Freightliner Trucks Discussion Thread

[gandalf7472000]

We must not forget another parameter that affects the fuel consumption in the game.

We must consider the 1.20 scale of the game.
A real long haul truck will operate small changes is speed for hundreds of miles on the interstates . In the game even in the interstate you have to accelerate decelerate multiple times, and considering that getting up to speed in the game will probably take almost the same real life time as the real truck, in this time, in the game, you have traveled anywhere from 20 to 60 miles. That alone kills economy even if the numbers scs used are provided by Daimler.

[Trucker_71]

Fuel economy in this game doesn't even register on my "who cares" scale.

[harishw8r]

Yet, 1 mpg is too unusual unless the cargo is really heavy (even in that case, 3 mpg is the least I have observed)

[flight50]

Fuel economy in this game doesn't even register on my "who cares" scale.

Lol. Same here. At some point, I know I'll have to gas up each time I play ATS. Doesn't bother me at all. Depending on what you are hauling will determine how far you can go per fill up. I always try to fill up before accepting a job when I play in Freight Market or WoT before picking up my trailer. With owned trailers, I fill up enroute between pick up and delivery. With owned trailers I try to only stop at realistic truck stops as well. Without a trailer I go anywhere. I can't wait until the base map is rebuilt. They need truck stop makeovers pretty bad.

[Holzauge]

Sorry, but I must have produced a little misunderstanding. The fuel consumption of the Cascadia (with Cummins) under about comparable conditions is 1 mpg less (sometimes more) than the 49X or the Lonestar. (i.e. ~7 mpg Lonestar, ~6 mpg Cascadia) And this did not happen once, but I observe this regularly. Well, I know that fuel consumption is really not important in this game, but I care for it anyway. I also know that there are a lot of factors influencing fuel consumption. But I watch the Cascadia with Cummins efficiency consuming more than the Cascadia with DD (about same torque) or the Lonestar or the 49X with Cummins efficiency. Anyway, thank you all for commenting!

[Robinicus]

@Holzauge If you look at the engine defs it is clear why this is the case; the X15_605 in the Lonestar (for example) has a "consumption_coef: 0.93" added to it that does not exist in the same Cummins engine in the Cascadia so it is only going to consume 93% as much fuel under the same load conditions in the Lonestar as it would in the Cascadia. Full defs copied in below if you want to compare them....

Not sure if this was oversight or part of the deal to get Navistar in the game....

Code: Select all

SiiNunit
{
accessory_engine_data : x15_605.intnational.lonestar.engine
{
	name: "Cummins X15 Performance 605"
	price: 52030
	unlock: 16
	info[]: "605 @@hp@@ (451@@kw@@)"
	info[]: "2@@dg@@050 @@lb_ft@@ (2779@@nm@@)"
	info[]: "1@@dg@@150 @@rpm@@"
	icon: "engine_cummins_x15_performance"

	torque: 2779
	volume: 14.9

	torque_curve[]: (300, 0)
	torque_curve[]: (500, 0.5)
	torque_curve[]: (1150, 1)
	torque_curve[]: (1500, 1)
	torque_curve[]: (1600, 0.96)
	torque_curve[]: (1800, 0.86)
	torque_curve[]: (1900, 0.82)
	torque_curve[]: (2000, 0.77)
	torque_curve[]: (2100, 0)

	rpm_idle: 600
	rpm_limit: 2000
	rpm_limit_neutral: 1600
	rpm_range_low_gear: (850, 1550)
	rpm_range_high_gear: (1100, 1500)
	rpm_range_power: (1500, 2000)
	rpm_range_engine_brake: (1400, 2000)

	engine_brake: 2.0
	engine_brake_downshift: 1
	engine_brake_positions: 3

	consumption_coef: 0.93
	adblue_consumption: 0.05
	no_adblue_power_limit: 0.6

@include "sound.sui"

# 2017 Cummins X15 Performance 605
# https://www.cummins.com/engines/x15-performance-series-2017

}
}

Code: Select all

SiiNunit
{
accessory_engine_data : x15_605.freightliner.cascadia2019.engine
{
	name: "Cummins X15 Performance 605"
	price: 52030
	unlock: 16
	info[]: "605 @@hp@@ (451@@kw@@)"
	info[]: "2@@dg@@050 @@lb_ft@@ (2779@@nm@@)"
	info[]: "1@@dg@@150 @@rpm@@"
	icon: "engine_cummins_x15_performance"

	torque: 2779
	volume: 14.9

	torque_curve[]: (300, 0)
	torque_curve[]: (500, 0.5)
	torque_curve[]: (1150, 1)
	torque_curve[]: (1500, 1)
	torque_curve[]: (1600, 0.96)
	torque_curve[]: (1800, 0.86)
	torque_curve[]: (1900, 0.82)
	torque_curve[]: (2000, 0.77)
	torque_curve[]: (2100, 0)

	rpm_idle: 600
	rpm_limit: 2000
	rpm_limit_neutral: 1600
	rpm_range_low_gear: (850, 1550)
	rpm_range_high_gear: (1100, 1500)
	rpm_range_power: (1500, 2000)
	rpm_range_engine_brake: (1400, 2000)

	engine_brake: 2.0
	engine_brake_downshift: 1
	engine_brake_positions: 3

	no_adblue_power_limit: 0.6

@include "sound.sui"

	overrides[]: "/def/vehicle/truck/freightliner.cascadia2019/accessory/badge/cummins.sii"

# 2017 Cummins X15 Performance 605
# https://www.cummins.com/engines/x15-performance-series-2017

}
}

[Holzauge]

Thanks, @Robinicus , that was very helpful! That would explain it!

[J.Random]

Wait, devs de-volkswagened X15, but only for Cascadia?
[ external image ]

Edit: also, I doubt it was part of any "deal". More realistically, it's been done to make X15 different from/better than ISX15, as they would be pretty much identical otherwise.

[tigolebitties]

The X15 getting less fuel mileage on the Cascadia was probably part of the deal with Freightliner to push/market the Detroit motors imo.

I set up and drive my trucks realistically (which is why I wish they would put more gear ratios in the game...) so fuel efficiency concerns are a part of my gameplay and truck building process. I wouldn't spec an X15 Efficiency series with a 10speed geared to run 1550rpm @65mph for example. So when you have something like this in the game, the X15's running 1 mpg (and sometimes more) less than the Detroits, it makes me only want to use the Detroits on the Cascadia. The Lonestar should not be getting significantly more mpg than the Cascadia with the same motor/trans combo.

[J.Random]

You got it backwards. X15 on Cascadia gets the mileage according to its volume and torque rating exactly in line with underlying game mechanics. It's all the other trucks where fuel consumption for X15 is... adjusted. And it started with the Lonestar - because it has both ISX15 and X15, which have same volume, same torque ratings, and I think same (or similar anyway) torque curves. X15 needed this adjustment there simply to be better than ISX. This adjustment made X15 605 the most efficient engine in the game, I think. At least at the time, and in vanilla (by modding in additional rear ratios, you could make a really close competitor out of Paccar MX-13 510).
I was more surprised by them not volkswagening the "integrated" options, especially the DD15. While DD13 IDP is overpowered (because it has ~400 lb*ft more torque than the non-integrated 410 option - equivalent to DD15 505, a bit narrower "full torque" band, but smaller by 2 liters), DD15 IDP is kinda useless compared to it. Same torque, same rpms, 2 liters of extra volume.