Capabilities and limitations
Implementation snapshot · 2026-10-12 · Sources & update notes
The documentation describes the implementation inspected in this workspace on 12 October 2026. A dated test result belongs to its captured inputs and implementation; it is not a promise about a new vehicle.
Available workflows
Section titled “Available workflows”| Capability | Current boundary |
|---|---|
| Native frame preparation | Saved body/component selection, consistent coordinates, hull preview and fixture review |
| Frame calibration | Generation-specific CAD materials and an independent tubular-member reference |
| Component generation | Bulk and panel representations; explicit ownership and material inputs |
| Vehicle generation | Reviewed supported suspension layouts, wheels, steering and CVT drivetrains |
| Native joint authoring | Supported point, axis and compound constraints; unsupported motion is reported |
| Appearance revisions | Retain the complete packaged physical snapshot |
| Native verification | Separate frame, attachment and repeated driving checks |
Front double wishbones and supported rear trailing-arm/wishbone layouts are implemented. MacPherson strut entries describe inventory preparation for future work; they are not a supported complete-vehicle generator. Consult Templates before choosing a layout.
What CAD does not supply automatically
Section titled “What CAD does not supply automatically”A mesh does not establish spring rates, damper curves, tire grip, bearing strength, drivetrain losses, bolt rupture, or real crash behaviour. Surface bodies need explicit thickness and density for physical mass. A material name without captured mechanical properties is insufficient for calibration.
Saved free-space suspension pose is not necessarily loaded ride height. Automatic preload is a provisional support-load calculation. Example coordinates, numerical stiffness targets and synthetic test values are not hardware measurements.
Current qualification limits
Section titled “Current qualification limits”- Actual-vehicle development has recorded alignment, drift and settling failures. It remains diagnostic unless its exact package has passing evidence for the intended scope.
- Angular stiffness fits and rest-state numerical stability checks do not certify large-deformation response or torsion-bar damage behaviour.
- Bulk/panel stiffness, fastener failure and tire construction retain provisional parameters.
- Ideal linkage checks do not predict tire forces or complete driving dynamics.
- The frame’s external collision envelope is not an exact contact model of each tube.
- Multi-section shaft chains have offline checks, with native acceptance still a separate requirement.
Use Verification to interpret the receipts. The selected milestones illustrate both successful corrections and unresolved limitations.