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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Efficient Performance Revisited

Efficient Performance Revisited: Combining Power with Economy

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

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

Behold the ultimate in efficient affordable performance engines!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automation Goes Unreal: Why Automation Needs the UE4 Update

Automation Goes Unreal: Why Automation Needs the UE4 Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 2

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 2: What I Would Have Done Differently in CSR26

After hosting CSR26, I asked myself a few "what if"? questions. Specifically, I began wondering what would have happened if the round had been hosted by another knowledgeable user who had established the exact same rule set, while I was an entrant. More significantly, though, I could not help wondering how well the Ventnor Bambino (which had won the round overall, but just barely) would have fared if it had a carbon-fiber chassis instead of a steel tube frame. Finally, this post will also explore the possibility of a "benchmark" vehicle for this round, had I used it as a yardstick against which every entrant would be measured.

While CSR26 was in progress, I created a pair of vehicles that served as an example of how I would build an entry that would satisfy the requirements for that round. One of them was mid-engined and had full carbon-fiber construction, but was powered by a relatively humble turbocharged straight-six. The other had alloy panels and an all-alloy chassis, but had a front-mounted, overhead-valve, normally-aspirated V8 with more than twice the displacement. Having discussed the basics, I will now explore both entries in further detail.

One of the entries I designed while hosting CSR26, designed to answer the simple question: "What would I have built?"

In keeping with the rule set for CSR26, the first example entry I made had its body, chassis and fixtures finished to a very high standard. It may have come in generic gloss white, but the fixture placement and size really complemented the car's well-proportioned, cab-forward shape. So far so good, but the engine could have been a disappointment for the round host, had prestige been more important to him (or her). The 3.0-liter turbo straight-six nestled in this vehicle's engine bay cranked out more than 460 horsepower, revved to well over 8000 rpm, and delivered a generous amount of torque early in the rev range. It was also reliable, and surprisingly economical to boot, but the low cylinder count might have made this engine more suitable for a sports sedan than a supercar. That said, it was placed in a body so light and aerodynamic that it endowed the test car with a top speed of over 200 mph and a 0-60 time of 3.1 seconds.

Glancing at the mechanical specifications for this example entry, it's clear that it would have followed a similar design and engineering philosophy to the Ventnor Bambino, but at a higher post-markup price. Yet it was still very much under budget, very economical (for a supercar) and more than comfortable enough to be a daily driver. It would not have been out of place on the test track either, taking just 2 minutes and 6 seconds to complete a full lap from a standing start. I am quite sure that this vehicle would have been a finalist at the very least, or possibly even the outright winner, by virtue of being just fast enough and exceeding all other requirements by a wide margin.

Another car I built while hosting CSR26 as a hypothetical entry. Notice that this front-engined grand tourer is much heavier and less economical, but more prestigious, than the other entry.

The other example entry I made was much more decadent, with a huge 7-liter overhead-valve V8 up front. Again, the build quality was quite good, but this vehicle was constructed entirely out of aluminum, which was heavier. It was, however, cheaper even with markups included. Unlike the previous example car, the normally-aspirated V8 used here was more fitting for a high-end supercar, and was more reliable to boot; its redline was not as high, but the torque delivery was more predictable, and the extra power would have made it less likely to be dismissed early on by the round master. The more aggressive styling of this front-engined beast also gave it a sinister air when viewed from any angle.

With its extra power, this vehicle has a slightly higher top speed, although the extra weight means that it isn't as accelerative, while also being far thirstier. However, the use of a conventional manual transmission could also be to blame, although it clearly enhances the sense of driver involvement. On the other hand, considering that most of the front-engined cars I'd reviewed this round were not as well-executed as I hoped (and in fact only one of them made the top five), it's quite likely that this car could have been a finalist. Even so, it would actually have been less likely to win the round outright, since it's not quite as sporty or comfortable. On the other hand, its superior drivability and prestige would have ensured that it would not have been overlooked.

And to all the users who have viewed this blog over the holiday period, I wish you all a (belated) merry Chrstmas and a Happy New Year.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 1

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 1: The Process of Choosing a Winner for CSR26

This is my first post about a game in my current Steam library other than Infinite Space III: Sea of Stars, and also the first one about Automation: The Car Company Tycoon Game, which is a game in which you build cars and their engines, as the title suggests. Recently, its developers have added a new mode in which you can manage a whole company until 2020, although 1940 is the earliest year in which the company can be established. I have been an active forum member for the game since June, and despite occasional over-enthusiasm, I am still enjoying my time on the forums. As part of my series of posts regarding this game, I will discuss some of my experiences, beginning with a round of a competition I recently hosted, called The Car Shopping Round, in which the host sets criteria for other users to follow when submitting their cars, before reviewing the entries after the deadline has passed, eventually declaring a winner, whose creator (or the runner-up, if the winner declines hosting duties) hosts the next round.

To be honest, though, ever since I first entered the contest in the 15th round (I didn't have enough confidence before then) my record in that contest has been mixed, with poor results on some rounds and good results in others. But in the 25th round, the scenario I had been hoping for finally occurred when, despite finishing second, I was given an offer to host the next round after the winner of CSR25 declined the offer. In CSR25, the users were asked to build affordable track cars, but for CSR26 I decided to go to the opposite end of the price spectrum and challenge other users to build a supercar or hypercar. There was now a huge question on my mind: could I really cut the mustard as a first-time challenge host?

To prove that theory, I set about reviewing the users' entries as soon as I reviewed them. It seemed easier said than done, especially since I received 29 entries before the deadline, but I managed to complete this daunting task with time to spare. However, I could only make room for five finalists, and ultimately rejected the other 24 due to an infotainment/interior quality mismatch, having the wrong engine (in particular, too little reliability, too much power, and/or too few cylinders), being aesthetically challenged, or inadequate dynamics. Eventually, I was left with the Solo Lightning SM V8, Gryphon Gear Jormungandr, Pragata Prima 1, Smooth Keelen GT and Ventnor Bambino on my shortlist.

The finalists of CSR26, from top to bottom: Solo Lightning SM V8, Ventnor Bambino, Gryphon Gear Jormungandr, Smooth Keelen GT, Pragata Prima 1

The next step was to determine a finishing order out of the top five. At first, this seemed much easier than writing and editing the individual reviews; the two fastest cars, the Lightning and Jormungandr, were the first ones to be rejected, much to my dismay and surprise. They were, in fact, too fast and uncompromising to be used daily, but the other three were still in contention for outright honors. So how would I determine the podium positions?

At first glance, the Smooth Keelen GT made a strong case for itself, until I realized that it was too uncompromising given my requirements for a hypercar that can be used daily - which is oxymoronic unless you are a highly skilled car builder. If that didn't prevent it from winning the round, its reliability issues certainly did; extending the redline far enough on an undersquare engine (where the stroke is larger than the bore) will push the bottom end parts to the limit sooner than on an oversquare engine (in which the bore is greater than the stroke), and it certainly was the case here. As such, the only front-engined car in the top five could manage no better than third place. And now it was time to crown a winner...

...but surprisingly, it wasn't the Prima 1, even though it had well over 1000 horsepower, as did quite a few of the entries I received that round. The big blue wedge looked like a clear favorite after some of the more promising entries fell by the wayside, especially since its cleverly tuned AWD system and active suspension made its immense thrust exploitable in all conditions. It also had surprisingly good ride quality. So why didn't it win?

As it turned out, although it had a premium infotainment system, it was merely of average quality, as was the lightweight interior. Now, given that increased quality on interior components leads to increased weight, such cost-cutting is understandable, but ruins the idea of driving a hypercar daily in the long term, since the prestige, safety and reliability values will all be reduced as a result. The Ventnor Bambino, on the other hand, did not have this problem; its luxury interior and high-end infotainment suite were commensurate with my expectations of a highly usable supercar. That turned out to be more than enough to give it the win, much to everyone's surprise.

What else, then, ensured victory for the Bambino? Considering that its chassis was a steel tube frame, which is cheaper than a carbon-fiber monocoque but much heavier, and its engine was a relatively humble 3.5-liter twin-turbo V6 that didn't even make at least 500 horsepower, the Bambino was quite easy to drive, very comfortable (thanks to its high-quality interior), more economical than most of its opposition, and somehow, just fast enough; the excellent dynamics were merely icing on the cake. Not even the slight reliability issues were enough to deny it the top spot. And so, finally, someone had proven that you don't need a lot of cylinders to build a great hypercar.

The specifications for the winning entry of CSR26, the Ventnor Bambino, in its original form

Overall, I enjoyed this round, and not just because my wishes of hosting the contest for a while finally came true. This was a highly unpredictable round, with a more liberal rule set than usual. Also, the user who submitted the winning entry also had a long drought before he hosted a round himself, which came right after CSR26. And somehow, it was only fitting that the runner-up in that round won CSR27 (as the Automation community calls it), ensuring that he would host the next round. There was just one question left to answer, though: what would I have done differently with the Bambino? The answer lies in the next post.

The Future of Infinite Space

The Future of Infinite Space: What I'd Like To See in Updates, Expansion Packs and Sequels to Sea of Stars

After a long layoff, I am back here blogging about my small but exciting collection of Steam games, and will conclude my discussion of Sea of Stars by explaining the features that aren't included. Many of you should watch this space, because the subsequent inclusion of such features in Sea of Stars, though unlikely, is certainly something I am anticipating, if it ever occurs. And even if it doesn't happen to Sea of Stars, its sequel could still include these features. With this in mind, let me explain them, and why they are important to the franchise.

First and foremost, the size of Sector Prime (the map used in Sea of Stars) could be adjusted in Weird Worlds (the immediate predecessor to Sea of Stars), with the player's allotment of time changing accordingly. Implementing this feature in Infinite Space III would force the inclusion of separate high score tables for each possible map size, but it would make the game more likely to be worth revisiting. However, unlike in Weird Worlds, I would prefer this feature not to affect the strength of alien flotillas, although the larger maps should feature more factions to attack and/or negotiate with. Given that Weird Worlds often threw you into unforgiving (if not outright impossible) battles early on when playing in larger maps, especially before your flotilla has been upgraded and/or expanded, this might be seen as a welcome change.

I would also prefer to toggle quest-triggering events on or off, or even change the probability of them occurring, as was the case in pre-release builds. Now don't get me wrong - quests certainly add an element of surprise and danger to the game, and provide a worthwhile challenge for anyone aiming for the highest possible scores, but for a casual gamer, they may make the game more difficult, especially for inexperienced players. To balance this out, whenever a quest occurs, the player should be awarded 5000 credits for successfully completing it; currently, this does not apply to the Swamp Pirate Rebellion or the Ravian Invasion quests, which makes them all the more frustrating. As such, guaranteeing that the player will receive the reward after completing any quest should provide an extra incentive to complete the game fully.

Moreover, some of the items and events which were present in Weird Worlds but omitted from Sea Of Stars should be reintroduced; the Clingon, Six-finned Bloater and Wind Bag are among them, and should fetch a decent sum on Loryx, the Zorg home world. I could also make a case for bringing back the Mantle of Babulon - most alien races you encounter will negotiate with you automatically if you are carrying one - but I also fully understand why it was removed from Sea of Stars: it was so overpowered in Weird Worlds that the developers decided not to carry it over for the sake of balance. Likewise, the Aethric Mirror (which could infamously be combined with the Anti-Graviton Shunt to dispose of every alien flotilla on the map) was omitted altogether for the same reason, while the Chromium Gong now had a chance of shattering on each of its first three uses (and would always disintegrate if used thrice), among other changes. Undoing these would make the game easier, but would disrupt the sense of balance found in the final product, and since I prefer the game to be more rewarding even without the former two artifacts, I would rather have them left out, for now at least.

Another intriguing possibility is the introduction of online turn-based multiplayer. Given that the sector map can accommodate 8 factions at most, online multiplayer will be limited to 8 players, but it should be enough for a normal game; any unused player slots will be taken over by AI-controlled factions. As for the Combat Simulator, it currently supports no more than four flotillas (1 player-controlled, 3 AI-controlled), and as such the multiplayer functionality for that mode should also be limited to four players for balancing purposes. While I'm at it, I'd propose upper and lower cost limits, options for whether or not to allow the use of certain items, and let players decide if certain ship classes are eligible - again, in the name of balance. Finally, online rankings and leagues would help enhance the competitive element of these modes.

Yet another idea would be a spin-off in the form of a spaceflight simulator similar to Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen. Those games combine trading, combat and exploration in such a way that the player feels like a real interstellar adventurer. It is these elements that this proposed spin-off game must get right from the outset. In addition, the player should be able to start the game with a choice of factions, not just the Terrans, and on top of that, have the option of owning multiple ships at once. Other elements, including a relationship meter (which tracks how friendly or hostile the player is to other factions) will also need to be utilized, but I reckon that Digital Eel (the developers of the Infinite Space trilogy) can make it work if they somehow got the chance.

Although no updates have been announced for Infinite Space III since the first quarter of this year, the future for this game looks bright. In addition to the achievements, players like me have been discovering ways to truly master the game. Moreover, the presence of mod support allows for the possibility of making the game more challenging and/or diverse. That's all I have to say about Sea of Stars on this blog (for now at least) - in the next post, I will come back down to Earth (not literally, though!) and discuss a four-wheeled conundrum I had not so long ago.