Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 96: Automatic or Manual?

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 96: Automatic or Manual?

Choosing a transmission type in Automation depends primarily on the demographic(s) you want your car to be aimed at. Not only that, it will also affect various stats on your car. For most of the game, you can choose between manual or automatic transmissions, although sequential and dual-clutch gearboxes become available towards the end of the game. With this in mind, let's explain the pros and cons of each type, and when to use them.

Automatic For The People

Automatic transmissions rely on a torque converter to allow the driver to accelerate and brake without having to change gears. As such, they are generally less efficient than equivalent manual gearboxes, although this can be mitigated or even negated by the option to use an advanced computer-controlled unit and/or more gear ratios in later years. On the other hand, not having to shift manually means that an automatic transmission yields vastly superior drivability and comfort compared to a manual transmission, at the expense of reduced sportiness and increased costs. Therefore, it is recommended to select an automatic transmission if the car you are building is intended for demographics in which comfort and drivability are major priorities.

All in the Manual

A manual transmission requires the driver to engage the clutch and move the shifter into a desired position in order for it to change gears. This requires more effort than with an automatic gearbox, and therefore reduces drivability and comfort. However, by making the driver feel more engaged with the act of driving, it improves sportiness, and the absence of a torque converter usually leads to improved fuel economy. In addition to this, a manual gearbox is cheaper, lighter, and easier to service than an equivalent automatic one. For these reasons, manual transmissions are generally recommended in demographics which place a strong emphasis on sportiness, especially until sequential and dual-clutch gearboxes become available.

Other Transmission Types

Two other transmission types become available for selection late in the game: sequential and dual-clutch. The former dispenses with a traditional clutch entirely and can only shift between adjacent gears. The latter uses two sets of clutches (one for odd-numbered gears and another for even-numbered gears) instead of just one. Neither of them quite as smooth as an automatic gearbox, but they tend to improve acceleration compared to a similarly configured manual gearbox. As such, they are commonly found in high-performance and/or upmarket trims in which more comfort is desired than can be provided with a manual transmission, without sacrificing too much sportiness. However, on lower-end cars, the added mechanical complexity of these gearbox types tends to make them less worthwhile compared to conventional manual or automatic gearboxes.

Where's the CVT?

Some of you may be wondering why Automation does not support continuously variable transmissions. The reason is simple: their method of operation (which involves a set of cones linked together via rubber belts) allows for an infinite range of ratios. However, this is simply too complex to properly simulate in Automation. Therefore, you won't find a CVT in the game at all, nor are there any plans to include it at present.

Conclusion

Regardless of what kind of car (or truck, or van) you are building, your choice of transmission type can make or break your build. However, it alone is not the only factor. Gear spacing and final drive ratios are also important factors in determining the stats, competitiveness and performance of your vehicle. That, however, is best reserved for another chapter, given that I originally wrote this post with the intention of discussing transmission types in general.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 95: When CSR Goes Wrong

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 95: When CSR Goes Wrong

Among the many competitions that have been held on the Automation forums, CSR has been the flagship for almost five full years now, primarily because everything about it has generally maintained a very high standard in that time. However, this does not mean that it has never had any low points at all; in fact, there have been quite a few. So, without further ado, here are my top three picks for CSR rounds gone wrong (for one or more reasons), in no particular order.

• CSR 115 - The premise for this one was actually very sound, but many of the entries were disqualified for either being built in an open beta build of Automation, and thereby incompatible (at a time when use of the most recent stable build was mandatory) or simply not meeting the eligibility requirements. Even then, many users continued to complain on the forums, not just once, but several times, forcing moderators to lock the thread shortly after the winner had been announced. Thankfully, this has yet to happen in any future CSR at the time of writing.
• CSR 64 - This round, the fourth to be held using the UE4 version of Automation, marked the exact point where CSR hit rock bottom. Not only was the rule set too vague, the backstory was also far too confusing, thereby putting off many potential entrants. In fact, only thirteen users chose to take the plunge, and few of those found it to be worth their time and effort. Worse yet, the reviews were sub-par, and the host seemed to have lost interest by the time it was all over - to the point that, after having hosted several CSR rounds in quick succession, he abstained from hosting temporarily.
• CSR 59 - Much like CSR 64, this one also had a vague rule set, but the scoring criteria were determined by a set of equations that made them even more obtuse and thereby unconvincing. It was primarily for this reason that this round had the lowest turnout of any CSR ever, at just eight entrants in total.

Fortunately, in all of these cases, the rounds immediately after these three proved to be much better overall. In the case of CSR 64, the custodians of the series even took some more drastic action to stop (or at least reduce the probability of) such a farcical result from ever happening again, along with requiring every future CSR round to have its own dedicated thread - and it has worked a treat. Nearly every CSR round from the 65th one onwards has had a strong turnout, although it was not until a few months ago that it reached what is currently its zenith. Then again, considering how much better CSR has become overall over the past few months, that may not be the case for much longer.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 94: The Importance of Test Mules

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 94: The Importance of Test Mules

Let's face it, there have been many cars entered in various Automation forum competitions over the years that looked promising on paper, but were ultimately undone by poor engineering choices. To lessen the chances of this happening, it pays to create a developmental mock-up of your vehicle, commonly referred to as a mule, as real-life car companies do when developing a new vehicle. It is generally meant to be representative of the final product not in terms of exterior design, but in mechanical specifications. As such, mules tend to either have no exterior fixtures at all, or a very basic appearance - one that is seldom representative of the final product.

With an engineering test mule, it's the trim choices, chassis options, and engine (all of which affect stats such as drivability, sportiness, comfort, prestige, safety, etc.) that matter most. Unlike styling, all three of these areas are meant to be as similar to those of the finished product as possible. Therefore, it is in these areas that the definitive car's specifications are finalized. For example, here are some screenshots of a test build I made of a mid-1970s American mid-sized sedan, in its unfinished state as an engineering mule with paint and wheels (but not fixtures) fitted.

Above, from top: Chassis and body choice for a test mule of a mid-1970s American sedan, with body style, morphs, exterior colors and wheel shape finalized, but no fixtures added to the body.

Having chosen the chassis options, along with the body shape and style, I then set about finalizing the engineering. The engine was typical of the era - a pushrod V8 strangled by a catalytic converter and regular unleaded petrol, yet still capable of developing 150 horsepower, which I deemed to be sufficient for a car of this size and type.

Above, from top: Screenshots showing an overview of the engine I chose to fit to my test mule.

Finally, here are some screenshots of each individual trim tab, showing more trim and engineering options for my test mule.

Above, from top: A series of screenshots showing various aspects of my test mule's engineering and trim.

The resulting car felt like a typical land barge of the era, albeit smaller - soft in the corners, and not very fast, but as comfortable as any separate-chassis, leaf-sprung American iron could get for its size, which pleased me very much indeed. In short, if you are unsure as to the engineering approach you want to take for a particular car, it is highly recommended to create some test mules first. Only when you are satisfied with the stats for one of them should you then develop it further.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 93: Hampton Leads The Charge

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 93: Hampton Leads The Charge

As Generations II reaches its sixth round, it would be remiss to recap what happened in the previous one, as well as what came immediately afterwards. I was reluctant to write this post initially, but recent events made me reconsider. Some of the changes made to the Hampton Motor Group range from 1977 to 1981 include:

• All models: From 1981, advanced automatic transmission becomes available as an option for the first time ever - by then, mechanical fuel injection is now standard across the entire range. Minor trim, equipment and mechanical changes are also implemented.
• Harpy: Launched in 1977; GTS trim added to range in 1981, with a more powerful engine and sportier suspension and gearing.
• Fennec: Mechanical fuel injection optional from 1977.
• Valiant: Redesigned for 1977 with new body and independent rear suspension.
• Ferret: As above, but powered by 4-cylinder engines only.
• Vanguard: As above, but with three body styles (short- or long-wheelbase sedan, plus short-wheelbase coupe).
• Nevis II: Prematurely launched with carbureted engine, then recalled and given fuel-injected engine partway through 1977.
• Transtar: New body for 1977; engine family now shared with Fennec, Ferret and Valiant.
• Fairlie: Completely new for 1977; built on shortened Nevis platform and powered solely by a 4-cylinder engine.

Above, from top: An assortment of new models launched or revised by Hampton from 1977 to 1981, in the aftermath of the oil crisis.

Given that fuel prices had gone through the roof in 1974, Hampton shifted their focus to comfort and economy - but they could not ignore the performance market completely, and so, in 1977 they launched their first new sports car in two decades - the Harpy. Built on the Valiant platform, it would eventually come of age in 1981 when the high-performance GTS trim was added to the range.

All in all, Chairman Toby's efforts to stay relevant were finally paying off, setting the stage for a turnaround later in the decade. That, though, has already been mostly covered earlier in this series, and as such may not be revisited for some time yet.