|
How accurate is automation's thermal model? I'm getting a lot more torque out of my 413 Max Wedge than it's supposed to have (over 500 Nm when the engine's dialed to 420 BHP). I'm using dual 4-barrel carbs with racing intakes to fake the ram-air system. I've increased the head quality up to +3 and haven't touched any of the other quality sliders. The engine performance is almost accurate to the historical engine, it's just that it's a lot better than it's supposed to be based on the manufacturer's data. Might be down to either fuel quality, headers or what method chrysler used to test and rate engines (they changed it somewhere around 1971). Probably down to how Automation does thermo since it always assumes ideal conditions. Also there is no reason at all to use an aluminium head in this engine apart from either marketing or weight saving. The only parts that are under noticeable stress are rods, and that's well within the "don't care" values. The original designers made a lot of good choices when making this engine. If you needed to rebuild civilization or found a second Earth you'd probably want to copy it and use it for everything.
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:25 |
|
|
Another thing I noticed is a hell of a lot of rounding errors. There's a lot of situations where you can abuse the fact the game doesn't use full 64 bit floats and give yourself extra power or torque out of thin air. Also when testing and tuning a finished car on the track, a lot of things give different and/or opposite results depending on whether they're set to an odd or an even number. So if you're tuning say engine airflow even numbers will improve your track time and odd numbers will make it worse. I mean the "game" is great for what it is, no one's ever going to use it instead of professional software but it's great for roughly mythbusting or prototyping something and ending up with a basic range of values.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 17:05
|
|