Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I'll look into the balance, that's actually on the ToDo list still :)
I hadn't considered that (especially since I don't have access to factories atm ;-) ), but even so, cars in the Track category should care about the weight savings, with no care about the loss of prestige. Are they disliking the loss in safety? I did notice they want much more safety than they did before (they used to be happiest with none!). I guess the tiny factory thing is nice, but other than perhaps 1955, I doubt I would ever make use of it.
Thanks for looking into it (and the luxury SUV thing too!). The luxury SUV thing actually bothers me a lot more. It's just a shame to have no good uses for fiberglass. As it was, having the Track categories as the only ones that preferred it was already very limited.
You gave me the idea to test switching from monocoque to a spaced frame chassis. That allows the use of a tiny factory and doesn't require presses like steel monocoque does. It also has minimal tooling costs. It turns out that at the moment, the penalty from not using monocoque is inconsequential compared to the penalty from using fiberglass. Fiberglass doesn't beat steel unless I switch to a ladder chassis, and even then, not by much. Aluminum dominates strongly on all settings.