Cars Ford Transit 2005 (WIP)

AccAkut · Mar 26, 2017

Mr Whippy said:
KS should be ashamed of that.
Just seems a shame that the engine is fu..

Mr Whippy · Mar 27, 2017

It's not just driveway revving, it's every time the engine changes gear and your rev match. That is wrong. The revs could be matched sooner and the shift be completed quicker.
Over a full race in a manual car that might add up to several seconds of waiting for an engine to spin up.

I'm even fairly sure that during situations of traction loss, the feedback loop loss of grip due to ever increasing slip ratios will be subdued because as the load on the engine decreases, the drivetrain losses will reduce, increasingly having the engine act with very low losses and spin up the high inertia drivetrain.
By having the engine have lower torque output as a constant, even this perpetually dynamic situation in limit/beyond limit point driving is probably 'out' quite a bit.

Then what about frictional losses under high torque coast conditions? Is engine braking boosted by 10-20% to get the coast numbers correct in the absence of drivetrain frictional losses?

Does that mean if you clutch in to change down a gear, the revs drop 10-20% faster than they should?
So if you're not quick during shifting you end up lifting the clutch and dragging the tyres against the engine? Or left having to blip (with less power) again, to get revs back up?
The whole gear change dynamic would be slowed down on up shifts, and sped up on downshifts if you did ideal rev matching with real engine inertia numbers.
So now do we fudge engine inertia to make that correct? Thus impacting acceleration times? Where does the fudge fudging end?

This is obviously a bit off topic for this thread, but this exact dynamic is going to be starkly obvious in this kind of vehicle with it's crappy throttle response, high inertia flywheel, low engine braking (diesel with no throttle body to close), and low traction on the inside wheel in bends (lots of weight transfer due to high CofG), and a big sloppy gear shift with long ish shift times.

Surely the whole engine dynamic is going to be a cluster fudge of behaviours?

Yes, your average F1 car with flappy gears and stuff, you'll never notice, not that that makes it ok though.
But Transit vans... I think it'll be hard to get things feeling as they should if you start putting real values in there.

I simply expected more from AC.

Mr Whippy · Mar 27, 2017

AccAkut said:

I used those words once, and they meant exactly what I meant they should.

Thanks for the meme though, the universal response for people with nothing valuable to add.

UMC 22 · Mar 27, 2017

Perhaps Kunos thinking was that 98% of their customer base wouldn't know about, understand or care about all the stuff you posted above? They probably didn't expect a Transit van to show up in their sim either, so if these issues are less obvious in performance vehicles then maybe they decided it didn't matter. In any sim that is going to be sold to Joe Public for around £30, you must draw a line somewhere for it to be commercially viable.

J-Lius · Mar 27, 2017

Ross Garland said:
Perhaps Kunos thinking was that 98% of their customer base wouldn't know about, understand or care about all the stuff you posted above? They probably didn't expect a Transit van to show up in their sim either, so if these issues are less obvious in performance vehicles then maybe they decided it didn't matter. In any sim that is going to be sold to Joe Public for around £30, you must draw a line somewhere for it to be commercially viable.

This, and also there is values for adjusting engine inertia + coasting torque and data so can't really see it as fudging if those are adjusted to match the real thing.

Mr Whippy · Mar 28, 2017

Ross Garland said:
Perhaps Kunos thinking was that 98% of their customer base wouldn't know about, understand or care about all the stuff you posted above? They probably didn't expect a Transit van to show up in their sim either, so if these issues are less obvious in performance vehicles then maybe they decided it didn't matter. In any sim that is going to be sold to Joe Public for around £30, you must draw a line somewhere for it to be commercially viable.

Joe public won't spot half the other stuff they simulated perfectly well either, so why did KS bother there?

I'd argue 95% of AC users won't even know of the full (ish) kinematic suspension vs an arbitrary generic infinite length double wishbone version, but that suspension system is in there.

KS have cut corners here and it's just shoddy. I'll praise the sim where it deserves, as I do, but I'll also give it a bashing where it's had big corners cut off that hurt simulation of cars.

J-Lius said:
This, and also there is values for adjusting engine inertia + coasting torque and data so can't really see it as fudging if those are adjusted to match the real thing.

Coast/inertia, they are adjusted to match the real thing, but in what state?

If you increase engine braking torque to get coasting "in gear" correct, as soon as you press the clutch to change down a gear, the engine revs will drop too fast vs reality.
In an AWD with lots of losses, say an Evo VII with manual gearbox and a laggy turbo, that will mean it's really hard to drive it naturally without the revs dropping right off during a gear change.

If you've set braking torque about 20% higher at the engine, to emulate high transmission loss, the engine will slow down much faster than reality.
It'll also then rev up 20% slower than reality.

I don't know the values on a Transit van, but I'd guesstimate at 15% overall losses each way. All of a sudden rather than having a bit of a longer lazier shift window, you're going to feel rushed vs reality to get the shift done, otherwise revs will drop off and take longer to get back up.
Given diesels are characterised by relatively low engine braking losses, having transmission losses just added on top will make a big difference to it's apparent diesel character.

Now if we were in rF1, a sim made a decade ago, you'd be able to get all this stuff perfect with real measured values.
That's what makes it so frustrating, because ISI didn't expect to be simulating Transit vans either, but they got the fundamentals good enough to do so!

garyjpaterson · Mar 28, 2017

If you could refrain from the posts on this subject now on this thread, that would be great.

I'd recommend posting your thoughts on the AC forums to bring it to Kunos' attention.

NulTweeZes · Apr 3, 2017

Very much looking forward to this. I am a courier so I have a lot of experience in driving vans
inappropriately

.
People will be surprised that the cornering speeds of these vans are actually not much slower than your average (non-sports) car. As long as you give it time to setup for the corner because of the high centre of gravity and suspension you can corner them pretty hard and when unloaded lift off oversteer is definately a thing.

ltcars · Apr 3, 2017

How can you put a gif in here?

arthur666 · Apr 3, 2017

We just got the full-size Transit vans in the US in 2015. The difference between them and the old E-Series vans they replaced is very significant. The Transits are downright nice to drive in comparison.

BTW, there's now a baby Transit in my driveway. Wife traded here Ford Escape for a Transit Connect, which is the little 4-cyl version. In "civilian" trim for hauling rug-rats and groceries. Drives more like a Fusion sedan than a typical minivan. I really like it.

(I just wish they offered the 2.0L EcoBoost that was in her Escape. Then it would be a real hot-rod

)

After_Midnight · Apr 3, 2017

ltcars said:
How can you put a gif in here?

I use imgur for picture hosting and post the BB link here...

Maximilian Hinter · Apr 12, 2017

Are you gonna release this together with the Focus as a pack?

garyjpaterson · Apr 12, 2017

Maximilian Hinter said:
Are you gonna release this together with the Focus as a pack?

No that would delay the release one or the other. Both will be released when they are finished, whenever that is.

Leonardo Ratafiá · Apr 13, 2017

Seing that you are working from big Ford to small, maybe next project could be a Ford Fiesta?

garyjpaterson · Apr 13, 2017

Leonardo Ratafiá said:
Seing that you are working from big Ford to small, maybe next project could be a Ford Fiesta?

Potentially in the distant future I might consider a Fiesta ST, but I have way too many Fords in my catalogue... I didn't even think I was a Ford guy!

Plus, I already have 2 Fords smaller than a modern Fiesta (Ka and 50's Anglia).

Kenny Paton · Apr 13, 2017

garyjpaterson said:
Plus, I already have 2 Fords smaller than a modern Fiesta (Ka and 50's Anglia).

I had my first driving lessons in an Anglia 100E, so I hope it's that one although my first car was a 105.

garyjpaterson · Apr 13, 2017

Kenny Paton said:
I had my first driving lessons in an Anglia 100E, so I hope it's that one although my first car was a 105.

'Fraid not.

Its a E494A which is basically a facelift of the E04A from the late 30's, which itself is a facelift of the 7Y, which was based on the Model Y from 1932 which was the first Ford designed for non-USA markets!

So yeah, its old

This is it here:
http://www.racedepartment.com/threads/ford-anglia-1953.122905/