Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 263: A Sporty Daily Driver From 30 Years Ago

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 263: A Sporty Daily Driver From 30 Years Ago

As part of my entry into this Discourse Challenge, I made the EMR EL3 3.0 GT (an adaptation of an earlier contest submission) with the intention of positioning it as a sporty daily driver that was still comfortable enough for everyday driving. Here it is:

Above, from top: With its 240-horsepower, 3.0-liter straight-six powering the rear wheels via a 5-speed manual gearbox and a helical limited-slip differential, the EMR ML3 3.0 GT is a potent performance machine, And expertly tuned 4-wheel independent suspension (strut front/multi-link rear) combined with high-performance tires surrounding 16-inch alloy wheels and vented anti-lock disc brakes keep it planted and exciting in the corners, Combined with a premium interior/CD stereo sound system, advanced safety kit, and a sportier (and functional) aero kit, it's as close as you could have got 30 years ago to a one-car solution for more than two people - especially at its $28000 AMU in-game price.

Although I have plans for lesser trims below this one, the 3.0 GT is a fitting flagship for this particular generation of the model line. In short, it's an ideal one-size-fits-all machine.

Infinite Space Insights: Rebalancing a Hypothetical Sequel

Infinite Space Insights: Rebalancing a Hypothetical Sequel

As good as Infinite Space III: Sea of Stars is, I would not be surprised if its sequel turned out to be even better still. However, for this to happen, some of Sea of Stars' balance issues need to be addressed as follows:

• Currently, Gorgar's Garthan capital ship (one of the possible allies the player can encounter) may spawn even if the Garthans' home world (whose host star system is always a white F-type star, which is hotter than a yellow G-type star, but cooler than a bluish-white A-type star) and correspondingly higher Garthan fleet strength is not present on a randomly generated sector map. Preventing the Garthan capital ship from spawning  under such circumstances would thus make such a scenario more challenging by reducing the potential maximum attainable score, but on the other hand, would reduce "wastage" of fleet slots (of which there are six - four for capital ships and two for fighters). 
• Related to this, In Sea of Stars, it is possible to have a maximum fleet size of five vessels (three capital ships and two fighters) if the map contains Zorg and Muktian home worlds, but recruitable allies that fly Zorg and Muktian capital ships are absent in addition to the Damocles and Kestrel (both of which are quest-specific). while both the Zorg and Muktian fighters can be recruited from the map by visiting the systems where they are found (and in the former case, after transferring an item from your inventory to the mercenary owning said Zorg fighter). Preventing a Garthan capital ship from spawning as a recruitable ally under such circumstances would thus remove the possibility of potentially having too much dead weight on the player's roster.
• If any one of the Zorg, Muktian, and Calatian home worlds are present on a randomly generated map, the probability of negotiating an alliance with them should initially be 100%, by giving their respective allies a 100% chance of spawning on the map at the start of a game. To balance this out, such behavior should be incentivized by increasing the credit bonus earned through diplomacy.
• The probability of quest-triggering items, fleets, and discoveries spawning at the start of a game should be decreased from 100% to 20% or 25%, to reduce the probability of completing the corresponding quest and gaining its associated score bonus.
• If Esmerelda (who will steal a random item other than the Klakar Beacon from your cargo hold and deliver the former to the homeworld of a randomly selected faction, including your own, or your ship's towels if you have no such items) is present anywhere on the map at the start of a game, either or both of the only two items capable of capturing her (the Toy Robot and Lookout Frogs) must also be guaranteed to spawn alongside her, albeit in a different system from where she can be encountered in both cases. This makes it more likely for the player to earn her associated 500-credit bonus; to make this task even easier, both the Toy Robot and Lookout Frogs could grant the ability to detect Esmerelda's location on the map by marking it with a dashed blue circle (assuming the player has never previously encountered her), to allow the player to actively seek her out upon storing either item in their cargo hold. Neither item should be 100% guaranteed to spawn at the start of a game if Esmerelda is absent from the map, though, nor should they be able to detect other potential passengers (Phredd and Smetlov's Brain) - both of these rules are retained from Sea of Stars.

Hopefully, if Digital Eel (which has been the franchise's developer since the original game) were to ever consider developing an Infinite Space IV, they could (should?) at least examine the possibility of implementing at least some of these balance adjustments into the next installment.

MechDB Misadventures, Part 30: All-Pulse Laser Brawlgoyles

MechDB Misadventures, Part 30: All-Pulse Laser Brawlgoyles

Due to having an oversized 400-rated Clan XL engine in a standard frame encased in Clan Ferro-Fibrous armor (of which it can carry up to 13 tons), the Gargoyle/Man O' War OmniMech in MechWarrior Online is generally best used as a relatively fast brawler, with a large number of smaller, lighter weapons instead of a few larger, heavier ones. With the introduction of the GAR-M(TSP) variant, this philosophy can be taken a step closer to its logical conclusion by combining its left arm with the C variant's right arm and the E variant's side torsos to yield 16(!) energy hardpoints. One suggestion using all of these hardpoints is as follows:

Above: Mixing the Gargoyle M's left arm with the C variant's left arm and the E variant's side torsos gives the 'Mech at least 16 energy hardpoints - filling them with a 50/50 mix of Micro and Small Pulse Lasers, while using 8 additional Clan Double Heat Sinks to absorb their heat load and spare tonnage capacity, creates a tough, yet fast brawler that can eviscerate anything in a close-range combat scenario, especially against slower targets.

Prior to the introduction of the M variant of the Gargoyle, one of the closest pure energy-based pulse laser brawl configuration to the one shown above was as follows:

Above: Before the GAR-M(TSP) debuted, this was closest we could get to a pure pulse laser-based brawling setup for the Gargoyle, and compared to the one above, it has longer range but is more heat-intensive, wiht only 20 heat sinks instead of 24.

There are other pure pulse laser-based builds based on this chassis besides these two, but the Small/Micro Pulse Laser-based one could well be one of the most effective ones MWO will ever see - as long as you leverage its 12.5 tons of armor and 81.0km/h speed to absorb or evade incoming fire while keeping your cluster of tiny little lasers trained on whatever victim is unfortunate to get in your sights.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 258: Generations II Five Years On

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 258: Generations II Five Years On

Five years after wrapping up the Generations II challenge on the Automation Discourse, I began wondering how I'd rewrite the history of the Hampton Motor Group (my representative in that tournament) as a separate thread in the car design subforum using the current Al-Rilma stable release (in contrast to the obsolete pre-Ellisbury 4.24 build I was using at the time) if I were to do so. In fact, a remake or reimagining of those earlier designs would be a necessity in such a scenario, since all of my designs from the 4.24 version are incompatible with any 4.27 game build and are thus not transferable.

The original series had 12 rounds in total, so it would make sense for me to spotlight 12 critical years (each of which are 3-7 years apart, to set it apart from the source material where intervals between rounds were no more than 6 years long) in the company's history. To keep these "milestones" as close to the ones used in the original thread, I would suggest these model/trim years, with their respective company-wide combined techpool allocations (trim + engine) as follows:

• Round 1 (1955): $15m
• Round 2 (1962): $20m
• Round 3 (1967): $25m
• Round 4 (1970): $30m
• Round 5 (1975): $35m
• Round 6 (1982): $40m
• Round 7 (1987): $45m
• Round 8 (1992): $50m
• Round 9 (1999): $55m
• Round 10 (2002): $60m
• Round 11 (2007): $65m
• Round 12 (2013): $70m

This means that the combined techpool budget for the company would increase by $5m each round. However, budget (lower-priced) and prestige (higher-priced) segments could receive less and more techpool budget, respectively, than other segments, as follows, to align more closely with their price ranges:

• Rounds 1-6: -$5m (budget)/+5m (prestige)
• Rounds 7-12: -$10m (budget)/+$10m (prestige)

In addition, market segments could be classified according to price as follows, in keeping with my policy of making their positioning commensurate with their pricing:

• Budget: Lower-priced cars (compacts and subcompacts, regardless of body style) and lower-end performance cars of any kind (including sport compacts, which should ideally be a separate trim of an existing budget model). Smaller SUVs/crossovers and pickup trucks also belong here.
• Prestige: Higher-priced premium and luxury cars (including any high-performance variants of either), as well as trucks, crossovers, and SUVs. This also includes (usually) higher-end sports cars and grand tourers, in addition to supercars and hypercars.
• Standard: Includes mid-range family cars (sedans, wagons, hatchbacks, and minivans) and performance cars of various types that are priced between the budget and prestige brackets (including muscle/pony cars). Mid-priced utility body styles (trucks, SUVs, and crossovers) fall into this category.

Also, to avoid excessive min-maxing, the maximum techpool point allocation for any tab would most likely be set as follows:

• Rounds 1-4: 6 Points
• Rounds 5-8: 8 Points
• Rounds 9-12: 10 Points

Finally, unlike Generations II, this budget and class system would also cover specialist manufacturers, which could focus on just a few segments per round (sometimes as few as one, but usually no more than three), in contrast to a full line manufacturer, which would need to be represented in at least three segments per round (as in the original).

In short, looking back on Generations II shows how far the game and I have come since its conclusion, and gives me an insight on how a car company thread on the Discourse forums could evolve over time, based on the tournament's principles, but adapted to account for the changes introduced in the Ellisbury and, in more recent times, Al-Rilma game builds (along with the future Terso build) that have debuted in the years since.

Update (August 7th, 2026, 10:35 am, UTC+7): I am proposing adding four more rounds, bringing the total to 16; however, several changes must be made to accommodate this.

Any item defined as "advanced technology" (which requires at least 5 techpool points to use in the current round) could be treated like an extra-cost option as follows:

• Rounds 1-8: Base price of $2000 + $500 per techpool point
• Rounds 9-16: Base Price of $5000 + $1000 per techpool point

This should prevent overreliance on these items throughout a company's entire lineup; in addition, the cost of using advanced technology could be halved for specialist manufacturers (to reflect their generally smaller output and/or real-life trickle-down effects).

In addition, using a body set with an unlock year that is at least one year newer than the car's model year (which I would've treated as any other form of advanced technology, but instead decided to give a smaller price penalty by comparison, given that using such items is much more commonplace than I thought), may incur a base price increase of $1000 AMU per year relative to the current model year, regardless of the current model year - another measure that could deter overuse and/or abuse of such items, although specialists may get to use such items at a 50% discount compared to other brands.

Finally, if, as I suspected, 14 rounds turns out to be insufficient, it may be possible to extend the competition to 16 rounds, with the new techpool allocations as follows:

• Round 1 (1946): $5m
• Round 2 (1952): $10m
• Round 3 (1956): $15m
• Round 4 (1962): $20m
• Round 5 (1967): $25m
• Round 6 (1970): $30m
• Round 7 (1975): $35m
• Round 8 (1982): $40m
• Round 9 (1987): $45m
• Round 10 (1992): $50m
• Round 11 (1999): $55m
• Round 12 (2002): $60m
• Round 13 (2007): $65m
• Round 14 (2013): $70m
• Round 15 (2017): $75m
• Round 16 (2020): $80m

This would necessitate an adjustment of price-dependent techpool bonuses and penalties, as follows:

• Round 1: No changes
• Rounds 2-8: -$5m (budget)/+5m (prestige)
• Rounds 9-15: -$10m (budget)/+$10m (prestige)
• Round 16: -$20m (budget)/+$20m (prestige)

Moreover, the maximum techpool point allocation per area would also have to change, as follows:

• Rounds 1-4: 7 Points
• Rounds 5-8: 8 Points
• Rounds 9-12: 9 Points
• Rounds 13-16: 10 Points

This extended season would not only be 33% longer than the original, but also cover the entire Automation timeline from 1947 to 2020 inclusive, giving a broader range of aesthetic and technological evolution than before, and thus providing a more representative snapshot of the game's scope.

Infinite Space Insights: Graviton Beams and Their Tabletop Counterparts

Infinite Space Insights: Graviton Beams and Their Tabletop Counterparts

The Graviton Disintegrator in the Infinite Space trilogy is a unique weapon - not for its characteristics, but for being the only beam-based (and thus non-projectile-based) weapon of any kind ever fielded by the Yellow Kawangi, with each of their Dreadnoughts carrying four such weapons (two up front and two more at the rear). Due to its immense firepower, it (along with the Nova Cannon, which the Yellow Kawangi also fit to their Dreadnoughts, albeit only one per ship) can only be acquired during normal gameplay by creating it from a Timeless Bauble, and even under such circumstances, you'll never be able to have more than one. However, in custom scenarios, it's possible to arm most capital ships with multiple Graviton Disintegrators for a massive increase in damage per second. So how does this weapon work? Let's find out.

As a medium weapon, it can be installed on any capital ship that has at least one universal, medium or large turret. Most factions whose capital ships do not have weapons as fixed equipment are fitted with these turrets as standard, with the Calatians being the sole exception. Their Dreadnought and Super Dreadnought are the only capital ships from that faction with these features, whereas Calatian Cruisers and Destroyers lack such turrets and are thus incompatible with the Disintegrator. However, the Calatians' near-exclusive focus on short- to medium-range combat makes their larger capital ships a good fit for a Disintegrator-based loadout; a Dreadnought or Super Dreadnought armed with one (or, in the latter case, two) of these Yellow Beams of Death (as the player base calls them) can be extremely dangerous to any target that ventures too close to it.

In terms of operating principle, the Graviton Disintegrator emits graviton particles to pull its victims apart through inducing an immense gravitational pull at the point of impact, causing the target to collapse under its own mass. This echoes how its Warhammer 40000 equivalent, the Graviton Destructor and Ruinator, works against small targets (although larger targets are generally immune), with Titan-scale Horus Heresy-era equivalents being potent enough to obliterate other Titans. Similarly, the Graviton Disintegrator is explicitly stated to not having any known defenses against it. This explains why it is inadvisable to attack a Yellow Kawangi Dreadnought at close or even medium range - the Disintegrators will simply tear up any ship that's close enough, so a long-range assault with multiple missile-based weapons (or even a single Nova Cannon or Cobalt Torpedo Tube) is the only viable option for countering such a massive ship without having to use a Limited Vacuum Collapser to overwrite it.

Above, from top: The Graviton Disintegrator in the Infinite Space trilogy may not have the range or availability of the Tachyon Ray Gun, but it is vastly superior in terms of damage per second.

The closest BattleTech equivalent to the Graviton Disintegrator (in terms of firepower) would be the Binary Laser Cannon. Essentially a pair of regular Large Lasers fused together (but weighing 9 tons instead of 10 for dual individual Large Lasers), it generated too much heat relative to the amount of damage delivered compared to a pair of Large Lasers. However, it became viable again after Double Heat Sinks reentered production following the distribution of the contents of the Helm Memory Core, and in MechWarrior Online it serves as a shorter-ranged, but lighter, alternative to paired Large Lasers.

Within the context of MWO, two Binary Laser Cannons (which are distinguished by their white beams) should be sufficient for most Heavy and Assault 'Mechs; some chassis can safely handle three, but four is generally overkill in terms of mass and cooling requirements. However, in the right hands, Binary Lasers can be even more effective than any other Large Laser within their range profile. A common strategy is to combine a pair of Binary Lasers with several Inner Sphere Extended Range Medium Lasers, thus providing a viable backup option and good range synergy.

Above: This Stalker STK-7D is a good example of a Binary Laser-based build in MWO, where the ER Medium Lasers serve as backup for its main armament - a pair of Binary Laser Cannons that complement the Medium Lasers perfectly in terms of range profile.

In short, Graviton Disintegrators may be among the rarest weapons in the Infinite Space trilogy, but they can be among the most potent in the player's inventory if they can acquire one, by performing a similar function to graviton-based weapons and Binary Lasers in Warhammer 40000 and BattleTech, respectively, as among the deadliest beam weapons (if not the deadliest) in their respective fictional universes.

MechDB Misadventures, Part 29: Using Component Armor to Absorb Unused Mass

MechDB Misadventures, Part 29: Using Component Armor to Absorb Unused Mass

Although MechWarrior Online does not (yet) support Component Armor, adapting it from the BattleTech tabletop game would be straightforward, since it only requires 0.5 tons of extra mass per critical slot for any component (except for the cockpit, which requires 1 ton per critical slot), and its ability for each affected critical slot to absorb a critical hit before being exposed would most likely be simulated by a per-slot durability buff. For example, adding Component Armor to a Medium Laser (which would normally weigh 1 ton and occupy 1 critical slot) would increase its mass to 1.5 tons. However, this upgrade costs 150,000 C-Bills for every critical slot that the resulting armored component occupies. In any case, for those that can afford it (in terms of spare tonnage and cost), it'd be a great way to use surplus mass for reducing critical hit probability.

Here's a simple example to show where component armor can be useful. This Jenner JR7-F has been configured as follows:

Above: This loadout for the Jenner JR7-F is a ton underweight - but that spare ton of mass can be used for component armor in some places.

Despite having a mass limit of 35 tons, this setup weighs 34 tons - 1 less than its maximum capacity in terms of tonnage. However, even though every critical slot on this loadout is occupied, we can still reach our 35-ton target by installing 1 ton of component armor. There are three main ways this armor can be allocated throughout the 'Mech:

• 0.5 tons for each shoulder actuator (to make each arm more difficult to blow off)
• 0.5 tons for each hip actuator (to make each leg less likely to fall off in the event of a critical hit)
• 1 ton for the cockpit (thus forcing any attacking unit to score two critical hits to destroy it)

All three of these options are as attractive as they are effective - the former two ensure that the 'Mech's firepower and agility, respectively, are less likely to be compromised while it's under fire, and the last of these improves the crew's chance of survival in any situation where its cockpit is more likely to be targeted directly. There's only enough spare tonnage for one of these choices, though, so you must choose carefully as to where you'll apply the 1 ton of component armor this loadout can carry. Just for fun, armoring every non-structural component (i.e., anything not occupied by its endo-steel structure or ferro-fibrous armor) on this loadout requires 15.5 tons of component armor - nearly half of the 'Mech's total mass, and 14.5 more than what it can safely carry.

In short, armored components may be heavier and more expensive (on a per-critical slot basis) than regular ones, but they can be useful in safeguarding against critical hits.

MechDB Misadventures, Part 28: Zombie Grasshoppers

MechDB Misadventures, Part 28: Zombie Grasshoppers

It didn't take long for me to revisit the idea of the Grasshopper GHR-5H as a true Zombie 'Mech (BattleTech slang for a BattleMech that carries energy weapons exclusively, along with a standard engine and enough heat sinks and armor to maintain an adequate level of survivability and sustainability) and add more firepower to it. The resulting loadout is as follows:

Above: A more lore-accurate take on my custom Grasshopper GHR-5H setup, now with a tabletop-accurate 280-rated engine for a bit more speed, and dual ER PPCs combined with five medium lasers to make it more of a bracket build (PPCs for long range, medium lasers for shorter ranges). Despite having one less heat sink, it's still a viable build under tabletop rules (I used an ASP to simulate a tabletop-sized Beagle Active Probe for this one, even though it requires one fewer critical slot and must be placed in the head under MechWarrior Online MechLab rules).

Taking the idea further, I could create a hypothetical GHR-5E variant that swaps the left torso AMS slot for a Guardian ECM slot, to accommodate such a system where the AMS once resided, and move the arm-mounted medium lasers to the center torso and head, thus forcing the Beagle Active Probe to be mounted in the right torso. The result has a narrower profile for all practical purposes, since the arms don't carry any equipment, although it runs hotter than the original quad-ER Large Laser build, so you'll need to manage your heat more efficiently to exploit its potential.

In short, although more heat-intensive, this Grasshopper variant proposal is not only faster, but harder-hitting, with actual headchopper potential - and nobody would want to underestimate those attributes when applied to any heavy or assault 'Mech.

MechDB Misadventures, Part 27: Patience, Grasshopper!

MechDB Misadventures, Part 27: Patience, Grasshopper!

I recently gave MechDB another try and attempted to create a loadout for the Grasshopper GHR-5H that would translate well to BattleTech tabletop rules, even though it might not necessarily be as effective in MechWarrior Online. Eventually, I came up with this all-energy setup with four ER Large Lasers (two per side torso), a standard Medium Laser in the center torso, 16 Double Heat Sinks (two of them in each side torso, and another one in each arm, to complement the 10 heat sinks built into its 270-rated standard engine), an AMS (Anti-Missile System) to simulate a Beagle Active Probe, four jump jets, and 13.5 tons of standard armor over an Endo-Steel internal structure, as follows:

Above: A proposal for a tabletop-friendly Grasshopper GHR-5H build I created in MechDB. While its relatively low combined alpha strike damage (41 points under MWO rules) and absence of melee functionality might make it ill-suited to the game, even when considering its excellent heat capacity and numerous quirks, its zombie status (bestowed upon it due to having a standard engine and an all-energy loadout, with a center torso-mounted Medium Laser as a backup weapon that remains usable even if both side torsos are blown off) and the more generous heat generation rules (such as the absence of MWO's heat scaling and Double Heat Sinks providing a 100% per-item heat capacity increase instead of MWO's 40%), when combined with hand actuators for improved melee accuracy, make it very annoying to face in combat, especially if you swap the AMS with a Beagle Active Probe to give it the ability to detect ECM-equipped units.

Under tabletop rules, this loadout can dissipate 32 heat per turn (2 per Double Heat Sink) while generating only 51 heat during an alpha strike (55 if jumping while performing such an action), for a net heat buildup of only 23 per turn, making alpha strike salvos more sustainable. A Grasshopper GHR-5H so equipped could serve as a highly mobile sniper or skirmisher, and could be more survivable due to carrying as much standard armor as a 70-ton heavy 'Mech can have (13.5 tons as opposed to the 13 found in the stock setup).

In short, for combining maximum durability and immense staying power with surprising agility during the Clan Invasion era, this customized Grasshopper GHR-5H is tough to beat on the tabletop, regardless of whether you fill the 1.5 tons and 2 critical slots of unused mass and space, respectively, with an Anti-Missile System or Beagle Active Probe. With a few tweaks to the loadout to make it better suited to the faster-paced gameplay style of MechWarrior Online, it can be equally effective there, too, if you're brave enough to trade durability for speed with the following setup:

Above: Swapping the 270-rated standard engine for a 325-rated Extralight (XL) unit reduces this Grasshopper GHR-5H variant's survivability somewhat, but increases its top speed frees up extra mass for the fitment of two more medium lasers; upgrading them (along with the single center torso-mounted one) to extended-range versions helps them synergize better with the four Large Lasers, which have been downgraded to regular items to improve heat efficiency. Also, with the presence of heat scaling in MWO and a milder 40% heat efficiency bonus for double heat sinks (as opposed to the tabletop game's 100%), the extra heat sink is much appreciated here.

There are many other Grasshopper variants in MWO that can run these exact loadouts, but the GHR-5H is one of the most (if not the most) flexible variant out there. So go ahead and try out some Grasshoppers if you get the chance - you won't be disappointed!

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 257: One-Ton Wonder

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 257: One-Ton Wonder

With the Parana P600 and LVC LS60 under my belt, I decided to ask myself a question that I had been thinking about for months: what if I could combine the former's styling with the latter's engine, in a smaller platform? Right from the outset, the first problem that I wanted to deal with was the car's physical size. Both of those builds were quite large, with a width of around 2.0 meters and a wheelbase of over 2.6 meters. This made them heavier than I had intended to be; even the latter weighed 1.1 metric tons, and while this was 160 kilograms less than the P600, it still seemed a bit too much for me. So, I decided to apply the lessons I learned from both cars to create the Macale Imperia - revisiting a Kee-era manufacturer name, but reimagined for Al-Rilma with a nameplate last used on a now-deprecated build from the pre-Ellisbury UE4 days, and made possible in this latest game build due to nearly everything made prior to the Ellisbury update being rendered non-canon.

Above, from top: In response to any criticism that the Parana P600 and the LVC LS60 were too large and heavy, I decided to combine the best attributes of both in the 1995 Macale Imperia - a smaller, lighter car than either, combining the former's styling with the latter's lightweight interior and smaller, higher-revving engine, complete with a 10,000 rpm redline.

Although built on the '88 Copy Cat like the P600, with very similar styling, the Imperia uses the smaller 2.53m wheelbase variant in fastback configuration instead of any of the larger 2.64m wheelbase variants. This results in an even lighter curb weight (exactly 1000kg), giving it a 500bhp/ton power-to-weight ratio in its final form, and thus making it even more eager to get up and go from a standstill or dance around corners, especially with modestly sized 305/35ZR18 rear tires and a 42.5%/57.5% front/rear weight distribution. While it retains the full carbon-fiber body/chassis and manually adjustable four-wheel inboard A-arm suspension of its inspirations, its size (or lack thereof) is its greatest asset, being 200mm narrower, and thus making it less unwieldy in confined spaces. Finally, its suspension. though relatively softly sprung by default, can be set up to be stiffer if necessary.

In short, the Macale Imperia is the ultimate embodiment of what I think an ideal supercar should be: relatively small and light, with a great naturally aspirated engine hooked up to an equally stimulating (preferably manual) transmission driving the rear wheels, and just the right amount of electronic intervention (or even none at all) to keep things in check.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 256: An Agile Albatross

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 256: An Agile Albatross

Migrating to Al-Rilma for the latest stable build of Automation created a few problems, to say the least. In particular, many of my Ellisbury-era builds were either unviable or needed major revision. The 1962 AMS Albatross was a clear example of the latter, being largely based on my earlier KMA KS20 aesthetically, but with a fiberglass body and a smaller engine to cater to the requirements of a Discourse challenge. Its 1989 namesake, meanwhile, is now called the EMR ECT4, and has also been revised accordingly.

As for the 1962 Albatross, its lighter weight helps it more easily leverage what little power its smaller engine develops - and vastly improves the driving experience. Being quicker off the mark and through the corners was an inevitability, but in the context of the challenge in which it was submitted, where it was one of a few cars with at least 100 horsepower, it was enough to justify its $18,000 AMU price (the highest allowed) with ease. Key to its performance is the fitment of tubular headers and dual DCOE carburetors, yielding a 110-horsepower output harnessed using radial tires (again, to meet challenge requirements) and a 4-speed manual gearbox (to save weight, and also because a fifth gear would've been overkill given the era in which the car was launched). I had toyed with submitting a lighter mid-engined car in its place, but felt that it wasn't enough of an improvement over a single flying lap by comparison to deem it worthwhile.

Above, from top: Reimagining the AMS Albatross as a 1960s sports car with a fiberglass body made perfect sense, since it more closely aligned with its avian name.

On the other hand, the EMR ECT4 was more faithful to its progenitor, retaining the steel/aluminum body it once had, along with a turbocharged iron-block/alloy-head 16-valve straight-four driving all four wheels via a helical center differential.

Above, from top: The first car that bore the Albatross nameplate is now called the EMR ECT4, with extensive mechanical revisions to make it suitable for Al-Rilma.

In short, both of these cars may have come from different eras and aimed at two distinct market segments, but they are united in their quest to put smiles on drivers' faces at reasonable prices.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 254: A New Take on an Old Flagship

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 254: A New Take on an Old Flagship

With the deprecation of the body set that underpinned my earlier 1987/1992 KMA KX12 in the Al-Rilma update (which added the '87 Bossa Nova body sets in its place), I decided to reimagine it from the ground up - as an even more upmarket flagship supercar. However, I realized that it would make even more sense as a hypercar considering how much more expensive it would potentially end up being. Taking my earlier 1984 Wolfram Warlord as a basis, I adjusted the morphing zone settings and reworked the aesthetics (for both the interior and exterior), while also adding 50 horsepower and a six-speed gearbox, along with a full carbon-fiber chassis/body and inboard pushrod-actuated suspension to improve overall performance, with the interior being a fully hand-made item (complete with a high-quality CD/cassette stereo audio system) to further justify its top-tier market positioning.

Above, from top: Reimagining the KMA KX12 and KF12 as a fully hand-built flagship hypercar made more sense with the Al-Rilma update - using the '86 Rosso was the only option given that the '87 Bossa Nova's closest equivalent in size had an engine bay that was too small for the engine I chose to use.

At $100k AMU before options, such excellence doesn't come cheap, but you get what you pay for, which in this case is a lot. Then again, this was never meant for large-scale production anyway.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 253: Of Warriors and Warlords

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 253: Of Warriors and Warlords

Reimagining the Wolfram Warrior and Warlord in 1984 for the sixth iteration of the Automation (or should that be Aragan?) Legacy Challenge wasn't the work of an afternoon - but I made it look like it did by repurposing some of my preexisting designs. By taking my earlier WM Warrior and revamping it to align with the Wolfram brand philosophy, I ensured that I could create two trims of it: the GT (with 275 horsepower and a premium interior) and the GTS (with 300 horsepower and a sports interior, plus forged wheels and wider tires, in addition to a hood-mounted scoop fixture, a taller rear wing, and dual exhaust tips on each side in place of single items). Positioned further above the two was the Warlord, whose mid-mounted 48-valve V12 displaced six liters and cranked out 550 horsepower - good for 218 mph (almost 40 more than the Warrior GTS) thanks to a ground-effect undertray. Having a luxury interior helped justify its upmarket positioning even further, which was justified considering its whopping $80,000 AMU base price (nearly three times as much as a base model Warrior).

Above, from top: While the 1984 Wolfram Warrior GT (red) and its track-focused GTS sibling (yellow) were great sports cars in their own right, thanks to a high-displacement V8, neither of them had the true supercar status and presence of the larger, mid-mounted V12-powered Warlord (black).

All in all, this sports car and supercar blitz, despite being a necessary evil to compensate for the fact that their earlier iterations were based on deprecated or less desirable bodies, was an enjoyable experience for me, as it tied into the company's later history more easily.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 250: A 21st-Century Crusade

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 250: A 21st-Century Crusade

It's taken a while, but finally I've felt confident enough to attempt a fully detailed Automation build on anything made after the 2000s. The 2013 AAA Crusader is proof of that. It's based on the '09 Jackal body set (2.57m wheelbase) in 2-door configuration, so it's not the first time I've tried using it as the basis for any fully detailed build (the first one was a mid-2000s premium convertible sports car). However, this one is especially notable because it arose from an aborted plan to create something for a Discourse challenge - a pony car called the Arbalest. I backed out at the last moment after realizing that it would make even more sense as a 2-seat aluminum-bodied out-and-out sports car, rather than a cheaper, steel-bodied 2+2 pony car.

Above: The Arbalest may have been tempting on paper, but it was never a realistic proposition as a 2+2 pony car - it was just too small.

Turning the Arbalest into the Crusader was relatively simple on the outside compared to the mechanical upgrades I fitted. By extracting 100 more horsepower from the engine, I was able to fully utilize the weight reduction that resulted from using a 2-seat configuration in an all-aluminum body/chassis. Widening the rear tires by 40mm (with wider wheel arches front and rear, thus widening the track) and fitting 19-inch forged alloy wheels (in place of the 18-inch cast-alloy items) also helped, as did using uprated brakes and an aerodynamic undertray. With the suspension and gearbox (now incorporating adaptive dampers and a manual setup, respectively) retuned accordingly, I was able to maximize my performance improvements even further - 193 mph flat-out and a 0-60 mph time of 4 seconds were proof of that.

Above, from top: The Crusader made even more sense than the Arbalest, being a pure two-seater, but it was still a powerful front-engined rear-driver as before - and lighter to boot.

With that out of the way, I then added a fully detailed interior - but with only two seats due to the Crusader having a different seating arrangement. It took several hours spread out over several days to get it right, but I pulled it off.

Above, from top: It may have been my first attempt at adding a fully detailed interior to a post-2010 Automation build, but this one for the 2013 AAA Crusader turned out better than I thought it would.

In the end, I was satisfied with the results of this build, but there may be more to come. A more extreme supercharged variant positioned above it could follow, as could a convertible based on both it and the base model shown here. But for now, the base Crusader represents all the premium sports car a mid-2010s enthusiast could want or need.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 249: Sharpening the Knife

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 249: Sharpening the Knife

As a continuation of my work on the 1992 Kodai Kunai, I started looking into what a more highly tuned version of it could be. However, since the donor car was already a highly capable sports car, I knew I had to make the new trim more like a supercar, at least in terms of power output. So I took the GT trim (which I had just made) and created the GT400 trim out of it.

The engine received the most comprehensive changes, developing 400 horsepower on 98 RON super unleaded (up from 276 on 95 RON premium unleaded) thanks to increased boost pressure (1.0 bar instead of 0.5 bar) and larger turbochargers, as well as a high-flow intake and exhaust (catalytic converter/muffler). A shorter final drive ratio (to better harness the increased output) yielded a significantly faster 0-60 mph time (4.2 seconds, down from 4.7), but it wasn't the only factor. Staggered tires (245/40R18 up front and 265/35R18 at the rear) wrapped in 18-inch forged wheels (to accommodate 350mm vented front disc brakes with 4-piston calipers - the rear brakes are 325mm-diameter vented discs with 2-piston rear calipers) also account for the quicker acceleration, and extra grip to go along with it. Also, by setting the weight optimization slider to its lightest setting, I saved 70kg even after installing an aerodynamic undertray (to generate additional downforce in conjunction with a front spoiler in place of the lip fixture, which was moved to the rear). Finally, I retuned the suspension to maintain the base car's sporty feel, albeit sharpened.

Above, from top: The GT400 trim takes the standard Kodai Kunai and turns it up to 11 inside and out.

Aesthetically, this new trim was distinguished by different interior materials (to better match its performance-oriented positioning), hood vents, larger frontal air intakes, a taller rear wing, wider wheel arches, and deeper side skirts. However, such giant-killing performance doesn't come cheap - with the base car having a price of $40,000 AMU, adding the GT400 package resulted in something that cost half as much again ($60,000) when new. Then again, when you consider that its performance figures put it in the top flight of its era (with only very the fastest hypercars remaining out of reach), all that extra money is guaranteed to be well spent.

Above, from top: A side-by-side comparison of both trim levels (with the GT400 now being yellow) reveals how much more aggressive and overtly sporting the GT400 is compared to its progenitor.

There could, in theory, be even more potential lurking within the platform - probably in the form of an even more extreme road-legal trim level, or an actual race car - but for now, the GT400 serves as the ultimate expression of the Kunai line, blending agile handling with addictive turbo thrust in a shapely package that can compete with the best that the rest of the world can offer. And it does all of this at a lower cost than others in its class, in both stock and tuned forms.

What next for the Kunai line, then? As good as it is, pitting it against a Parana P600 would be too much of a stretch, given the Parana's far greater prestige. However, it might be possible to throw it into the lion's den of a future group test featuring at least one other factory or aftermarket tuned car from the same year - and if anything like that were to occur in the future, I'd be looking forward to it.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 248: Eastern Winds

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 248: Eastern Winds

With the Automation Beam Championship currently on hold, even though I've successfully submitted an entry for it, I decided to turn my attention to another Discord challenge. This one was themed around 1990s JDM cars (a favorite of mine since childhood), but was hosted on the official Automation Discord channel. No AI-generated/enhanced imagery was permitted, nor was use of anything that had already been used in any previous design competition, but otherwise, I had free rein as to what I could enter.

This time, I created something completely from scratch - the 1992 Kodai Kunai - and immediately set about getting it ready for the challenge. Built on an AHS (advanced high-strength) steel unitary chassis with some aluminum panels, its dual-wishbone front/multilink rear suspension, tuned for road-biased performance, endowed it with sporty handling and a surprising level of compliance. Combined with large ABS-assisted vented disc brakes at each corner, it could also perform repeated hard stops from highway speeds with no fade whatsoever.

Regarding propulsion, I settled on a 2.5-liter twin-turbocharged flat-six (chosen to simulate a rotary engine as closely as possible within the game engine's limitations) developing 276 horsepower, sent through a 5-speed manual gearbox and helical limited-slip differential to the rear wheels. Other standard equipment included a set of front and rear spoilers (specifically, a front lip and rear wing), 17-inch forged alloy wheels wrapped in high-performance tires, a premium interior with a 6-speaker CD/cassette stereo sound system, variable-ratio hydraulic power steering, traction control, and dual front airbags.

Above, from top: Although originally intended for a Discord challenge, the 1992 Kodai Kunai also serves as a passion project in that it serves as my idea of a contemporary Asian performance car - small and light, with a modest output by today's standards - that can go toe-to-toe with Western equivalents.

In short, the Kunai may not be the most powerful car in its class, but its light weight and small size make it very wieldy and agile on the road, where it's most likely to spend its time.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 247: The Ultimate Summer Toy?

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 247: The Ultimate Summer Toy?

For my last post before my spring vacation in Japan (again - I haven't been there at any time of the year other than summer or fall, so my spring visit will be my first), I'll show you a variant of the 1992 Parana P600 that I somehow haven't yet made - until now. The P600 Spyder (an open-topped roadster variant with a detachable soft top) takes the basic recipe and lops the roof off, with minimal loss of performance, precision, or aesthetics. If anything, it's even more extrovert than the original car, and puts its occupants on display for all the world to see and hear.

Above, from top: Removing the roof from the Parana P600 to create the Spyder variant hasn't diluted its style or performance one bit - on the contrary, it has enhanced it even more.

As I am writing this, the astronomical start of spring is just over a week away; however, it feels like it's summer outside, and in such hot, dry conditions, a car like the P600 Spyder would be the best way to have fun in the sun on four wheels (budget permitting - it still costs $100k AMU in-game, which would've translated to at least $500k in real-life 1992 dollars), at any price point. It may have been reserved for the rich and fortunate few, but those who could've afforded it would not have been disappointed in the slightest.