Frank, not sure I explained clearly.
The 'concepts found' number increases. Thats OK.
It goes up 1,2,3 to 4.
But the 'remaining concepts' stays at 4.
This suggests there are STILL 4 remaining. It's a wording issue as it implies there are MORE to find.
Should be worded as 'total concepts' or similar to make it clear the limit has been met. That, or big red bold text or yellow cell fill like before so we know to stop.
But total concepts would also be incorrect to say. The only thing I see is that I remove the number and replace it by wording: many, some, none.
Under concepts, why does the current and next season projection show numerical percentages and the two seasons beyond that have a 1-10 rated named level ie, awful?
That depends on the concepts knowledge of your designers. And there is maximum to it, I believe it is actually 2 seasons of a rating, followed by a label such as awful. I don't want to show everything from the get go, so over time the actual rating of those later seasons will become clear. Otherwise everything would be clear from the start.
On the development page it looks like the 'levels improved' data isn't showing. I'm on the 3rd iteration of a part, 2nd on another and every part is still empty on that table.
I'd like to think its gone up at least 1 percent on at least one part, which equates to the green +1 etc levels on the focus.
Definitely not updating on the overview and as older iterations just vanish theres no real idea of how much we have progresses from the first concept.
There is a difference between iterations and levels improved. Iteration is how many times you started an upgrade process. Levels is what you improve during an iteration improvement. Once the part is finished the levels modifier is used to calculate the progress. After that the levels no longer has any meaning and thus is not shown any more. Not sure if that is clear?
Weight remains constant throughout multiple concept iterations.
Even with a +2 level gsin on weight focus the new parts have the SAME weight as before. That seem like a bug.
It's something I will look into when I have time.
If you make zero level gains (ie, yellow zero) or negative (red - 1 etc) you can't simply make an older better iterated part. Its long winded to have to test that crap part to 100% knowing already its worse. There should be a penalty hit to bypass a bad part and skip testing otherwise this is just a pointless waste of time to have to drive 100s laps just to be able to move to a new revision.
New system, fine. But its a flaw.
Maybe this is where a wind tunnel feature button could be used. It allows you to immediately start the next iteration but is very expensive or uses mech points? Or allow teams to use the design bypass feature max. 3 times a season? You get no gain in level, just an instant start to the next iteration.
Workaround loophole is that you could just make 4 or more of every part, 2 to use, 2+ spare to mount if the new iteration fails.
You don't know if it's the level is at +1. The level that is shown does not necessarily reflect what is actual. You know it's correct once you tested up to a certain limit and the message "the upgrade has worked as expected".
The reason why I implemented it like this is because in F1 upgrades do not always improve the car. If you think that is wrong then I'm sorry, but then you should read up on the news much more. Many teams have failed upgrades. They wouldn't have taken the part to the circuit if they knew it wouldn't work. That is what I'm trying to do here. I decided to show the value during the upgrade process, but to also add a chance that the level is actually different from what is shown.
The alternative to what you're saying is that I hide that value, and that you blindly do upgrades not knowing whether it's better or not. Or I could hide it that it's -1 or less and show it as 0. Is that better, I don't think so. Because then I'll be getting bug reports all the time that they developed their car and that the part is actually worse. And that I need to refund their points and that the game is full of bugs. That's why I try to be transparant and already show in advance that the part is probably worse. Cancelling is not an option, because then you will never be in the situation that parts get worse, because people get to cancel ahead of going to track. Sometimes it's okay to go backwards, it goes for everyone (sort of) and makes the game fun. If everyone wins all the time then there's no fun.
What you're suggesting is a test bench feature that we had in the previous system. Which for the reasons I explained above don't want to go back to any more.
Insights on things like fastest sector times on the session page are always incorrect. Not sure where the data is pulled or if delayed but its not what the current classification shows.
I'll check it out.
Not sure fine tune in development does anything. Multiple focus hits and the value remains the same at 'high'. Should show a decrease.
It's probably decreasing but since it's behind a label you don't see it decreasing enough (probably).
Suggestion to add default prefix or suffix to car part names based on iteration number.
Good suggestion, I'll keep it in mind.
February 4, 2022 08:40 pm
