AC Modding Questions Thread

Thanks guys, appreciate the help. Flattening the image worked, then I was able to save the texture with alpha channel, and leave the nice-looking default carbon fiber untouched :)

Have to say though, it just boggles the mind that I actually have to do that. The file I was saving (it was just for rear wing and some small parts) had exactly three (3) visible layers, plus wireframe hidden. That's it. If that is too many...

And yes, need to be really, really careful not to save the .psd flattened.
 
Thanks guys, appreciate the help. Flattening the image worked, then I was able to save the texture with alpha channel, and leave the nice-looking default carbon fiber untouched :)

Have to say though, it just boggles the mind that I actually have to do that. The file I was saving (it was just for rear wing and some small parts) had exactly three (3) visible layers, plus wireframe hidden. That's it. If that is too many...

And yes, need to be really, really careful not to save the .psd flattened.

I think it's a long-standing glitch in the plugin. I still get that same error sometimes in CC2018 occasionally.
 
Here is my dumb physics question:

I'm thinking about fuel consumption for the Transit. For some very odd reason, its hard to find track day fuel economy figures of such a car... :roflmao:

Anyway, my plan was this - tell me if this sounds logical or not;

I used the lap simulator 'OptimumG', plugged in the Transits values including mass, drag, torque curve, gearing etc. Using this info it simulates a run around whatever circuit you want, in this case I chose Barcelona as its my default (I believe this runs with no elevation, hoping it won't affect the results too wildly).
Using those values it calculates how much energy was needed to complete a lap, whichin turn will be used tell you the fuel consumed using the fuel energy density (diesel) and the engine thermal efficiency.

This is obviously one area where I had to guess - what is the thermal efficiency of a Transit diesel engine? I went for 40%, based on what I've read about relatively modern diesels (feel free to offer better guesses!).

unknown.png


I thought this was a great idea and would provide the best guess at the sort of fuel consumption I should expect in AC with the Transit.

However, the suggested fuel consumption from the Optimum Lap software is much lower than I expected for a heavy van going flat out for a whole lap (which btw was tweaked using the tyre friction values to give similar laptimes as I get in AC). Is this simply down to being too optimistic with the thermal efficiency, or is this just not a reliable way of working out fuel consumption in the first place?

The value this gives me for Barcelona is 0.67kg/lap, which using Kunos' diesel mass/litre (0.832kg/litre) is around 0.8 litres/lap.

To me this seems too little, but the process seems logical to me - is it? That'd mean it could do 100 laps on a single tank, or 17.2l/100km (13.7 US MPG, or 16.4 UK MPG) flat out.

Though when I quantify it like that in MPG it doesn't sounds quite as absurd as I first thought - maybe this is somewhere in the ballpark. So if anyone has any thoughts on this or suggestions on how it may be accurate/inaccurate or could be improved, let me know!
 
16.4mpg sounds close for hard driving IMO.. Those transits aren’t really that heavy, full size family car will be same ballpark, my e46 m3 coupe for example is only 100kg lighter than it..
 
16.4mpg sounds close for hard driving IMO.. Those transits aren’t really that heavy, full size family car will be same ballpark, my e46 m3 coupe for example is only 100kg lighter than it..
The transit is pretty heavy though at just over 2 tons, drag is a big factor on something like this too with such a large frontal area.

upload_2018-7-7_18-53-20.png


* Unladen Kerb Weight (Mass in Running Order) - Includes driver (75kg), full fluids, spare wheel and 90% fuel (72ltrs)
 
You sure short wheelbase low roof is that heavy?
Thought it was more like 16-1650 kg?
Although scratch that, I keep forgetting it’s rwd!
 
You sure short wheelbase low roof is that heavy?
Thought it was more like 16-1650 kg?
That is in the SWB (short roof too) list, there are ones for MWB and LWB that are a little heavier. The FWD ones seem to be significantly lighter.

Its a pretty hefty list to get through though, so many combinations of load rating, engine type, FWD/RWD, final drive, wheelbase, single/dual wheel, roof, van/pickup/bus etc. Goes on forever!

upload_2018-7-7_19-26-22.png
 
Last edited:
Lucky we’re in the dumb section I blend right in!!
I forget it’s rwd, so many of the small ones here are fwd it’s rare to see for me!!
 
Lucky we’re in the dumb section I blend right in!!
I forget it’s rwd, so many of the small ones here are fwd it’s rare to see for me!!
Yeah I don't think I've ever seen a RWD short wheelbase one in my life - and believe me in the 3 years I've been making this I've been looking! :roflmao: The RWDs only come with the more powerful engine, which 99% of people don't need unless they go for the much larger vans with higher load ratings.

I think the only reason you would choose the RWD short wheelbase one is if you plan on filming some silly laptime run at a big racetrack :)
 
17.2L/100 sounds low to me... I see higher numbers in my BRZ when I give it the full balls. Granted that's an instantaneous number and not an average over a lap, but still. I'll see upwards of 28L/100 displaying under hard acceleration, and racing on track is basically all hard acceleration or hard braking.
 

Latest News

Online or Offline racing?

  • 100% online racing

    Votes: 101 7.9%
  • 75% online 25% offline

    Votes: 134 10.4%
  • 50% online 50% offline

    Votes: 183 14.3%
  • 25% online 75% offline

    Votes: 359 28.0%
  • 100% offline racing

    Votes: 501 39.0%
  • Something else, explain in comment

    Votes: 5 0.4%
Back
Top