Sunday, December 31, 2023

A Lifer's Diary, Part 11: An Eight-Player Game?!

A Lifer's Diary, Part 11: An Eight-Player Game?!

Although most versions of The Game of Life support either four or six players per game (the former applying only to Generations IV and V, and the latter applying to all prior versions), some Generation I sets have enough movers for an eight-player game. This led me to ask: Could any other Generations of the Game of Life support that many players at a time? For Generation III, the answer would most definitely be no - it has simply too few Career Cards of either type, nor are there enough Starter Home, House, and Share the Wealth Cards either.. This is not the case from Generation IV onwards, although you'd need two sets (and one board for either of them) to do this. That leaves Generation II, but there are some caveats, which I'll explain below.

For an eight-player game to be possible in Generation II, some concessions would be required; given that only six (or seven in Generation 2.5) Career Cards in this version are selectable without a degree. Thus, at least two players would have to go to college at the start of the game to accommodate this limitation. Even then, if no compatible Career Cards were available, a player who landed on a Lose Your Job space would have to retain their current career out of necessity, although they would still have to choose a new salary as usual.

Moving to an eight-player format would also have other ramifications as well. For one, with that many players present, the draw pile of 21 Life Tiles would be emptied much sooner. Moreover, the combined amount of money earned by all players would be much higher than it would be in a six-player game, making it far more likely that the bank would run out of money, forcing the banker to write down additional notes in various denominations as necessary. In addition to this, every House would eventually be bought except for one, whereas in a six-player game, . Finally, the chance of all nine Stock Cards being taken would be increased even further, thus increasing the possibility of a player unable to earn a Stock Card without taking one from another player (and even then, only through a house rule allowing it).

Last but not least, having eight (or even seven) players instead of six or fewer would greatly prolong the game - I would expect such a game to take at least three hours on average to finish, what with each round of turns being much longer as a result. Given that in Generation II, a game with six players could take that much time to successfully complete, this would be the biggest obstacle (apart from a lack of supplies) to expanding the Game of Life to eight players. In fact, with Generation II sets only having six movers each, you'd need to borrow two movers from a second set to make an eight-player game possible.

So it's probably for the best that no version of the Game of Life has ever supported more than six players. Increasing the player count would not only add expense and complexity for its manufacturer,  but would also run counter to the current trend for shorter, more intimate games involving fewer players. Instead, the current four-player format should be improved even further - which is especially important given that Generation V feels like a step up from Generation IV, according to most players and fans (including myself). These changes have made reversion to a six- or eight- player format unnecessary. So if you're still struggling to accept the fact that the Game Of Life now only has room for four players per set, stop complaining and enjoy the game!

That concludes my last post of 2023 - I'll see you in 2024. Until then, I'll wish all of you a Happy New Year!

Wednesday, December 27, 2023

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 169: Getting a Grip on Things

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 169: Getting a Grip on Things

With the Ellisbury Update now merged with the public release, there have been many major changes in how some trim options are handled. In particular, tires have been overhauled significantly, with semi-slicks (the sportiest tire choice other than race tires) now only being available from 1997 onwards, assuming tire techpool has been set to 0. However, they are still very effective when used in extreme high-performance applications, such as modern track-focused road cars, especially those with very high power outputs. (generally those from the 1990s onward, although it is possible to unlock them as early of 1982 with +15 techpool) . This is because their extremely soft compound gives them more grip, at the expense of reduced drivability and comfort, in addition to being utterly useless off-road (or on snow and ice, for that matter) and wearing out more quickly than a sports tire. Moreover, they are very challenging to drive on in wet or even damp conditions Finally, they not only increase the price of any car to which they have been fitted, but they increase the service costs and fuel consumption significantly, the latter due to their greater rolling resistance.

To demonstrate, I decided to compare the lap times set by my favorite Automation build, the LVC LS60, around the Airfield test track on sports compound and semi-slick tires. It was fast enough on regular sports tires, but on closer inspection, it needed more grip to make the most of its power. After fitting semi-slicks and tuning the suspension to exploit their characteristics, the result was a significant improvement of around 3 seconds. I later found out that swapping from a handmade interior with a luxury CD player to a sports interior and premium CD player, along with downgrading from an advanced safety suite to a standard one, helped matters even further, due to the weight reduction that resulted. Even without these additional changes, however, the increased sportiness more than outweighed the loss of drivability, comfort, fuel economy, and reliability, considering that the LS60 was a flagship hypercar, and not a mass-produced commuter car.




The tire setup, suspension settings, and lap time of the LVC LS60 when fitted with semi-slick tires (above) when compared with those of the same car using regular sports tires (below).




In short, semi-slick tires are highly situational - although they are seldom worth the extra expense on most cars, extreme high-performance and/or track-oriented cars will benefit significantly from having them equipped, especially if a lot of power is involved.

Sunday, December 24, 2023

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 168: A Year of Ups and Downs

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 168: A Year of Ups and Downs

Happy holidays everyone! I'd like to use this post to reflect on what turned out to be quite a crazy year. The past 12 months have been a rollercoaster ride of emotions, but through it all, I kept believing in myself, which makes me more optimistic for 2024.

This year started off like any other, as I continued to fulfill my duties as an Automationeer by experimenting with various build types and entering assorted forum competitions. However, sometime in March, I was faced with a few alarming (but thankfully short-lived) health scares - at one point I had brief (but unpleasant) bout of vertigo, which was cured in short order, much to my relief. Not long after this, I started suffering from insomnia - and once again I took the necessary action to deal with it. It did not take me long to return to full strength again, and I have generally been my usual self ever since, but I learned a key lesson from these ordeals: Sometimes, the most important life you can save is your own, because even though your life is finite, it's still long enough to be worth living to the fullest.

In addition to this, throughout August and September, I also went on vacation three times in total (first to Japan, then to Bali, and finally to South Korea) and hence away from my PC, but to be fair, my parents also had to attend several work-related events during this time, so I had no choice but to accompany them. During this time, I could not contribute as much to the Automation community as I had hoped for, but on the other hand, it gave me ample time to relax, unwind, and de-stress, before resuming work shortly after returning home.

That covers the low points of 2023, but what about the highs? Well, there was no shortage of them, and I remained as dedicated to Automation as I had been the previous year, if not more so. I kept experimenting with a multitude of trim, engine, and body combinations, to see what the game allowed me to do. I still entered forum challenges from time to time (although I did better in some of these than others), but eventually I became ever so slightly frustrated with the limitations of the 4.2 version that had been in use for over a year.

So it was with great anticipation that I downloaded the open beta of the 4.3 version of Automation in September, for although I would have to rework my previous builds to account for the changes that it brought, the update added a lot of new content and features, thereby improving the overall experience. It took eight patches, but finally it's become the new public release. In short, it's the best Christmas gift any Automationeer could ever receive!

Beyond Automation, I have also used this blog to explore the similarities the Infinite Space trilogy (especially the third game, Sea of Stars) has with BattleTech. The results were eye-opening, to say the least, and made me appreciate the subtleties of both games' movement rules, combat systems, equipment, and unit roles, among others. Moreover, I have also managed to dive deeper into the secrets of Hasbro's Game of Life, explaining further why some of the changes made to it over the years have not been as well-received by some players as they were by others.

Finally, I'll conclude this post on an optimistic note: the next blog post in this series will deal with an unexpected Christmas surprise gift in the form of new advice on tire types, and after that, I'll create another series of posts - one related to a game that's I haven't played at all until a few months, despite having been on sale for a few years now. Merry Christmas everyone, and a Happy New Year to all!

Saturday, December 9, 2023

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 167: One More Patch... Followed by Another

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 167: One More Patch... Followed by Another

After yet another patch, the current open beta build of Automation is now more polished than ever. In addition to some welcome bugfixes, there have been a whole host of tweaks and balancing changes intended to make the game more realistic and engaging than before. As far as I know, these have largely been beneficial to the game as a whole, especially since the gearing tab now shows total ratio and torque limits in addition to drivability, sportiness, and reliability multipliers - and at all times to boot.

More significantly, sandbox mode allows you to install race tires of various types, with each compound being tailored to a specific situation. However, all of these are more expensive than any other tire type. To balance this out, the default unlock year for semi-slick tires (a halfway house between a sports tire and a race tire) has been pushed back to 1997, assuming a tire/wheel techpool value of 0 is in use. The upshot is that we are finally able to create actual race cars without the limitations of street-legal rubber.

One side-effect of this patch is that all of the cars we made in prior versions are now in need of significant revision - and not for the first time since the open beta was first released. Indeed, for some of my favorite builds, I have done just that, in keeping with my longstanding practice of updating or remaking older builds to ensure their viability in later versions. This is particularly important for anything intended for a forum challenge - what was once eligible before the patch will either no longer be viewed as such, or be far less competitive.

Thankfully, I have been quite diligent with my inspection of all my challenge builds, ensuring that they remain compliant with their respective rule sets, while also retaining their competitiveness. I advise you to do the same with yours, if you have any. There may be further patches planned for when the 4.3 build of Automation becomes the new stable public release - watch this space.

Update (December 15 2023): The 4.3 open beta build of Automation is now on its sixth patch, and calculations for all techpool cost allocations have been revised, with total costs for engine and trim techpool totals now being calculated separately. Unfortunately, this has rendered all techpool values uneditable, although on the upside, engine and trim techpool are now calculated separately. Moreover, all of my builds have had their stats changed, and I have once again been forced to rework some of my cars to compensate. However, I have generally been successful in this regard.

Update #2 (December 16 2023): Techpool values are now editable freely once again, but there have been no stat changes as a result of the seventh open beta patch. This is a huge relief for everyone, given that adjusting techpool values for every individual car made in sandbox mode has been an integral part of Automation ever since the feature was implemented a little over a year ago.

Update #3 (December 21 2023): The open beta branch has finally been merged with the public release - and I am eternally grateful for this. I have been craving that extra bit of realism and attention to detail the new game build has brought us, and I finally got my wish. In fact, this new version is the Christmas gift I have been waiting for.

Wednesday, December 6, 2023

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 166: Return to Letara

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 166: Return to Letara


With the recent introduction of the fourth update to the 4.3 version of Automation (which is now in its open beta phase), the long-running Letaran History Challenge has emerged from hibernation, and is now in its fifth round. The timeframe for this one spans the years from 1985 to 1995 inclusive, and in contrast to previous rounds, the techpool allocation was far more generous. Seeking to exploit it, I chose to be brave, and submit a high-priced, mid-engined car for the first time in the LHC - or rather, two trims of one (a road car intended for sale to the general public, and a race car for use in an annual production-based racing event). After some deliberation, I came up with the Wolfram Warhawk - a mid-engined, rear-drive supercar powered by a 5.0-liter all-alloy V12 developing 430 horsepower in the base model, and 450 (the maximum allowed by the regulations) in the race car.


Above and below: The 1989 Wolfram Warlord GT (tan interior) and its racing counterpart, the GTR (red on black interior). The latter is distinguished by its lower curb weight, slightly higher output, and improved aerodynamics, in addition to having more extreme track-focused suspension tuning as standard equipment.




Admittedly, there were other possibilities for the current round of the LHC, but the mid-engined flagship route was the most tempting. It may have been due to the fact that, after testing all the possibilities, it would have been the fastest around a track when configured correctly - and indeed it was.


Above and below: The interiors of the Wolfram Warlord GT (above) and GTR (below), with the former's plush, luxurious and opulent ambiance serving as a stark contrast to the latter's racier,  more spartan and businesslike feel.


But this isn't the end of the story - far from it, in fact, since there will be a few more rounds of the LHC after this one. In the meantime, happy Automationeering!

Saturday, December 2, 2023

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 165: Remaking Old Builds

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 165: Remaking Old Builds




The Ellisbury Update to Automation is currently in its open beta phase, and has since been updated four times so far. The upshot is that most (all?) builds made in the preceding game version (which the current stable release still uses) must now be reworked (or remade from the ground up, if the body set they were based on was deprecated in, and hence removed from, the open beta), and although this takes time and patience, the result will be far more realistic than it was in the stable release (and better-looking, to boot, especially when using one of the new body sets introduced in the open beta). I have done this several times so far, as much out of necessity as curiosity.

One such build was the LVC LF2, which I had made a few months earlier in the older, stable 4.2 build. However, with this car, I decided to clone the car and its engine, as well as shifting the model, trim, engine family, two years forward (from 1987 to 1989). With a more sensible techpool distribution (specifically, a maximum total techpool + lab cost of $80 million, as shown in the techpool menu), minor trim and mechanical adjustments, and a few slight aesthetic changes, the car (now renamed LF2R) now looks and feels better than it's ever been. Some of the changes I made for the 4.3 version of this build include a switch to an aluminum/silicon engine block, treated steel outer panels, a 1-inch increase in wheel diameter, and having anti-lock brakes as standard equipment.


Above and below: The LVC LF2 after being revised for the Ellisbury Update in Automation, now renamed the LF2R.


Prior to this, I also chose to revisit two more of my favorite builds from 4.2: the LVC LS60 (a recent pet project of mine) and the AMS Archangel (originally an early 4.2 build I reworked multiple times, and remade in greater detail for 4.3). Most of the changes made to the LS60 involved its mechanicals, but I also made a few aesthetic tweaks to its exterior and interior. Speaking of which, the Archangel finally received one, after well over a year lying fallow as other builds took priority. It also got a once-over engineering-wise, and when all was said and done, it was a real rival to the LS60. In addition, both cars were now listed as 1995 models, essentially making them direct successors to their wedge-shaped ancestors (the LS50 and Archangel Mk1 respectively).


Above and below: Reworking the LVC LS60 (blue) and AMS Archangel (red) for 4.3 involved quite a lot of work (especially when adding a fully detailed interior for the latter), but it was worth it in the end.


There are so many examples of old pre-4.3 builds that I have already reworked (or am considering revisiting with intent to update them) since the introduction of the open beta build that listing them all on this post would be impractical, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that I have been mightily impressed with the results every single time.

Update (December 14 2023): With the release of the sixth patch for the 4.3 open beta build of Automation, I have had to update my builds yet again, and the LF2R was no exception - in addition to having its engine mounted further forward, it now has smaller, narrower wheels and tires, along with retuned suspension, to reduce unwanted oversteer. This is what it looks like now:


Above and below: The LF2R after the sixth update to the Automation open beta build. It now has smaller, narrower wheels and tires, among other changes, for a reduced tendency to oversteer.


In addition to this, I have also updated the LS60 and Archangel, among other builds, to account for the changes brought on by this latest update - hopefully there won't be any problems with them this time around.

Tuesday, November 28, 2023

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 164: Leap of Faith

 Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 164: Leap of Faith

It didn't take me very long to host my first Automation forum competition after switching to the latest open beta build, and by all accounts, it was a success. This time, I decided to host the second stage of the fourth round of the Journey of Ownership challenge. The premise was as follows: having made and lost a fortune overseas (only to regain it once again a few years later), a wealthy businessman was once again ready to splurge on a car he could really enjoy on weekends and special occasions. He'd already done so way back in 1982 (which is when the first stage of this JOC was set), only to sell it about a decade later as his finances grew increasingly strained. Now, however, he had realized that not replacing it would be a mistake, and so, in 1995 (which is when the second stage of JOC4 takes place) he began weighing up his options.

With that, I created a set of requirements and recommendations, and waited for the entries to arrive. By the time the deadline had passed, I had received 14 entries - and immediately I started reviewing and ranking them. Some fell at the first hurdle for not meeting my requirements, while others were eligible but fell short of a podium finish due to poor engineering and/or design choices. Eventually, I was able to narrow down the field to three.


Every single car I received for JOC4B, plus one additional car (not part of the challenge, though) carrying all the testing equipment in its luggage compartment.

The first of the top three contenders to go was the Cornell Special Works Stellarum Langenschwanz (the fourth car from the left in the top row of the picture above), a hulking behemoth of a machine powered by a large iron-block V12. This, combined with its AWD drivetrain, pushed its curb weight to over 2 metric tons, and yet it had the performance to be a front-runner. Even so, I could not get over its excess mass and downmarket mid-grade stereo, so it finished third.

Next was the Cavaliere Nobile Strato TTS Evoluzione (the third car from the left on the top row) - a weird-looking wildcard that nevertheless justified its inclusion in the top three due to having very good stats around the board. Only its styling held it back from the top spot, which went to... the Zephorus Grimsel (the fifth car from the left in the top row). This was, in fact, the only entry to tick all of the client's boxes, scoring top marks in nearly every category, and out-performing the other cars where it mattered most.


The Zephorus Grimsel that won JOC4B, next to the "camera car" used for this challenge.

All in all, this was a highly satisfying and enjoyable challenge for everyone involved, and not a moment too soon - the first stage of this JOC had taken much longer to complete than anticipated. Moreover, the latest update to the Automation open beta build imposed reliability penalties for excessive torque loads on gearboxes (inevitable with all turbocharged engines, and possible if the lower ratios are too close); thankfully, I completed this challenge before this update was released. In short, this was one of my better outings as a challenge host, and it leaves me optimistic for the future of Automation after the 4.3 update.

Friday, November 24, 2023

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 163: Uncharted Territory

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 163: Uncharted Territory

Shortly after the release of the latest open beta build of Automation (4.3), I started trying it out for myself. The first thing I noticed was the presence of a few new or revised body sets, some of which replaced existing ones which dated back to the Kee builds of several years prior. Others were introduced as mods for earlier UE4 builds, but were omitted from 4.2. The result is more variety not just in terms of body choices, but also in engine and trim options, as we shall soon see.


Above and below: My first four test mule builds after the release of the latest open beta build of Automation - a mid-engined 12-cylinder supercar, a V8-powered pony car, a six-cylinder sports coupe, and a small four-cylinder roadster.


First and foremost, the engine designer has been overhauled in 4.3; there are many more options for block and bottom end (crank, conrod, and piston) materials than before, and each one has its own pros and cons. Aluminum and aluminum/silicon blocks come in both light and heavy varieties (the former offering better cooling and emissions at the expense of smoothness, noise, and power density, while the opposite is true of the latter); in addition, there is also an option for a billet aluminum block, which costs more than any other block material, but provides superior attributes in all other key aspects compared to other alloy block types. However, in general, aluminum/silicon blocks tend to yield a lower safe power limit than an equivalent aluminum or cast-iron block.


Above: The revamped engine family options screen showing the new block material options. Below: In later trim years, depending on the techpool allocation for the exhaust system, you may combine a 3-way catalytic converter with a precat (which reduces emissions even further), unless you fit long or racing headers (neither of which are compatible with a precat).


Among the many bottom end options introduced in 4.3, there are heavy variants of most crank, piston, and conrod types; these can withstand more torque but fewer RPMs, whereas light variants of some of these part types can endure higher RPMs, but are less resistant to high torque loads. As such, you'll need to choose your bottom end parts more carefully than before depending on the application. Also, if a catalytic converter is fitted, then the emissions optimization level can be adjusted; the higher the level, the more likely it is to meet future emissions standards, but at the cost of low-end torque and throttle response, especially with more aggressive optimization settings. On top of that, in later years, it is possible to combine a three-way catalytic converter with a precat, thereby reducing emissions even further with minimal loss of output (although this part type is incompatible with racing or long headers). Finally, when building a 90-degree V8 engine, there is now a button to replace the cross-plane crank with a flat-plane one, or vice versa.


Above An example of a late-'80s/early-'90s engine, with the emissions test charts shown on the fuel system tab. Below: A list of all available bottom end parts shown for the variant year and techpool allocation for the same engine. This engine is a 90-degree V8; as such, the button for switching to flat-plane cranks (or cross-plane ones if the flat-plane one is already selected) is not ghosted.


Trim options are now much more varied as well. To start off, in the drivetrain/transmission tab, it is now possible to adjust the ratio for first gear, in addition to top speed, gear spread, and speed limiter values, and there is now an option to adjust every gear ratio individually - the latter option, though more difficult and complex to use, provides greater control over a car's gearing, and fine-tuning each individual gear can yield better results when done right. In addition, there is now a racing version of the clutched LSD (which sacrifices comfort for sportiness, at a greater price), and the geared LSD has been renamed the helical LSD due to the two having the same internal structure. However, the automatic locker has been removed due to the fact that the implementation of on-demand and advanced AWD (as explained below) has rendered it redundant.


Above: The new gearing screen now not only shows gearing suitability for drivability and sportiness, but also allows you to switch between basic and advanced modes; the latter, which is shown here, gives you complete control over individual gear ratio adjustments, as well as the final drive ratio. Moreover, there are now more transmission, drivetrain, and differential types available. Below: The 4.3 update now includes test track data, emissions testing, detailed stats, cruise efficiency, drag, and traction test charts, the last of which is shown here; however, all of them are viewable from most sections of the trim options menu, and you can select the one you want to see by clicking on the corresponding button.


Also, depending on trim year, there can now be up to four AWD systems to choose from: viscous, helical, on-demand, and advanced. Each of these offers better stats than the last, in addition to wider torque distribution ranges (although on-demand systems won't allow you to adjust the torque split manually, instead offering automatic torque distribution), but at an increasingly higher cost. Finally, sequential gearboxes (which offer faster shift times and hence greater sportiness, and the expense of higher cost and reduced drivability) and continuously variable transmissions have been properly implemented for the first time ever - the former are best suited to racing and high-performance applications, and the latter has an infinite spread of ratios at the expense of a lower torque limit, making it ideal for cheaper, less powerful cars.

With the 4.3 update, the interior tab now includes a racing interior option; this reduces prestige, comfort, and production efficiency even further compared to a sports or basic interior, but is the lightest option available, making it best suited for dedicated race cars, especially with the weight optimization slider set to its lightest setting. Moreover, toe angle (i.e. the angle of the car's tires/wheels when viewed from above) can now be adjusted in the suspension tuning tab. Automation measures toe angles in terms of toe in (i.e. how much the front of the wheel faces inwards); hence, a negative toe-in angle (in which the front of the wheel faces outwards) represents toe-out. In general, the greater the toe-in angle, the greater the stability. Also, if the front wheels toe in and the rear wheels toe out, the car will have a tendency to oversteer, and if the front wheels toe out and the rear wheels toe in, there will be a tendency to understeer. However, increasing toe-in at both axles on mid- and rear-engined cars is generally advisable, since it's particularly effective at countering their innate oversteering tendencies - up to a point, since excessive toe-in will induce too much understeer.


Above: Viewing the emissions test data from the interior options section of the trim menu, which now includes the option of a racing interior. Below: The updated suspension settings screen in 4.3, now showing toe-in angles (which can finally be adjusted for the first time ever).


Within the overview tab, the fuel economy section of the detailed stats screen has been redesigned to accommodate an emissions chart. This can be used to determine whether or not your car is compatible with current and future emissions standards for a given market; there is also a separate table showing the maximum pollutant levels for each set of standards. A red cell in the emissions standards table indicates that the car will not meet a specified set of standards in that market; a green cell, on the other hand, shows that it will pass those standards. In general, emissions standards are measured according to WES (Worldwide Emissions Standard) ratings; the higher the number, the cleaner the engine will be, and WES standards will become more stringent in later years, with different regions having different timelines for introduction of new standards. However, with these changes in place, overhead-valve and/or extremely high-revving normally aspirated engines will be disadvantaged, since they are less likely to be compatible with newer emissions standards.


The fuel economy section of the detailed stats tab in 4.3, now with an emissions level and standards compatibility chart as standard.

Another change for 4.3 is that the performance data is now shown in the overview tab instead of the test track tab. Speaking of which, that tab has also been extensively revised; in addition to the new Ellisbury Speedway test track set (which includes four layouts: Tri-Oval, Grand Prix, GT, and Junior), the test track map now covers almost the entire screen, with telemetry at the bottom, and it is now possible to zoom in or out on the map, as well as lock the camera to the car's current position. In addition, weight distribution calculations have been revised so that engines are now mounted farther forward than previously. This makes mid- and rear-engined cars less prone to terminally oversteer, but gives front-engined cars a less favorable weight distribution, even with the weight shifted as far back as possible (although the new toe angle adjustment feature can help compensate for this). Regardless, you won't need as much tire stagger (the difference between front and rear tire widths) as before.


The result of a test session (in the form of a standing-start time trial) on the new test track tab, with a full-screen track map - the track shown here is a custom community creation, rather than one of the stock tracks (of which the various layouts of Ellisbury Raceway are among them).

New to the summary tab is a Poster button, which allows you to create an image showing your car from multiple different angles, as well as its vital stats and engine dyno sheet. From here, you can choose from a multitude of fonts, font colors, background images, and lighting settings. Clicking on the Export button will create a poster with the specified settings. Although there are still a few bugs (which will hopefully be fixed in the near future), it's still generally functional, and is one of the best ways to show off your build (and its stats) in a single picture file.


The new poster menu allows you to create a picture file (usually in .png format, although others are available) summarizing the vital stats of your build, along with its engine. 

Sandbox tech pool has also been overhauled for 4.3. In addition to an option for negative tech pool, the game will also show the cost of setting the tech pool to the current settings - not just for the tech pool itself, but also the cost of researching it (referred to as lab costs) as well as the combined cost of both. This makes it easier to keep track of overall tech pool costs. In particular, this could be useful for challenges whose tech pool budgets are calculated in this manner. Moreover, I have found that from a default setting of +5 on all areas (for both the engine and trim), setting the turbo techpool to 0 on any car powered by a naturally aspirated engine frees up plenty of room in the techpool budget for additional points that can be spent elsewhere - a boon if your build doesn't rely on forced induction.


An example techpool allocation showing the techpool and lab costs, as well as the combined cost of both.

Remember those new body sets I mentioned previously? Well, there are quite a few of them - but not all of them are completely new to the game. Some of them are derived from mods for earlier versions, and others are replacements for body sets that were introduced in the original Kee version of the game, only to disappear altogether or be neglected after the transition to UE4. In fact, the Ice Cream body set (which unlocks in 1989) is the only one that's truly new. There is no longer any doubt, however, that I have found every new or revised body set in 4.3 to be very pleasant to work with. In particular, the '87 Boat and '89 Ice Cream body sets are very versatile, with lots of morphing zones that have a wide range, allowing you to make all manner of shapes, from boxy to curvy or even wedge-shaped, not to mention anything in between - I have found the latter in particular to lend itself well to rear-engined configurations, especially in terms of aesthetics.


The '89 Ice Cream body sets are completely new to the game for 4.3; all the other new body sets are revamps of existing ones from earlier versions, but are a huge improvement on their predecessors.

On top of that, the recently released third patch for the 4.3 open beta has added a further dose of realism to the game. In addition to maximum stroke determining the amount of space required for an engine, there are now power/traction graphs that show the amount of traction each axle has in specific conditions and situations. Also, gear ratio values now provide bonuses or penalties to drivability, sportiness, and reliability depending on how they are set. Of all the changes introduced in this patch, these are the most significant. The fourth open beta patch is more minor in scope by comparison, in preparation for the upcoming fifth patch. However, as of now, the torque limits (especially in earlier eras) are so low that any turbocharged engine (even if it has a low specific output) will incur a reliability penalty (especially with more powerful engines) - so much so that it should be rectified in a future patch, but in the meantime, I'll mostly stick with normally aspirated engines for most of my builds.

In short, I have so much confidence in the 4.3 build that I have already begun hosting and entering forum challenges based on it - I'll talk about this in the next few posts in this series. Overall, the Ellisbury Update has changed Automation for the better, and since it's almost Thanksgiving, I am eterally grateful. In the meantime, happy Automationeering, and have fun!

Monday, October 30, 2023

Infinite Space Theories: How Much Damage can a Limited Vacuum Collapser Do?

Infinite Space Theories: How Much Damage can a Limited Vacuum Collapser Do?




Happy Halloween everyone! In keeping with the spooky theme of this post, I'll discuss how scary one of the artifacts in the Infinite Space universe can really be under the right circumstances.

The Limited Vacuum Collapser is, without a doubt, the most powerful (and dangerous) item in the entire Infinite Space trilogy. So much so, in fact, that in Sea of Stars, collecting one from a star system that isn't a home system of any faction will spawn a Yellow Kawangi Dreadnought on the opposite side of the map from the Glory system (where your home base is located), forcing you to destroy the Dreadnought before it annihilates Glory, except in games where other quest-triggering items, fleets, or discoveries are spawned at the start (in which case the Dreadnought will not spawn at all). We have already discussed that particular scenario before, but this time, we will answer another question: Just how much damage can you do by detonating a Limited Vacuum Collapser?

Before we begin, we'll talk about the size of the map in Sea of Stars. Whereas in previous games, maps were usually smaller (and therefore contained fewer star systems), every map in Sea of Stars is quite large and, on top of that, is always the same size - faction strength and nebular area can be adjusted, but map size cannot, unlike in the previous game, Weird Worlds. Every time you start a game in Sea of Stars, there are usually 30 or so star systems (including 8 home systems, one each of which will always be under Terran and Klakar control), plus five black holes. If you count black holes as star systems, that makes for a total of 35 systems on the map in most cases. However, as far as I am aware, no star system can have more than seven other systems (including black holes) within five light-years of it. As we shall soon see, this is very important for what I'm about to demonstrate.


An example of a map in Sea of Stars in which a single star system has seven other star systems (including a black hole) within five light-years of it.

We'll use the map above as an example. Here, the Altair system, almost directly opposite Glory (the Terran home system) on the farthest part of this map, is within five light-years of seven other star systems: Hellion, Theta, Achernar, Wolf, Penumbra, Sanguine, and Limbo, the last of which is a black hole. If I were to detonate a Limited Vacuum Collapser at Altair (which I sadly couldn't do on this occasion, due to the lack of an LVC, or anything that can be turned into an LVC, for that matter), all of those systems would completely and permanently disappear from the map, along with every fleet within the blast radius (including my own, unless it were far enough away). Two of those systems are, in fact, the home systems of two hostile NPC factions; Theta and Sanguine are where the homeworlds of the Urluquai and Tan Ru, respectively, are located. As such, detonating an LVC at Altair would have permanently removed both factions from the map, in addition to effectively reducing the size of the map by just over 20%. And because the LVC detonation wipes out a whole cluster when used in this way, I would like to call this the "cluster wipe" trick

However, it is worth noting that such a tightly packed "star cluster" of six or more star systems within five light-years of each other rarely, if ever, appears more than once on any given map, due to how the game handles the placement of each star system at the start of a game. On the other hand, with the dual LVC trick we've discussed earlier in this series, combining it with the cluster wipe trick will allow you to destroy even more star systems - it's especially satisfying if one of those systems is the homeworld of a hostile faction. Just make sure that Glory isn't engulfed in either explosion, or your adventure among the Sea of Stars will come to a premature end. Finally, on a map with two star clusters with eight star systems and is less than five light-years across each, destroying both clusters with LVCs will effectively destroy nearly half of the map.

Whatever the placement of star systems a the start of a game, one thing remains clear: If you obtain a Limited Vacuum Collapser in Sea of Stars, make sure to either use it wisely, or not at all - in the latter case, either by keeping it in your cargo bay, or by selling it off at Glory for a sizable sum.

Thursday, October 5, 2023

A Lifer's Diary, Part 10: Six into Four Won't Go... Or Does It?

A Lifer's Diary, Part 10: Six into Four Won't Go... Or Does It?

When the Game of Life went from being a six-player game to a four-player one for Generation IV, not everyone approved of the change. While this made sets cheaper, simpler, and quicker to produce, it also removed the possibility of playing the game as a larger group (5 people or more). To this day, I am still conflicted about Hasbro's decision to make it this way. So let's take a look at how this situation came to be.

As originally designed, Milton Bradley's Checkered Game of Life (the predecessor to the modern Game of Life) originally supported four players. This seems perfectly adequate given that the rule set was drastically different from those used in its successors. However, when Generation I of the Game of Life debuted, it became a six-player game for the first time ever, to emphasize the fact that this was now a true family game. In particular, large families and groups of friends found this change to be especially popular.

When Generation II debuted in the early 1990s, six-player support was retained, because the new rule set was equally conducive to large-scale games (i.e. those with at least four players), if not more so. This was still true after Generation 2.5 rolled around a decade or so later. However, Generation III was the last version of the Game of Life ever to honor this tradition, and in retrospect, it's easy to see why. 

Under the new rule set, Spin to Win was effectively treated as an extension of a turn, wherein players could choose whether or not to wager any of their cash (and if so, decide exactly how much they would bet) on the number to be spun, and this process took some time. In particular, when four or more players participated, this could potentially make Spin to Win take longer than anticipated. Moreover, players who retired still had to spin for Long-Term Investments until every player had retired. All this meant that the six-player setup present since Generation I had to be abandoned after Generation III.

Generations IV and V reverted to a four-player setup, as the original 1860 Checkered Game Of Life had used. Despite a mixed reaction from fans and players alike, the game still sold well, mainly because games now tended to be shorter than before. One of the reasons for this is that players are no longer required to spin at all after retiring. In addition, the College Path at the start of the game is even shorter than it had been in previous versions, thus allowing players to graduate sooner.

In short, turning the Game of Life from a six-player game to a four-player one from Generation IV onward may have been one of the most controversial changes in its history, but one that players have generally embraced. Even I am no longer as skeptical of this decision, and have accepted that this reduced limit is here to stay for at least the current version, and possibly beyond.

Friday, September 29, 2023

A Lifer's Diary, Part 9: Blue Space Blues

A Lifer's Diary, Part 9: Blue Space Blues

Blue Spaces were introduced in Generation I and have been present through much of the history of the Game of Life. Their function has always been to provide any player to perform an optional action upon landing on them, with their exact purpose(s) differing between versions. Originally, in Generation 1, you could purchase stocks or insurance when passing or landing on blue spaces, or choose not to do so. However, it was generally advisable to buy a stock, since they were essential for Playing the Market (highly recommended due to there being a 40% chance of winning, and the $50,000 payout for doing so much higher than the price of a Stock Card) or collecting payouts (including some of large ones) from certain spaces. Finally, insurance policies purchased from Blue Spaces can be lost upon landing on certain spaces; the exact type depends on the space landed on.

Blue Spaces were reworked for Generation II, and there were now two different types. The first of these was the Salary Trade space (of which there were six, and two of those were on optional paths), which allowed players to trade their Salary Cards with one currently in another player's possession, and the last of these was the Night School space, which gave players the ability to voluntarily replace their current Career and Salary Cards with one each of any unused type of card for a small, fixed fee. However, unlike in Generation I, players could only perform these operations upon landing exactly on the corresponding type of Blue Space, and never when passing over them.

In Generation II, any (and every) Blue Space that wasn't a Night School Space had text that read "Trade Salary Card with any player" on it. Any player who landed on a Blue Space of this particular type could give their Salary Card to another player of their choice, and that player would give that player their current Salary Card in return. Such a trade could potentially change the outcome of a game, especially if the two players' salaries differed by $50,000 or more. However, given that the player with the highest-paying salary was the one most likely to have their salary traded away, it was often better to have the second most lucrative salary among all players, so that opponents will cannibalize each other's chances of winning just to have the largest salary.

Night School spaces (of which there were only two in Generation II) have a similar function to Lose Your Job spaces, but with a few key differences. Upon landing on them, a player may pay the bank (or, if there is one, the opponent with the Teacher Career Card) $20,000 to change careers and/or salaries. They must then draw two random Career Cards (either or both of which may require a degree), and then take either or neither of those cards (but not both), before doing the same with the Salary Cards, and returning any unwanted cards to their respective decks. Changing salaries via Night School is generally recommended if your current salary is too low and at least one higher-paying salary is available. It's also a great way to replace your current Career Card with a more lucrative one, if possible. In fact, most players use the Night School space to do both at once whenever they can.

For Generation III, Night School would be discarded, although the Return to School space serves a similar function; however, upon reaching this space, you needed to pay $50,000 to even be able to change careers (which also puts you on an alternate path), although if you made the payment, you had two options upon reaching the Change Career/Get $20,000 Pay Raise space: choose two College Career Cards (except when only one such card is available, in which case you will automatically receive that card in place of your current Career Card), or retain your current Career Card and receive two $10,000 Pay Raises (this option will be chosen automatically if no other College Career Cards are available). In either case, after reaching the Change Career space, you must spin again.

In fact, there was only one type of Blue Space in Generation III: the Lawsuit Space. Anyone who landed on it could take $100,000 from any opponent of their choice. However, if the player being sued has at least one Exemption Card, that player pays nothing, and must instead return the Exemption Card they just used to the Share the Wealth Card deck. There are seven Lawsuit Spaces on the board, so in theory, a player could gain (or lose) up to $700,000 from these spaces. Even so, a single successful Lawsuit may be enough to significantly affect the outcome of a game.

Generation IV was the first version not to have any Blue Spaces at all, but this is justifiable given that two of the Action Cards that could be randomly drawn served the same purpose as the Lawsuit did in Generation III. However, these Lawsuit Cards (as players often called them) were considered less effective, since there were only a few of these cards in the Action Card deck, and the maximum amount of money that could be gained from drawing a Lawsuit Card was not only reduced, but also variable (from as little as $20,000 to as much $80,000). On the other hand, if a player drew a Lawsuit Card, there was no defense against it, due to Share the Wealth Cards also being removed from this version.

Generation V has many different types of Option Spaces, but they no longer have exclusively blue backgrounds, although their purpose is still to provide anyone who lands on them an opportunity to make a choice that could change the course of their Life. Nevertheless, throughout the history of the Game of Life, Option Spaces have provided players with countless memorable moments, and continue to do so to this day.

Tuesday, September 26, 2023

A Lifer's Diary, Part 8: The Agony of Lost Jobs and Skipped Turns

A Lifer's Diary, Part 8: The Agony of Lost Jobs and Skipped Turns

Of all the types of spaces that have been featured in The Game of Life, few are more feared than the Lose Your Job space. Introduced in Generation II, there were originally only two of these spaces on the board, but their effect was the same: anyone who landed on them had to swap their current Career and Salary cards for unused ones. If their new salary paid less than their previous one, that player would find it harder to amass a sizable fortune by the end of the game, especially if they also ended up with a less lucrative Career Card. However, if they received a higher-paying salary compared to the one they once had, their chance of winning would increase, especially if their new career was also more lucrative than the one they lost. In fact, if the difference in value between the old and new salaries was greater than $50,000, it could significantly alter the result of a game. Moreover, the first of these two Lose Your Job spaces (located two spaces after the Buy a House space) had a greater effect on players' net worth if landed on due to being closer to the starting space.

The only problem with this was that in a six-player game, if everyone chose the Start Career option at the beginning, and one of them landed on a Lose Your Job space, the game would lock up due to there only being six Career Cards (out of nine) that did not require a degree. To get around this, a house rule was created in which the Teacher Career Card no longer required a degree at all - this became an official rule change for Generation 2.5.

Less detrimental, but no less annoying, were the "Skip Next Turn" spaces located before the Get Married space. Anyone who landed on these spaces would be forced to skip their next turn. Generation II originally had four such spaces (including two on the Start College path, located before the Career Choice space, and one immediately before the Get Married space), but two of these spaces were changed to Pay Spaces in Generation 2.5 (although you could only lose money by landing on these revised spaces if you did not have Car Insurance). Apart from forcing you to skip your next turn, however, there are no penalties that can result from landing on these spaces.

Lose Your Job and Skip Next Turn spaces were carried over for Generation III, but this time, there would be only one of the latter type of space. More significantly, however, there were now four Lose Your Job spaces instead of two, and the penalty for landing on one of those was far more severe: regardless of the type of Career Card they currently had, any player who landed on such a space must take a random regular Career Card (not a College Career Card) from the deck, and return all of their Pay Raises to the bank. As with Generation II, this was especially devastating if their previous career (with Pay Raises) paid out $50,000 more than their new one. Worse still, if they lost a College Career after passing the Return to School space (or lost it before reaching said space, only to not pay $50,000 to return to school), they would never be able to obtain one again.

However, as in Generation II, there was another problem with the implementation of Lose Your Job spaces: If a player reaches such a space during a six-player game, and all six players have regular Career Cards, the game will lock up due to there only being six regular Career Cards in total. Once again, a workaround was devised: under such circumstances, they would retain their current Career Card, but they would still have to return their Pay Raises.

These types of spaces would be removed altogether from Generation IV onwards, and for good reason: few people liked them (or even the idea of landing on them, for that matter). However, Generation IV did have two Action Cards which, if drawn, would force the player who drew them to replace their current Career Card with an unused one from the same deck (i.e. they could not swap a regular Career Card for a College Career Card, and vice versa). At least these two cards are worth the same $100,000 each as any other Action Card by the end of the game. Finally, Generation V no longer forces the player to change careers; instead, all career changes are done voluntarily, but only when a player lands on a Career Space.

In short, adding spaces that could force players to skip their next turn or swap their careers and salaries for new ones added unpredictability to Generations II and III, which seemed like a good idea on paper, but was generally disliked among players (especially on the very rare occasions where they could break the game), and few people were sad to see them go when these types of spaces were dropped in Generation IV.

Saturday, September 23, 2023

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 162: Pain in the Tail Spoiler

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 162: Pain in the Tail Spoiler

After building, testing, and submitting my entries for the Powerful American Insanity Nationals described in the previous post in this series, I waited for another similar time trial challenge to be announced on the Automation Forums. Unsurprisingly, it would not be long before such a competition would be announced, so I decided to repurpose both of my PAIN entries for this one. However, whereas one of them lost power and weight, the other one gained power, but not weight. So here they are.

The first entry was a revised version of the original TSC Thunderwolf, with a lightweight interior, a track-friendly suspension tune, and a far more powerful flat-crank version of the standard car's V8 engine. It also came with a more aggressive aero kit, but to keep the file size low, I only included the textures, paints, and materials that had actually been fitted to it.


The modified TSC Thunderwolf (left) compared to the original version (right).

In addition to this, I also cloned the LVC LS40 to create a lighter, if slower, version that would meet all the rules of this new challenge. The resulting car, the LS20, had a 2.0-liter straight-four in place of a flat-crank V8, and fiberglass bodywork instead of aluminum. Most of its creature comforts were removed to save weight and cost.


The LVC LS20 - a lighter, four-cylinder relative of the LS40.

Both of these entries represent two very different approaches to the same problem. The Thunderwolf is heavier, but has a lot of power to compensate. The LS20, on the other hand, is nowhere near as powerful, but is much lighter. In fact, it doesn't even have an in-car entertainment system, but it doesn't need one for the purpose of time trials. With their immense potential, I expect these cars to do as well on the tight, winding road this challenge takes place on as their derivatives did on the more open route used for the earlier PAIN time trial.

Tuesday, September 12, 2023

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 161: Properly Awesome Insanity Nationals

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 161: Properly Awesome Insanity Nationals

I've been much more involved in Automation forum challenges over the past three months, but among those, there is one that stood out: PAIN (Powerful American Insanity National). With hindsight, however, the first two letters could (and should) have stood for Properly Awesome, because that's exactly what this challenge was. The rule set was quite liberal (especially with the maximum price set at $40,000 AMU), so I set to work on two submissions (the maximum allowed for any entrant). One of these was the LVC LS40 - the LS60's V8-powered little brother. The other, the TSC Thunderwolf 5.0, was repurposed from an earlier submission from another challenge, but was given more power, less weight, and a more luxurious interior (the last of which ensured that it would attempt its run sooner) - in fact, it and its engine were cloned to avoid overwriting the original version.


Above and below: Both of my PAIN entries, the TSC Thunderwolf 5.0 (blue) and LVC LS40 (red), are V8-powered, with similar outputs, but the latter is lighter and smaller, in addition to being mid-engined.


Both of these cars had fully detailed interiors - something the Thunderwolf originally lacked, but I added this feature for my PAIN submission, and copied the fixtures to the original version. However, this version of the Thunderwolf has a full luxury interior and CD player in place of the cheaper premium items that were originally fitted. Moreover, in place of the (corrosion-resistant) steel chassis with partial aluminum bodywork, it now has a glued aluminum chassis with fully aluminum panels, as does the LS40. Finally, its engine is in a more aggressive state of tune, developing 440 horsepower instead of 380.

As for the LS40, its engine is a smaller 4.0-liter flat-crank (instead of cross-plane) V8 delivering 450 horsepower (10 more than the Thunderwolf), and here, it is mid-mounted rather than front-mounted. However, the LS40 is not only lighter, but also has a shorter wheelbase, which should theoretically make it even faster along the time trial route - more on that later.

The actual time trial portion of the challenge went smoothly, to say the least. The Thunderwolf was quite fun to drive, with excellent handling to match its straight-line pace. The LS40 was more challenging, but was lighter and hence quicker, as I had suspected. To be fair, neither of them was going to be in contention for the fastest overall time, but this was expected given that many of the cars entered were more powerful than these two. It should be noted, however, that both of my entries could have gone even faster still had they not spun out at least once during their timed runs.

At the time of initial posting, many of the cars submitted have not yet had their timed runs, but regardless of who comes out on top, I definitely had a lot of fun building and entering the two cars I chose for this challenge. Here's hoping that something similar to it takes place in the future.

Sunday, August 20, 2023

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 160: If In Doubt, Flat Out

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 160: If In Doubt, Flat Out

Here's another Automation build I made recently, again not part of a competition, but with a fully detailed interior:


The car shown in these pictures is the 1987 LVC LF2 - a small, light, and affordable sports coupe powered by a 2.0-liter 150bhp all-alloy flat-four driving the rear wheels via a five-speed manual gearbox and limited-slip differential.


To keep costs down, it has a standard interior and sound system, with anti-lock brakes and power steering omitted; however, it still seats four, and has fully independent suspension (struts up front and semi-trailing arms at the rear) tuned for sporty yet stable handling.


All told, this trim level costs just $12,500 AMU (as shown on the detailed stats section of the in-game overview tab) - a bargain for the era. In short, this would have been one of the best value-for-money affordable sports cars of its time, if not all time.