CSR 88 - ''Back to The Future'' (FINAL RESULTS PUBLISHED!)

Community Challenges & Competitions
33

I wasn’t an experienced CSRer when I first started, but it doesn’t take experience to understand what the purpose of the CSR is and to use common sense.

This, as it stands, could be an amazing design competition with a great theme. This is exactly what the CSR isn’t. It is far too based on subjective things, no matter what you say the brief makes no mention of the technical judgment and with it being a collaborative effort this has so many ways it could turn into a complete shitstorm.

This doesn’t need a few adjustments, it needs a complete re-think.

3 Likes
34

As it stands, the theme is nice and something that isn’t all often used here, and quite a lot of thought has been put into the setting, the lore of the world, so I think that can stay as it is.
But it does seem that Fi-Vee or the organisation/company he works for just needs a bit more…character. Something that has an expectation for what they want, and not generic middle-class gov-employee seeking for mainstream transport vehicle that might as well be a (high speed) bus or taxi. Is he a special agent? A bailif/marshal who needs to chase some due credit debts down and thus really needs a personal car to jump in and be fast in amongst the likely self-driving traffic? I mean, the possibilities are endless :sunglasses:

35

Well I am back and I’m here to try and address concerns.

First of all, we are hoping to go for something different that gives people creative freedom. We did not have this ready to go like some people might have done and I’ve had very little time to type it up. We were mostly motivated by the setting and the world in general, with the character being almost an afterthought and that was a poor decision. We ended up trying to fit a character in after the setting was defined when in reality, it’s the main focus of the core of the challenge.

I know that many of you have concerns over how this is or should play out and I can fully understand that. This is exactly why subs are closed because the rules and guidelines will need to change. And this is why we wanted feedback. We will be happy to change things to suit a majority even if it requires a rewrite. We did not intend to upset the community in any way doing so.

In terms of it being a mess, I agree. It’s disjointed in places and while we did our best to try to focus on the rules, it’s not clear how it should be. We got carried away in our little vision and started aiming for too many things at one which was a mistake. But there is plenty of time for us to fix it and alter things to make them work. We will re-evaluate the core aspects of this round and really dial-in a far more specific brief.

I have to admit, I did let things get bloated and blown up too much - with all the lore adding little to the fabric of the challenge and confusing it instead. But it’s far from lost and we are happy to work with everyone to bring it up to standards expected of the challenge.

And I agree with @4LGE, Fi-Vee does need a lot more development. I was concerned it was too little but we wanted to go ahead to avoid delays.

So as it stands, the critical failures are:

  1. Unclear and poorly defined design brief
  2. Confusing ruleset that’s hard to hit
  3. Overcomplex setting

I will obviously relax the ruleset immediately and we will go from there.

We will address those issues asap and keep working on this overnight. It’s out there and while it had a mixed reception, we WILL make it work.

It’s harsh, sure, but I take all the criticism on board and so does Marcus. We do however have A vision behind this - it’s now up to us to make it clear to everyone.

As for the Joker, it was meant to be a ‘‘community vote’’ based on how popular an entry was. It’s not a ‘‘get out of jail free’’ card but we will scrap this idea as it clearly violates the core of the CSR challenge. Likewise, the bonus points for ad isn’t meant to reward anyone with special abilities, simply a well-framed screenshot would be enough to get the point - I would assume most people would get this bonus anyway. However, we will be removing those bonuses as they add no real value to the challenge.

As for any other concerns and feedback, keep them coming! It’s trial by fire for us tonight and we will do our best to satisfy everyone! I’m sure we can turn it around even if we have to completely rewrite the whole round from scratch.

10 Likes
36

80 drivability at minimum is a nightmare to approach, let alone match or even exceed. In fact, most of the requirements in this latest rule set are so difficult to meet that they ought to be revised.

Come to think of it, this round might need a new, more realistic rule set instead… But as it stands, it’s unlikely that I will build and submit an entry for it.

2 Likes
37

You have two hosts here, correct? two people looking at the entries? Why not each represent a different person/buyer in the same pairing, like a couple or two employees from a company.

That way the two different view points you would have would not be conflicting with eachother, as seen here by the attempts to justify the rules.

8 Likes
38

We considered that too but literally ran out of time to develop fully even justs one person let alone two clients. It’s something we are looking at though.

As it stands, I will be judging the technical aspects and Marcus is going to focus on the design aspect of each entry, with me having a small influence on it.

I just had a few hours sleep and am back to editing, much to the dismay of my other half.

EDIT:
Rule set has been relaxed a little, do let me know if you feel it needs more leeway. The vision behind it is an ultra fast yet efficient people carrier now and we are working on a far more specfic client lore to reflect that. We really want to focus on the ride-sharing and social travel aspects of owning a vehicle in the future. Come to think of it, I’ll drop min comfort, driv and rel even more

EDIT 2: Just formatting changes, cleaning things up a little right now so people can browse things through rather than being confronted with walls of text.

EDIT 3:
Okay so I think we are getting somewhere.

The core has changed to reflect the ride-sharing aspect of life more, focusing on cars with high seating capacity. There are no limits on how this is achieved or body style that can be used as long as it fulfills this criteria.

I removed Drivability stat out of the equation entirely - after consideration, it made no sense to have it in the first place as it’s not the human that has to drive a car but a computer. Therefore, it does not matter.

Regs have been relaxed quite a bit, they should be far more attainable and approachable now. There is no longer a limit on engine capacity as it added nothing to the challenge. Fuel efficiency criteria will have a big impact on this.

Most importantly, I formatted all the lore so it’s entirely optional - there is a condensed brief which should define most important aspects of what we are looking for. If that is not clear enough, please let me know and we will dial it in more. I have expanded character lore and we are working on a further back story and how it will develop over the course of this challenge.

5 Likes
39

7L/100km and at least 300 km/h with 0-100km/h in no more than 5 seconds? Even with the absence of PU limits and highly generous maximum ET values, this seems a tall order.

40

We really want to reflect the focus on efficiency in the future. But on second thoughts forcing an eco-hypercar is the wrong way to go. I will relax this to a maximum of 10l / 100km with 6 second acceleration. That should be more reasonable.

1 Like
41

So it’s going to be limited to wagons, SUVs, and cars with two bench seats?

42

@goblin95 We removed any configuration guidelines. You could have 3 rows of 2 seats each, 2 benches or any other combo you can think of that will fit this criteria. More seats will be viewed as better but we want to put emphasis on ride-sharing and social travel.

I need to wait for Marcus to get back at this point, but if you feel this stifles creativity, we may consider relaxing it or putting in a clause that would allow cars with fewer seats. For example we may consider allowing a 3 seater coupe/supercar of some sort but it would have to be more stringent on comfort and safety.

Then again, we want to avoid recreating a situation we’ve just had where brief is too confusing and unclear as to what exactly is required.

43

If you wish to avoid stifling creativity, maybe a laxation of the required Vmax? You’d get a bit more creativity and variance if you did set it lower.

I can entirely understand keeping it where it is, if you feel it suits the story better however

1 Like
44

My primary concern right now is making sure the round is actually approachable and specs attainable. Vmax was a goal from he outset. We believe future cars will be fast and comfortable yet effortless in a way they transport people from A to B and this was meant to reflect that belief.

We will look at balancing it, I’ll test out a few different bodies now to try and ascertain where changes need to be made if at all.

Is there anything else that could be making this challenge not feasible or needlessly difficult?

EDIT:
I will lower it to 255 kph for now and we will go from there.

EDIT 2:
Reviewing the changes now and the effect they have on feasibility.
I am currently flicking through different bodies with my test bed and it would appear that I can get most of them to comply with technical requirements and come in under budgtet. Many beat them by a handy margin which feels relatively comfortable.

There are even some surprising ones like the 05 Coupe, which CAN carry 2 full benches and is a 3 door car , likewise the 1960 coupe, 65 coupe muscle car, 55 coupe, 45 coupe.

65 coupe exotic can’t fit a second row, likewise the 85 le mans body, 87 nsx body, 95 lambo, 95 S2000. There may be a few more I missed. We will talk this one over and come back with a final decision on seating arrangements but it should be perfectly feasible now to build a supercar/muscle/exotic/coupe as well as super van or suv. Keep in mind even a 4 seater requirement would discount these cars entirely.

Most notably, there is 0 slider abuse required. I think rules are heading in the right direction now and they aren’t overtly difficult to hit now which is how it should have been from the start.

45

I think one of the core problems in this challenge is the year. Automation just simply doesn’t go that far, so whatever the performance standard will be in 2048, it would be very difficult to achieve with 2020 tech. Imagine trying to make a 2010 car using exclusively 80s tech. Not really a complaint, just an observation.

46

That is something we are butting up against. We tried to envisage what this car could be like and it’s perfectly possible to create one following the rules now without resorting to any trickery. I do agree it’s something the game wasn’t strictly designed for but, for better or worse, we wanted this one to be different. Of course, we don’t want it to stand out because of how bad it is/was and will try to make this round as approachable now as possible.

2020 will be good enough for our purposes from a technical standpoint. Year is more for lore purposes, it’s just a setting to get people in the right mindset.

47

I think the budget does leave a lot of space for quality, too. As far as I remember, each point in quality basically means a 2 year advancement in tech? Well, we maybe shouldn’t quite reach the year of the setting with quality alone, but I think we get damn near close with the requirements of advanced safety and all the most cutting edge tech of today (except Automation’s 80’s turbos) and 100RON Ultimate available for fuel.

48

We also allow limited production parts to be used along with regular parts so it’s possible to submit a car made almost entirely out of carbon fibre, as there is no limitation on PU what so ever.

We’ll do a final balancing pass or two on this rule set, depending on how the community feels about it. I personally feel it’s almost there - seating arrangements, budget and ET are areas I will have to talk to Marcus about once he gets back.

Like I said, I want people to actually enjoy this challenge, not be left feeling like it’s a non-starter or somewhat lacklustre.

If anyone has any more comments or concerns on the lore or design brief, please feel free to voice them.

EDIT:
I can see a few people trying to reply but not doing so or giving up - I don’t bite! And you can’t hurt my feelings even if you absolutely despise the core of this round! I am happy and open to listen to all comments, it will make for a better round for everyone!

3 Likes
49

01mitsubishimiragereview
01mitsubishimiragereview1040×585 85.7 KB

30 Likes
50

Correction: non-shitbox 2010s car using exclusively 80s tech lol

1 Like
51

That’s my challenge, I can’t lose this CSR :weary:

4 Likes
52

Heads up, I’ve added a body cap for years between 1960-1992. There are some interestingly shaped bodies which are more recent as well as some cars from 60s/70s which almost scream retrowave. Ideally, we are looking at 80s.

Body style itself is not limited.

I have also added a small bit to character lore to better define what we are looking for.

Let me know if this should be limited even more.

EDIT:
Some more character development again.

1 Like