in Singapore Kevin? 
If it's anything like your Brazil it really does need changed. Adding 8 points in low numbers giving you 0.2 less fuel & me in high number adding 43 points and getting no change. LOL 


To keep things interesting, a 5 star designer with fuel as weakness would have 15 points

Would that 15 equal default fuel or 0.1 less than default fuel for the circuit?
30 is a standard part 
45 if fuel is strength 
So would we say every 15 points is 0.1 less fuel!?

Brazil could look like this using sets of 15
0 - 2.9
15 - 2.8
30 - 2.7
45 - 2.6
60 - 2.5
75 - 2.4
90 - 2.3
105-2.2
120-2.1
135-2.0
150-1.9
165-1.8
180-1.7
195-1.6
md-quotelink
Kevin Bissell medal 5001 Super Mod
3 years 286 days ago
Hi James.

What you're describing is that fuel economy isn't linear. But we've been aware of this for years. Gains that are made by assigning for example 20 dp to take FE from 5 to 25 are much more effective than from 105 to 125. It's become more evident recently since the design range was doubled which has the effect of halving the value of each design point.

I still maintain that fuel economy does indeed change in the higher ranges bur it's not so noticeable.

Whether or not this is an issue is debatable. There's nothing wrong with your suggestion but personally I would prefer the developers to continue to iron out the existing bugs rather than risk introducing yet more by meddling with the FE attribute. There's a saying... "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
md-quotelink
James Greer medal 5000
3 years 281 days ago
Aware of it for years, but never do nothing about it. Tut, Tut, Tut.

All other things should be dulled down to work the same way. Advances only last for 1 to 2 races. And makes everything more or less pointless being work on because you're throwing on points and no noticeable change is being made. Comes down to strategy instead of car design.
md-quotelink
Frank Thomas medal 4998 Moderator
3 years 281 days ago
What should have been done about it? It's working as intended after all and except around the time the new doubled development range halfing the value of a DP there were no signs that we manager think that part of the game needs adjustments. 

The non-linearity itself is a good thing also, as every point gives less returns and thus while developing design the balance changes and needs constant reevaluation as attribute A might stop giving the best returns. Then adding the track at hand, the season calendar progression, the competition design and research and something simple and easy to understand suddenly becomes more complex and harder to truly master.

I don't think the system needs a change in itself. The effect curve could use some tweaking with the new 200 points range to somewhat beef up the effect per point in the middle range and some attributes need some value, but the basics how design works are fine.
md-quotelink
James Greer medal 5000
3 years 260 days ago
That's just it, there is nothing to master. And the curve the way it is, renders the minus points ineffective at the mid & high end. Splitting the design points up in all areas is what is needed for minus points to make a little difference regardless of the track characteristics. 

Take Great Britain and it's high fuel consumption for example.
The difference in fuel between 32 points and 199 points economy is only 0.4 per lap, you would need an engine with minus 178 points in fuel economy, just to make fuel economy worth while.
The fuel weight effects are very minimal. Just under 4 tenths of a second slower is 12 laps over 8 laps on the same compound. The only saving grace is the tyres wear out after 8 laps to make the longer run slower, because I've only 27 point tyre economy.

Find out next season, if I'm lucky. And see if 197 point tyre economy equals 50% wear at 12 laps...
md-quotelink
md-send
angle-double-left ios-arrow-back 1 ios-arrow-forward angle-double-right

You must be logged in to post a reply.