So once again, SCS has not added fuel coef's to the defs to make them better suited..... Amazing how they put that function into the game several years ago and don't even bother using it
Yeap… They launch a beautiful piece of modeling, while the technical details are left behind. Just sharing something else that I saw, in the new Iveco, the hit boxes and the colision of the chassis are bugged. If you do a fast turn with the truck, and the suspension travel a bit more than usual, you’ll damage the truck. It’s something I faced on the launch of the truck, and it’s still not fixed.
*No custom torque curve, can't reach 12th gear *Cannot tweak throttle and brake torque *Badly mixed vacuum sound That's SCS for you, but still I love the newer trucks🥲
I guess fuel saving features are to be added in future, same as electric charging station. SCS seems to not bother themselves with adding simple but boring solutions and just avoid something until full new system are implemented. Thanks for your time!
Finally some proper people how to describe the aerodynamic and why convetional trucks are better on fuel efficiency. A lot of ignorants comparing 80kmph average speed Scania fuel consumption against 105 kmph average speed Volvo VNL and thinking Scania is better. Dumb idea. Thank you to show this proper feature at the start of the video
That’s the kind of thing I’m really into about… I enjoy learning this stuff… if I can bring this to others, I feel like I accomplish my objective! Thanks a lot for your comment, mate!
@doc.peds66 I hope you can do it. People are fanatically thinking without any reason about the fact that cabover trucks are built with the restriction of truck and trailer maximum 18.75 meters long. That restriction is there because of the tight roads. It gives extra maneuverability but you need to sacrifice your cabin size as the length but also with the height because you need to put the engine under the cabin. Also lacking the aerodynamic hood causes bad fuel consumption. But ever since speed limits are low, you can do decent fuel consumption. Anyway. Check out Joel Morrow. He was the driver represented by Mack Anthem advertising which made 11 mpg fuel consumption. He is constantly testing about fuel consumption of the trucks, engines and transmissions. Maybe SCS games don't have the realistic fuel consumption but that guy is giving great data's. Have a good day. I'll follow you and wait for great content.
@@doc.peds66 Keep up doing what you are doing mate. Wishing you luck. Btw check out Joel Morrow. He's the guy who made 11mpg with Mack Anthem and Mack used him as the commercial
By developer POV, fuel consumption depends on: 1. Volume: 16.1 and torque: 3500 (engine data parameter) - bigger values, bigger fuel consumption 2. Weight (truck kerb_weight for every axle) , trailer weight and cargo 3. Throttle position (if you drive with controller different from keyboard) 4. Gear and differential ratios (transmission data) - longer gears, lower rpms
@@marioparvanov940 that’s a really nice pov! Thanks for sharing with us. For this tests, I kept the same engines for both variants, same transmission, cabin size, same load, same trailer… also, used the cruise control for the acceleration and braking of the truck (with the retarder). Would be nice to see an aerodynamic coefficient variable on this calculations! It’s there any possibility that SCS have this applied?
As much as I appreciate the care for the testing method, I think that taking this road for testing aero differences is not the best choice, as it seems to be a slow course. I think that if there is any difference between the two cabins, it will be more noticeable with a high speed course, and maybe even with the 90kph speed limit disabled.
Thanks a lot for your comment, mate! I agree with you… I’ll redo it trying my best to keep the same parameters and see the results. The only thing that led me to do this method its the terrain, slow and fast sectors, without traffic to get on the way and keeping the speeds under 90km/h seeking for what could be the realistic day to day use. But, I’ll give it a shot on the highway to see if something changes!
I’d be interested to see if there is a difference on a motorway run over 100km at 80-90km/h. Those small differences could become more pronounced/obvious?
It only has the liveries and imo despite the lack of dlc parts i still like the Aero because of the 780hp engine Literally drove 5000km in like 3 days with it
There is this trailer from Schmitz that has this sloped down rear end. (I forgot what it was called) I've had this trailer behind a Daf XF105 that typically has a average consuption of around 1 liter per 3 kilometers. But with that trailer behind it, i got it up to an average of 1 to 3.8, with roughly the same weight in loads. Which is really impressive for a older Euro 5 engine. That might be worth looking into?
@@The_One_Over_There hello mate!! That’s exactly the theme of my next video! xD You’ve got some precision here 😆 This Schmitz, and a Krone trailer will be featured here… right now, I’m finishing the methodology I’ll apply to these tests. There’s also a content for the tyres in ETS that I already launched a video about (in my mother language, Portuguese). Since I don’t have the multi language function to my channel yet, I’ll re do the video in English talking about it. And once more, thanks a lot for your comment. Fell free to share ideas and knowledge, I read your reply about the regs in Europe… I learned a lot with your comment. Thanks thanks thanks!
Yeah, Getting the average consumption as high as possible is a challenge i tend to do. XD I know tires can make a pretty significant inpact when you compare a D lable to an A lable. I have an B lable on the front (Couldn't get a better one for the rims i use), And A lables on the rear as well as my trailer. Changing them out to D lables all around sank my average consumtion to around 0.5 to 0.7 less than what i usually get in my case. And they made me slip in the rain a bit quicker. But i haven't tried the Krone with pushing axle yet. Same can go for transmissions. I've tested that same XF105 with a 12 speed and a 16 speed. The 16 speed ended up using a bit less diesel on average. 👍
Take a normal route on the highway and set "g_traffic 0" so there will be no vehicles in the way. I think that an FH equipped with a D13S 460 2300Nm will have little difference in consumption compared to a D13K460TC with 2600Nm if the route is flat. The advantage of the extra torque is on the climbs.
Tbh the aero model only was possible after EU changed it length regulations for better fuel economy. I believe 50 cm extra length was added in these regulations
really?? I didn't had any clue that happened! Thanks a lot for sharing this with me, mate! I’m gonna look up about it to learn more! Thanks again, my friend!
Yep. But that extra lenght can only be used if the design saves at least a certain percentage or more in fuel consumption. That's why Daf has a longer wheelbase with their 2021 XF (with the right spec) and their XG/XG+ models. As well as to why they're aiming on effecientcy more than they did before. They also have a rounder front that sticks out further compared to their previous models due to the same new rules.
@@The_One_Over_There true "The EU implements new legislation allowing for extended truck cabins, emphasizing fuel efficiency, driver comfort and safety."
You are lying in the video mate, recently a paccar engineer told that American trucks are not more aerodynamic than European trucks, it's the opposite, the European truck uses the water droplet concept, it has a lower coefficient than its little brothers in America. Within the Paccar group, the most aerodynamic truck is the new DAF. And so with all the groups, the European variant is the most aerodynamic and with the new extended front cabs the aerodynamics improve even more.
Hello, mate!! Thanks for your comment! I looked up the article from this paccar engineer and it was great to read. I don’t believe I said something about American trucks being more aerodynamic… apart from a little picture I just added during the video that I found funny. 😆 And once again, thank you for sharing this information with us!! Really really nice!
I understand your point… but there’s still a bunch of nice features simulated, as tyres behave differently, trucks are different on the drive side from each other, different types of terrains do offer challenges… I think it’s nice to do these tests, especially because we show were the game can become more a simulator. And thanks for your comment, man!
So once again, SCS has not added fuel coef's to the defs to make them better suited..... Amazing how they put that function into the game several years ago and don't even bother using it
Yeap… They launch a beautiful piece of modeling, while the technical details are left behind. Just sharing something else that I saw, in the new Iveco, the hit boxes and the colision of the chassis are bugged. If you do a fast turn with the truck, and the suspension travel a bit more than usual, you’ll damage the truck. It’s something I faced on the launch of the truck, and it’s still not fixed.
*No custom torque curve, can't reach 12th gear
*Cannot tweak throttle and brake torque
*Badly mixed vacuum sound
That's SCS for you, but still I love the newer trucks🥲
That's not realistic. Look how much fuel a truck uses ua-cam.com/video/PZ51OhNKBOw/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
@@ericbreder1449 what was the average L per 100 km in that video?
I guess fuel saving features are to be added in future, same as electric charging station. SCS seems to not bother themselves with adding simple but boring solutions and just avoid something until full new system are implemented. Thanks for your time!
I'm hopping they add something like this... would make sense in a simulation game... Thank you for your commentary!!
Finally some proper people how to describe the aerodynamic and why convetional trucks are better on fuel efficiency. A lot of ignorants comparing 80kmph average speed Scania fuel consumption against 105 kmph average speed Volvo VNL and thinking Scania is better. Dumb idea. Thank you to show this proper feature at the start of the video
That’s the kind of thing I’m really into about… I enjoy learning this stuff… if I can bring this to others, I feel like I accomplish my objective! Thanks a lot for your comment, mate!
@doc.peds66 I hope you can do it. People are fanatically thinking without any reason about the fact that cabover trucks are built with the restriction of truck and trailer maximum 18.75 meters long. That restriction is there because of the tight roads. It gives extra maneuverability but you need to sacrifice your cabin size as the length but also with the height because you need to put the engine under the cabin. Also lacking the aerodynamic hood causes bad fuel consumption. But ever since speed limits are low, you can do decent fuel consumption.
Anyway. Check out Joel Morrow. He was the driver represented by Mack Anthem advertising which made 11 mpg fuel consumption. He is constantly testing about fuel consumption of the trucks, engines and transmissions. Maybe SCS games don't have the realistic fuel consumption but that guy is giving great data's.
Have a good day. I'll follow you and wait for great content.
@@doc.peds66 Keep up doing what you are doing mate. Wishing you luck. Btw check out Joel Morrow. He's the guy who made 11mpg with Mack Anthem and Mack used him as the commercial
By developer POV, fuel consumption depends on:
1. Volume: 16.1 and torque: 3500 (engine data parameter) - bigger values, bigger fuel consumption
2. Weight (truck kerb_weight for every axle) , trailer weight and cargo
3. Throttle position (if you drive with controller different from keyboard)
4. Gear and differential ratios (transmission data) - longer gears, lower rpms
@@marioparvanov940 that’s a really nice pov! Thanks for sharing with us.
For this tests, I kept the same engines for both variants, same transmission, cabin size, same load, same trailer… also, used the cruise control for the acceleration and braking of the truck (with the retarder).
Would be nice to see an aerodynamic coefficient variable on this calculations!
It’s there any possibility that SCS have this applied?
@@doc.peds66 Yeah, i would like to see it as variable for cabin .sii files!
Best,
Mario Parvanov
In real life under certain conditions it can do 20l/100km.
Leaving a comment so your chanel will be pushed in the algorithms
Thanks, mate!!
As much as I appreciate the care for the testing method, I think that taking this road for testing aero differences is not the best choice, as it seems to be a slow course.
I think that if there is any difference between the two cabins, it will be more noticeable with a high speed course, and maybe even with the 90kph speed limit disabled.
Thanks a lot for your comment, mate!
I agree with you… I’ll redo it trying my best to keep the same parameters and see the results.
The only thing that led me to do this method its the terrain, slow and fast sectors, without traffic to get on the way and keeping the speeds under 90km/h seeking for what could be the realistic day to day use. But, I’ll give it a shot on the highway to see if something changes!
I’d be interested to see if there is a difference on a motorway run over 100km at 80-90km/h.
Those small differences could become more pronounced/obvious?
Hey mate! Thanks for your comment!
I’ve just tested and recorded it. Already have the results… lather today, I believe, the video will be on air!
I wish this truck had tuning options from the FH tuning pack. It´s the only reason I don´t wanna switch to it permanently. D:
It only has the liveries and imo despite the lack of dlc parts i still like the Aero because of the 780hp engine
Literally drove 5000km in like 3 days with it
@ACitaro The acceleration is so much better than the FH5, but that´s about it compared to the 750hp of the FH5.
There is this trailer from Schmitz that has this sloped down rear end. (I forgot what it was called)
I've had this trailer behind a Daf XF105 that typically has a average consuption of around 1 liter per 3 kilometers.
But with that trailer behind it, i got it up to an average of 1 to 3.8, with roughly the same weight in loads.
Which is really impressive for a older Euro 5 engine.
That might be worth looking into?
@@The_One_Over_There hello mate!! That’s exactly the theme of my next video! xD
You’ve got some precision here 😆
This Schmitz, and a Krone trailer will be featured here… right now, I’m finishing the methodology I’ll apply to these tests.
There’s also a content for the tyres in ETS that I already launched a video about (in my mother language, Portuguese). Since I don’t have the multi language function to my channel yet, I’ll re do the video in English talking about it.
And once more, thanks a lot for your comment. Fell free to share ideas and knowledge, I read your reply about the regs in Europe… I learned a lot with your comment. Thanks thanks thanks!
Yeah, Getting the average consumption as high as possible is a challenge i tend to do. XD
I know tires can make a pretty significant inpact when you compare a D lable to an A lable.
I have an B lable on the front (Couldn't get a better one for the rims i use), And A lables on the rear as well as my trailer.
Changing them out to D lables all around sank my average consumtion to around 0.5 to 0.7 less than what i usually get in my case. And they made me slip in the rain a bit quicker.
But i haven't tried the Krone with pushing axle yet.
Same can go for transmissions.
I've tested that same XF105 with a 12 speed and a 16 speed.
The 16 speed ended up using a bit less diesel on average. 👍
For powertrain options you can use the "normal cargo" rating as a stand in for fuel economy
Take a normal route on the highway and set "g_traffic 0" so there will be no vehicles in the way. I think that an FH equipped with a D13S 460 2300Nm will have little difference in consumption compared to a D13K460TC with 2600Nm if the route is flat. The advantage of the extra torque is on the climbs.
That’s is such a great tip! Thanks a lot, mate!! I’ll definitely give it a run and bring you guys the results! Thanks, mate!
It feel so wrong that i floor out the fh6 to like 160 km/h still im not at half a tank i think i broke the game
🤣🤣🤣
Tbh the aero model only was possible after EU changed it length regulations for better fuel economy. I believe 50 cm extra length was added in these regulations
really?? I didn't had any clue that happened! Thanks a lot for sharing this with me, mate! I’m gonna look up about it to learn more! Thanks again, my friend!
Yep. But that extra lenght can only be used if the design saves at least a certain percentage or more in fuel consumption.
That's why Daf has a longer wheelbase with their 2021 XF (with the right spec) and their XG/XG+ models.
As well as to why they're aiming on effecientcy more than they did before.
They also have a rounder front that sticks out further compared to their previous models due to the same new rules.
@@The_One_Over_There true
"The EU implements new legislation allowing for extended truck cabins, emphasizing fuel efficiency, driver comfort and safety."
You are lying in the video mate, recently a paccar engineer told that American trucks are not more aerodynamic than European trucks, it's the opposite, the European truck uses the water droplet concept, it has a lower coefficient than its little brothers in America. Within the Paccar group, the most aerodynamic truck is the new DAF. And so with all the groups, the European variant is the most aerodynamic and with the new extended front cabs the aerodynamics improve even more.
Hello, mate!! Thanks for your comment! I looked up the article from this paccar engineer and it was great to read.
I don’t believe I said something about American trucks being more aerodynamic… apart from a little picture I just added during the video that I found funny. 😆
And once again, thank you for sharing this information with us!! Really really nice!
@@doc.peds66 Alfa trucks
@@doc.peds66 Look for them, they're a group of engineers, they have a page
@@doc.peds66 alfa trucks
@@doc.peds66 Look for them, they're a group of engineers, they have a page
"Save," not "saves."
there is no such thing as volvo fh6
I used the same way SCS named the generation of this truck…
You're uneducated
@@doc.peds66 You would be correct. There is, however user based number system used to distinguish different era fh-models, face lifts etc.
@ I don’t think so, ask a dealer for specification of fh6, they will ask what do you mean by fh6 ;)
@@butcher6939 You are right. I apoligize for my ignorance.
it's a game....
I understand your point… but there’s still a bunch of nice features simulated, as tyres behave differently, trucks are different on the drive side from each other, different types of terrains do offer challenges… I think it’s nice to do these tests, especially because we show were the game can become more a simulator. And thanks for your comment, man!
It's a SIMULATOR
Out of curiosity do you have an email to which I can send you good information? It will come in handy for future videos, UA-cam deletes my comment
Send me through: minhacontabf@gmail.com