Why was transverse Mid engine AWD removed?

[scorch572]

It only states in the patch notes that it 'makes no sense' but that's just... vague. There have been real life cars built with this configuration, whereas a lot of other options are even less realistic. Why go out of your way to remove an option, what's the point?

[Killrob]

Bring up some drawings of that drivetrain configuration and you will see the engineering challenges with it. It is not a configuration that was used in more than one car (and in a single Group B rally car). Please name those "a lot" of other options that are less common than that.

We removed it because leaving it in we would have to HEAVILY penalize its engineering time and stats, which makes that selection a n00b trap and considering its rarity, we think it is better to leave it out.

[speedwarriorhemi]

That's right. There are only a couple of extreme sports cars in the world carrying that configuration; Most automobiles, including some top-end sport compacts, use AWD with either front-mounted (longitudinally or transversely) or rear-mounted engines, which are far easier and more affordable to design and build than, say, a Lamborghini Reventon for example.

[scorch572]

Publicado originalmente por Killrob:

Bring up some drawings of that drivetrain configuration and you will see the engineering challenges with it. It is not a configuration that was used in more than one car (and in a single Group B rally car). Please name those "a lot" of other options that are less common than that.

We removed it because leaving it in we would have to HEAVILY penalize its engineering time and stats, which makes that selection a n00b trap and considering its rarity, we think it is better to leave it out.

Could you not just leave the option open in sandbox? I understand removing it for the campaign, that makes sense.

The problem could be solved by having bodies that say they can fit a mid-longitudinal engine actually fit an engine. I think that's addressed in the next update. I just want to make a mid-engined AWD car but with the removal of the transverse AWD option that's become almost impossible.

[epicfailsniper]

Publicado originalmente por scorch572:

Publicado originalmente por Killrob:

Bring up some drawings of that drivetrain configuration and you will see the engineering challenges with it. It is not a configuration that was used in more than one car (and in a single Group B rally car). Please name those "a lot" of other options that are less common than that.

We removed it because leaving it in we would have to HEAVILY penalize its engineering time and stats, which makes that selection a n00b trap and considering its rarity, we think it is better to leave it out.

Could you not just leave the option open in sandbox? I understand removing it for the campaign, that makes sense.

The problem could be solved by having bodies that say they can fit a mid-longitudinal engine actually fit an engine. I think that's addressed in the next update. I just want to make a mid-engined AWD car but with the removal of the transverse AWD option that's become almost impossible.

Seconding this, I have very little interest in the campaign, at least until it is completed. My friends and I like to challenge each other with builds we then export to beamng drive. We like trying out weird and impractical builds (highest power I3 car for instance) and the transverse AWD made for a unique design choice we would occasionally throw in. Currently we can't get away with any mid engine AWD designs and its throwing a few of us off

[thegreensteem]

perhaps then you need to change the body shape of your car, I haven't had too many problems fitting AWD into any mid engine cars, except for a modded hatchback body.

[Adamant Consternation]

Another vote for leaving it in for sandbox.

[Killrob]

In case you had not noticed yet, game development is not a democracy. ;D
We removed it for good reasons stated previously (that might or might not be compelling to you as a player) and it is not coming back.

[CMDR Sweeper]

Be careful of doing that... Sure you call the shots, but you may find yourself getting protests with attitudes like that and if you push ahead...
Well let us just say you are left wondering "Why don't they pick up my new title?"
Of course, it can be resolved with mods at a later stage.

[Killrob]

I am careful to telling the truth of the matter (that the choice was made for good reasons and we have considered the alternatives and that we deem them not feasible solutions), that doesn't appeal to some, and that's fine. What you wrote can be interpreted as player advice just as much as a veiled threat, so be careful about that, doesn't make you look good. ;) Now, can we get back to more charitable interpretations?

[CMDR Sweeper]

The reason I am saying it this way, is that I have seen a lot of titles be hard strung on their methods.
Both in the world of free mods and game development here on Steam under the Early Access banner.
At the end of the line, they either got relegated to obscurity with their free mod and eventually fizzled out.
Or, they ended up closing their game development on said game, decided to go sequel or next title and then wondered why the sales dropped like a stone.

Which is why it isn't good to be hardstrung and be a hardliner as it will come back to bite you later.
For me, I enjoy the freedom and I mostly play this game as a tool for playing around, your campaign doesn't matter to me, the BeamNG exporter on the other hand is a very important feature and probably your biggest selling point at the moment.
Just look ahead a bit, as corners they tend to come up fast, and you only get one chance at taking them properly.
So this is just my 2 cents worth of advice I give to game developers that has a chance of reaching greatness like the story of Factorio has done.

[Killrob]

Thanks, that is much more down-to-reality advice. We've been working on Automation since 2011 and have grown from a 2-person-freetime project in which you can poorly design an Inline 4 engine to what you see today. We have seen a lot of twists and turns and with that in mind I can tell you that you'd most likely wouldn't have an exporter if we were "hardliners". We're doing quite well for an independent studio and have continued making Automation into what we believe is best. More and more people seem to be agreeing with (i.e. the numbers would indicate) that vision drawn up all the way back in 2012.

We listen to community feedback and implement the things that make sense and (that's a logic AND) are feasible. Players can only ever really see one side of that coin. Of course we've had countless of requests over the years to cater to people's personal tastes. If we followed them, Automation would be an in-depth engine tuning software by now and not much else. :D

Forgive me my cynicism towards these things, years of community interaction do that to you if you want to stay sane. :)

[CMDR Sweeper]

Oh yes, I do know where you came from...
Because around that time, I did buy the turbocharger version from your webpage.
I am also the same guy that broke your engine simulation and made the game crash by making the least efficient engine possible in the game (Haven't retested if it still crashes when I do that experiment though.)
But comments from my friends on that front was that the engine is so inefficient that you could power a gas turbine off its exhaust :D

[G Willikers]

I would absolutely take a developer who says "we did this because we thought it was the best way forward and it's not coming back" over one who says "we're open to community feedback" and proceeds to completely ignore community feedback. I've seen a ton of examples of the latter and the "attitude" here is refreshing.

If a person isn't going to buy your next title because a highly specific engine configuration was removed from this game then they were going to find some reason to claim not to buy it anyway.

[VaderDFXB]

In all honestly not even keeping it in sandbox is kinda silly since all the assets for it are there and it works...

Removing content for the sake of removing content doesn't make any sort of sense. Remove it from the campaign, sure, but leave it in the game in some form or another.

[G Willikers]

I'm not saying I completely agree with the reasoning, I just don't care about the issue that much and appreciate the developer's honesty on this issue. I also am not a coder and have no idea if it's possible to have different configurations between sandbox and campaign or how easy it would be to implement, since they both use the same builder. I do suspect it would not be as easy as people here seem to believe, as they probably would have done it if it was.