|
FISH will probably enter a Group A
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:41 |
|
|
Just to check: you have written minimum QPs per section as 0, which seems rather superfluous especially when you have the asterisk too. Are we to basically go nuts on QPs because it'll all come out in the wash with Production Units? Edit2 : Haven't played since the last challenge, forgot QPs could be negative - please disregard the above! e: also assuming that Pyrlix's High Quality Essentials from the Steam Workshop page is what you mean by Pyrlix's High Quality Add-ons ----------------- So as not to double post: My Group A is *anaemic* At this point I'd be better entering my car from the '70s challenge, but it probably wouldn't fit in the rules simplefish fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Boksi posted:So I'll definitely be joining this. But man, first car I tried making for group A was 300 kg underweight. I tried to make a small car with a small turbocharged engine and I made it too small it seems. Onto the next try, then. Maybe I'll make it a V12, that's a fitting engine for a lower-end group, right? How'd you manage that? Lowest I could get was 200kg-300kg over the mininum Obviously you don't have to say but I'm wondering if you went for a fibreglass body by mistake
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Better step my game up then!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
Just to check, the minimum weight excludes fuel, right? Because I'm going to have to find ballast... Also does your simulation put cars round the test track faster than the game, generally? I'm slow compared to the test times posted by a fair margin.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Okay, my car is complete. I'll email it in the next 24 hours
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
 Company History: You've heard of FIAT - Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino - but a contemporary you may not have heard of is FISH: Fabbrica Internacional Shitpili Horrificos quote:Most car manufacturers have their beginnings in tractors, bicycles, or the mind of a particularly gifted mechanic. Not so FISH. Car emailed but not approved
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Something's up with the fuel burn calculator, and that's probably me using it incorrectly. I put in the SFC from the screen and the horsepower and it says I should pass, but I failed scrutineering. Am I using the wrong values? e: I used the value from the left side of the screen, not the graph. I think that should be correct now I've updated the car, butI haven't done the suspension yet. Is that something I can change in testing easily? I am kind of pushed for time tonight simplefish fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
Was there a mock race report that we should hace received or did I not get one because my car was illegal? Also after this mock race I emailed you a (hopefully!) legal version of the FISH car, did you receive it?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Yes, my apologies - the real world required my attention for a couple of days. No problem - I know running this is a lot of work and I'm grateful you are
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
Chipsy being very much the boy to beat there I think I've pretty much optimised out my current design philosophy, and while I'm close, I'm still no closer. I'm going to forgo some of the things I optimised away in the hope of bringing back a bit more speed
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
I'm gonna have to fix that engine reliability...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha No. Way! FISH press release soon, thanks again Chips for running it simplefish fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
I just want to say that I avoided the NotPorsche for 2 reasons. Firstly, I was pretty sure it was janky overpowered. People have linked to challenges on the official forum and while I've never entered, I do remember seeing it banned as a body, singled out. Secondly it's R/R and gently caress that noise I should be clear that I don't begrudge anyone who used it, it was legal after all and perhaps people didn't know about its jankyness. Also, with the time and effort I was able to put in I was happy with 3rd, the win was a complete surprise and I admittedly lucked into it at the end - as compared to my entry in the last contest where I put way more time in up front and then even managed to release a revision where I felt I'd earned the win legitimately. The lucky win wouldn't have been possible without the good early season showing though. I think my engine was my strong point for this. I never touched pit strategy. I wouldn't mind if we had a 'slacker' strategy option that adapted somewhat to the tracks automatically but I know that's the opposite direction to where Chips wants to take the competition. Same with suspension setup - I didn't do any. With those two things I think I could have been a much stronger contender. Next time I might do a customer engine, if that's a thing. I don't know how Chips wants to run that but I would suggest something like getting only limited information as a customer (maybe Chips holds the engine and releases size and high-level stats, reporting back testing to the car maker?) to encourage people to make their own. Otherwise I can see many teams just going for the best customer engine and doing only minor tweaks, if any, which would take something away I feel. Not having complete access to things we can't include with Automation, like in F1 how the works teams had access to exact lubricant etc formulations that customers didn't, could be simulated in this way. But it might be too much work. Chips already invests far more time into this than I could as a competitor. In any case, if engine makers are also competitors, there needs to be some limiting factor, I think. What benefit would they have for sharing their engine? Would engine only producers be free to supply the whole field, or limited to number of teams they can supply by rules or production points? How would they choose which teams to supply? Maybe customer engines arent viable as a mechanic. Or maybe I'm limited in imagination. Perhaps a middle ground is collab teams - I'd be happy to design an engine if someone else gets more fun from car and strategy setup. On a strictly exclusive basis to sidestep some possible pitfalls mentioned abobe. I'm spitballing here. Chips has said the next one might be a continuation series, I need to read in more detail what that means and whether I could just change my suspension for the next round and run pretty much the same thing again. As I said in the other thread, I'm all for incremental change like this because it makes creating an entry, and the time to do it, far more manageable. simplefish fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:41 |
|
|
MrChips posted:I think the fuel capacity penalty will basically negate any perception of an unfair advantage the 930 body has Please don't get me wrong, it wasn't in the least unfair - I had equal opportunity to choose it and didn't. A personal choice all the way, same as how I didn't want to go RR slothrop posted:Fish, you gotta tell us about your tiny spoiler! I think I did it just to try and get access to the downforce slider. I can't really remember simplefish fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 11:10
|
|