Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 4: Why I Made Albury Motors Into What It Was

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 4: Why I Made Albury Motors Into What It Was

It would be churlish for me not to post something related to one of my fictional companies in Automation, but considering that I started writing this particular post on Australia Day (January 26th), I will delve into the backstory of Albury Motors first. As its name suggests, this manufacturer is headquartered in Albury, New South Wales. Its specialty is top-notch engineering and value for money, especially in the performance sector. To make this point clear, I deliberately limited the brand to just a few engine families (and even those had either six or eight cylinders - no more, no less), but created multiple variants within each one over time to reflect the introduction of new technologies. In addition, I set the year for the company's establishment to 1951 - 50 years after Federation. However, for the sake of realism, I stated in the company's lore that it manufactured other manufacturers' cars under license (albeit substantially reengineered) until it introduced its first wholly original design, the Centurion, in 1965 - a larger car, the Viceroy, followed later.

The marque's engines, instead of being manufactured offshore, were all produced locally, further reinforcing their cars' reputation as being designed, built and engineered entirely by Australians, for Australians, but unlike their real-life counterparts, I portrayed Albury Motors as an early adopter of new engine technology, especially for their overhead-valve V8s (catalytic converters in the early 70s, electronic fuel injection in the early 80s, and direct injection in the mid-00s). I did so because I wanted their model range to be sellable and highly competitive across all the markets in the game (the wealthy country of Gasmea, the backward but proud nation of Archana, and the small region called Fruinia). Moreover, their whole passenger car range since 1965 has used independent suspension at both axles (at a time when solid rear axles were still the norm on most cars) for improved sportiness and comfort, which are the key hallmarks of any Albury Motors product. In fact, I also used a double-wishbone front end for their rear-drive-based cars to enhance their sportiness even further.

In short, it is probably best to consider Albury Motors as a manufacturer that combines the best attributes of locally made full-sized sedans (Commodore, Falcon et al.) with the advanced engineering and high cabin quality of Euro premium brands (BMW, Jaguar, etc). However, in addition to their usual fare, I added a halo sports car to their model range: the Crusader, if for no other reason that no Australian manufacturer built such a car in real life. This two-door, two-seat coupe line was introduced in 1985 and has been in production ever since, providing class-leading performance at prices that undercut imported rivals. And last but not least, in addition to a few crossover SUVs (all of which are unibody designs), I even designed the CMS-16 - a small, mid-engined sports car - as a junior counterpart to the Crusader, which, owing to its combination of light weight and a small but highly responsive straight-four engine, contrasts nicely with the heavier, more aggressive front-engined V8 muscle cars on which Albury Motors built its reputation.

Albury Motors wasn't the first company I made a thread about in the Automation forums, though. That honor goes to Harris Cars Ltd., a British premium brand which, according to company lore, bought a controlling stake in Albury Motors in 1999 and retains ownership to this day. However, when you consider that in real life, the entire Australian auto industry will cease to exist by the end of this year, having Albury Motors fall under foreign ownership makes some sense, especially since their company lore now states that they will continue to produce cars after 2017. As for the parent company, its history will also be fleshed out... but that will have to wait for another post.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 3: The Annoyance of Overextended Challenge Rounds and How to Stop It

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 3: The Annoyance of Overextended Challenge Rounds and How to Stop It

Over the past few months, I've been increasingly frustrated by unnecessarily lengthened duration of certain rounds in Automation's most prestigious and successful community challenge, The Car Shopping Round. Originally, its premise was for all entrants to submit a vehicle that met all the requirements of the current round, with the host's preferences further determining their design choices. Submissions would only be accepted within the first 10 days of the rules being announced, with each car being reviewed and ranked over the following week or so. Eventually, the winner of the current round would host the next round, unless he or she declined to do so, in which case the runner-up would take the reins of the contest; if that user also declined the offer, hosting duties would be passed on to the third-placed entrant, and so on.

This should have ensured that each round of the contest ran entirely according to schedule. Indeed, that's exactly what happened for the first 16 rounds of this contest. The next round, however, would see the reviews take longer to complete, although considering the deeper backstory for that round, everyone (including myself) considered it justified. For the next two rounds, this state of affairs persisted without too many complaints. However, in the 20th round, the host was unable to fulfill his duty of reviewing the cars due to work commitments, and so the community was forced to vote for a winner.

Like my fellow Automationeers, I was hoping that it would not happen again. Sadly, I was wrong - and so was the community. We were forced into an identical situation a few rounds later, but this time we had to act: the pace of the contest was significantly accelerated, with the submission period being shortened to one week, while the reviews and rankings would be delivered in three days at most. Obviously, this meant that any and all future round hosts, me included, would have to change their plans for reviewing entrants' cars.

Anyone who had not reviewed the cars as soon as they received them during their tenure as round master (at least, not in a long time) was effectively urged to do so whenever they had the chance; fortunately for me, when I hosted CSR26, I had this plan in mind from the outset. Yes, it was a tall order, especially when 30-odd users decide to enter a round, but it was manageable. And so, for the next few rounds, there were no instances of the reviews and results being overdue.

However, in the most recent round, this problem reared its head yet again. There was a different cause for this, though: the scope for the 31st round of this contest was much greater than in most of the previous rounds, and it turned out to be a step too far for the round host. To be fair, his plans were much more ambitious than they should have been; in my opinion, the premise for that round should have been moved to a separate challenge. But he went ahead with the plan anyway, and the reviews for each car ended up being so overdue that the announcement of the results had to be rushed just to avoid more voting on the users' behalf. Even then, the write-up of the results was not as detailed as it should have been.

Incredibly, the confusion didn't stop there: after the farcical conclusion of CSR31, most the users who did best in that round all declined offers to host the next round. Thus, for the first time in the challenge's history, the Automation community is in danger of being forced to go to a poll just to determine the next host. In fact, as of this writing, we have actually reached that state - but at least there will be some sense of normalcy again, with a new host being chosen, and a renewed promise to maintain the integrity of the contest. And, having recognized the fact that I needed to take a break just to allow my mind to recover from the chaos surrounding the previous round, I skipped CSR32 voluntarily, which was just as well; the post-markup maximum price was so low that I would have struggled to build a competitive entry considering the high minimum fuel economy requirement.

Hopefully, the next round should see a return to the brisk pace characteristic of this contest. That said, it is highly recommended that, in addition to planning ahead for the round you are about to host, you should review every vehicle that was submitted to you as soon as possible. This not only leaves you free to edit the reviews after the deadline, but allows you to determine a finishing order sooner. Happy hosting!

Efficient Performance Revisited

Efficient Performance Revisited: Combining Power with Economy

The past year has seen my become a very active member on the Automation Forums. One of the topics hosted was a challenge to build an engine that could return decent economy and still provide a decent amount of power. However, to balance the users' engines, all of them were limited to zero quality points on each component. Moreover, even with this restriction in place, they also had to be reliable; there would not be any point in building such an engine if they suffered too many problems over time. With this in mind, I set about building an engine that could meet all of these requirements.

The first step was choosing an engine configuration. I thought about using a V configuration, but eventually rejected it due to the increased friction losses inherent to those designs. That left me to choose between a straight-four or a straight-six. I picked the latter, and not just because it was inherently balanced (and hence smoother); it struck a delicate balance between affordability and output. Besides, considering the prevalence of turbocharged straight-fours in real life, I felt that building one of those would have smacked of conformism - seldom a good thing in today's increasingly homogenized automotive landscape.

Behold the ultimate in efficient affordable performance engines!

Speaking of turbos, I realized that it was actually the only way to achieve the desired level of efficiency - although I could get good results with a normally-aspirated engine, it could only take me so far before too many major compromises would have to be made. Also, the emphasis on economy forced me to use low-friction cast pistons, which were less durable even than ordinary cast pistons. Finally, having insisted on a redline of at least 7,000 rpm, I was stuck with a short-stroke engine, although I also envisaged a pure performance variant, and to that end I gave the engine provision for a longer stroke.

Low-friction pistons are a must when economy is the top priority.

Configuring the turbo installation was the toughest part of the build. In particular, the compressor size had to be carefully selected so that it would extract maximum efficiency without any discernible loss in performance, and this involved checking the efficiency chart, from which the fuel consumption trough (the lowest point on the chart) could be determined. With this information, I used a small compressor, but not one that was small enough to excessively restrict incoming airflow, and applied this idea when deciding the size of the turbine. In addition, I capped the boost pressure at 0.6 bar (8.7 psi) to allow for a relatively high compression ratio, thereby improving economy still further. I could even have reduced the AR ratio from its eventual value of 1.4, but opted not to do so, since I feared I would lose too much power in the process.

A 21st-century turbo setup that makes the most out of late-80s ball-bearing technology... in terms of balancing economy and performance.

Calibrating the fuel system was also crucial to achieving the desired economy rating. Direct injection (which allowed for even higher compression ratios and leaner air/fuel ratios compared to port injection) wouldn't be enough on its own. I had to cut the AFR to 15:1 (the leanest one possible) and advance the ignition timing considerably (specifically, to 84/100; any more advanced and the engine would be damaged or even destroyed by detonation, and even if it wasn't, it would most likely not have been as economical). All that was left to install an exhaust system of the right diameter, again to balance economy and power output.

An efficiency-oriented fuel system optimized to deliver decent performance was vital to this challenge.

The end result was an engine with an efficiency rating of 37.57%, but the quest didn't stop there. Having created an engine that competed for overall honors, I set about attempting to extract as much efficiency using an overhead-valve V8, which is inherently less efficient. This time, however, the simpler valvetrain made my task much easier; I just had to use a mild cam profile (but not so mild that efficiency would actually be reduced) and tweak the ignition timing to suit. With an efficiency rating of just 29.81 %, it was nowhere near as efficient as my turbo straight-six, but it would have made a nice entry-level V8 for general-purpose duty.

My personal best result with a naturally-aspirated overhead-valve V8 was nowhere near as impressive as the turbo six, but still very high for an engine of its type.

I learned a lot of useful stuff from this challenge. Specifically, it may take several hours to maximize the efficiency-to-performance ratio of a particular engine, but the reward is well worth the effort. This is most true when the engine is to be used in a car whose target market prioritizes economy. Also, when you are working on a tight budget, not using quality points at all can actually be beneficial to your car's competitiveness. And yet, after this, there are still many engine design challenges for us Automationeers to explore and learn about...

Automation Goes Unreal: Why Automation Needs the UE4 Update

Automation Goes Unreal: Why Automation Needs the UE4 Update

Having recently learned that Automation will adopt the Unreal Engine (specifically, Unreal Engine 4) for an upcoming update, I am anticipating this major overhaul of the entire game with a great deal of excitement and some trepidation. The reason for this is twofold. After the update, a lot of new technology will be available to all players. On the other hand, if I am so inclined, I will be forced to remake the entire history of all my brands, as long as I have created lore for it.

The addition of new technology to the game will also cause existing stuff to be updated, and not just for balancing reasons. Currently, turbocharging is the only means of forced induction available in the game, and even it is limited to ball-bearing turbos (which are available from the early 1980s) at best. However, I expect more advanced methods to be introduced with the update. In particular, variable-geometry and twin-scroll turbines ought to be supported in post-update versions, especially since they provide superior performance and economy compared to ball-bearing turbos. Moreover, expect supercharging (either as a standalone installation or in combination with turbos) to be introduced with the update, or shortly afterwards.

Another welcome addition will be a slew of new engine configurations. Specifically, V10s, straight-fives, and possibly even horizontally-opposed engines (with four, six, or even twelve cylinders) will be introduced with the UE4 update. More significantly, turbocharged straight-threes will also be available, especially since the game already allows you to build naturally-aspirated straight-threes as of now. Considering that these configurations are still being used (or at least were used in the past) in production cars today, they might just be what the Automation community needs for filling the few engine design niches that haven't been occupied.

Chassis options could also be revised in the UE4 update. Currently, a space frame is heavier than a monocoque made of the same material, and is only available with standard or advanced high-strength steel. I would like to see a space frame made from galvanized or corrosion-resistant steel, if only because they offer superior environmental resistance compared to standard steel in earlier years (especially since AHS steel is only available from 1997 onwards in the sandbox). Making space frames lighter would also give players a reason to use them other than reduced tooling costs and fewer production units, as well as allowing the construction of smaller factories. While I'm at it, I'd suggest reintroducing the strut front/ladder frame combination on cost grounds; forcing the use of double wishbones up front may be good for realism, but it adds more cost and complexity than is usually desired in low-end and commercial demographics.

In addition, all of my company lore for Harris-Albury (actually two separate brands, with the former being British and the latter being Australian, each with its own forum thread) will have to be remade after the update. This is a labor-intensive undertaking, but it ought to be well worth the time and effort required for such an endeavor. Another benefit is that any cars from these brands can be remade in greater detail and with more realism than previously. Moreover, the aforementioned introduction of technology will aid greatly in this regard.

Finally, the developers should provide a few new trim options when designing a vehicle. One of my suggestions is a race safety kit, which is lighter than a contemporary advanced safety suite, but more expensive to engineer and implement, and not as effective for road use. In addition to this, there could be many other items planned for future updates, such as continuously variable and wet-clutch automatic gearboxes (which provide superior efficiency compared to a torque converter) with up to ten forward speeds! And this is just the beginning; other stuff like eight-piston disc brakes and dynamic spool-valve dampers deserve to be introduced for ultra high-end applications.

In short, the UE4 update is something every Automationeer, including myself, is looking forward to. However, until it comes, we must make do with what we already have. This is especially important considering that, as of now, it is still a few months away. Even so, we can still create plenty of amazing stuff with the existing equipment. But having played the game for 18 months, I feel that the additional realism will be a godsend to Automationeers everywhere.

2016 In Review: A Look Back at a Year of Adventure and Discovery

2016 In Review: A Look Back at a Year of Adventure and Discovery

What a year 2016 has been! For me, that was the year in which I finally turned my hobby of playing PC games into a topic I could openly discuss. I began by revisiting Infinite Space for the third time, having played the first two games in the series, and after exploring and analyzing everything the game had to offer, decided to share my best car-building secrets and experiences. However, I also realized that there was certainly much more to life than this, and considering that I spent a lot of time traveling to many faraway places in the past few years, I realized that I should also let you know about my experiences there. Here's to a wonderful and exciting 2017 - I hope you enjoy the ride all throughout the New Year!