Sadly, you caught me at a time where I don't have access to the code nor the game. So I can't check at the moment. I will get back to you as soon as I can. In the mean time, do a file verification AND try a new save game. You're more than welcome to email me the affected slider values and game file.

10 years the game has been publically avaliable and this is the first time this has been reported, so I assume it's a localized issue and not an issue with the game files. But we'll see.

wow, steam has reported almost 900 faulty files. That sounds a bit strange to me, as I have never changed anything in the original files. Instead, I always worked with mod folders.

Anyway, the problem is still there. I started two (unmodded) savegames, one with 1910 as the startyear and one in 1955, and made two different observations. In 1955 the problem is as described above, in 1910 the problem is even more drastic: there is no longer any perceptible difference at all in project costs, regardless of the number of cylinders. The development of a 2-cylinder engine therefore costs amost exactly as much as the development of an 8-cylinder engine.

I'll send you the save game files, even though they're empty so far. Maybe you can still see something there.

I just ran a test in 1900 and there was almost no change in development costs just like tbjack says.

Tried it in my current save game that is now 1987 (started in 1941) and there is a lot greater increase in development costs.
1.2L inline 4 costs 2,893,241, 1.5L inline 5 costs 3,616,976, 1.8L inline 6 costs 4,332,351 and the 2.4L inline 8 costs 4,334,070 all with the same sliders and and technology over 24 months development.

Thanks for the info, I will check it out.

So the code was intentional and supposed to give the user cost savings for smaller engines in line with growth of emissions standards over time. Some of the code in this area is quite crufty.

In any case, I have rewritten this part of the design costs to make it more linear than it is now. End result is that smaller engines might be a little bit cheaper in later years. Bigger engines are a bit more expensive.

Ideally in the future, we get emissions standards and displacement taxes implemented via the feature bounty system. If that is the case, I will probably revise these numbers again at that time.

Originally posted by Eric.B:

So the code was intentional and supposed to give the user cost savings for smaller engines in line with growth of emissions standards over time. Some of the code in this area is quite crufty.

In any case, I have rewritten this part of the design costs to make it more linear than it is now. End result is that smaller engines might be a little bit cheaper in later years. Bigger engines are a bit more expensive.

Ideally in the future, we get emissions standards and displacement taxes implemented via the feature bounty system. If that is the case, I will probably revise these numbers again at that time.

Thanks Eric. Emissions and displacement taxes are right up the top of my wishlist of things that get funded, I think they'll really add a lot of challenge to the game.