Exactly what I was aiming for.
What on earth are you talking about, sure there are some fixture glitches but there’s nothing inherently bland about this car at all. Designing this car was actually painful, I had to break literally all of my minimalist ideals to get this far. If this looks bland, as you so eloquently put it, then do please point out where it looks to be so, as I see a noisy visual mess when I look at it.
No, it doesn’t, so long as you rev it out a bit in first, its quite the spritely thing as I tested myself in Beam
You do say yourself that you are harsh in your critique, but, I was hoping that meant you wouldn’t be straight up rude.
That is all. Good day.
At least you agree on one point
Styling is definitely bland from the front. There’s no details in it, just a massive chrome grill with some not at all period correct generic vents beside it. It looks like you just shoved it on without really thinking about it. Then beyond the front, there’s barely anything. You put some chrome along the side, sure, but you haven’t done anything interesting with it.
Rather than just complaining, compare your cars to others and see what they’ve done differently. Try and learn rather than think people are judging badly.
i didn’t think i was particularly rude, but i did say to to do your research. a 2 speed gearbox was 20 odd years out of date by 1948, and the styling didn’t fit the bill. it just didn’t work.
Right here. This is your primary problem. And it’s one I’ve also suffered in the past (and still do a lot of the time).
When you’ve got a round where the “buyer” is looking for something period-correct and/or relying a good amount on design details, you can’t play minimalist at all and expect to advance. The sophistication and tastes of most of the players of this game advanced past “slap on a pair of lights and call it good” long ago, before UE4 was even introduced to the masses for playing (much less being the now-default mode).
Study. Learn. Look at how others design their cars. If you’re confused about how they put together a visual package, ask.
Also, John wasn’t being rude, IMO. Most of us have, at one point or another, had something WAY worse said about one or more of our designs. Heck, some people design their cars terrible on purpose just to see what people say about it.
PLAY. MINIMALIST. PLAY. MINIMALIST. PLAY! I’ve been playing Automation for a good couple of years, and other design focused games for years before. You’d think, that, after years of playing a game, people will have found the types of designs that they like and could apply to a range of different eras. I do not, as you so politely put, “play minimalist”, if you take a look at my Vincent Automotive thread, I have been posting examples of all the design eras of that company, going from the 50s to now, I’ll be posting the 2011 design era later today, If you take a look at them, they all have a beautiful simplicity to them from the single piece big grille of the 50s design to the sharp, angular looks of later ones. It seems most people like to cake on the fixtures and spend hours coming up with a design, that, to my mind at least, is too flowery to function. I’ve always hated over-complexity, in anything, due to my ASD, and I experimented with a few different styles and I found the ones I could work with, due to them being simple and easy to understand, making a car from the 40s, for this competition, especially with such a pedant at the helm, was near impossible, there was too much going on, even in my styling, for me to work on any part of it for too long, then, when the car that I had to design so slowly was just put down with no apparent thought or consideration into WHY it might be this way, you can probably imagine why I was so triggered by the critique. If he thinks my design is bland, then he’s completely within his rights to do so, but, if he must be so unforgiving in his doing so, then he must be expectant of reaction. One more thing- There were no ‘cards’ played by me, I genuinely do have ASD and, because its a mental condition, it affects the way I think and see the world around me, so something that would be just fine for a normal person, say, for instance, a roller coaster, would terrify me and I’d want to stay as far away from it as possible. Rant Over.
DON’T PLAY THE AUTISM CARD BECAUSE YOU LOST!!!
as someone who as AS, it’s not an excuse for this petty behavior or your lack of design abilities. good day to you.
Welcome to the 2010s. Where bland and effortless designs like those found in the 2000s and 1990s are not acceptable anymore and people demand their car to have some personality instead of looking like a beigemobile. And going back to the era of this CSR, even if the designs back then were simpler, the buyer is demanding the same thing we demand nowadays: a car with some personality. A beigemobile wasn’t going to cut it.
I’m organising the 1952 Corso competition, so I’m seeing a lot of early 1950s designs pass. I receive a lot of minimalistic designs, and, really, you can pull off a grill and headlights and nothing much else in a very good way, but also in a very bland way.
Minimalist isn’t necessarily lazy. And interesting isn’t necessarily 500 fixtures and 50 hours work.
[I did so far refuse one entry because of lazy - period incorrect - designs, and had one set of entries where I had (satisfactorily answered) questions.]
First off, no one in a CSR round owes you a detailed explanation as to why they disapprove of your design. I don’t recall you ever hosting one (pardon me if you have), but I have, as well as having hosted about a dozen other competitions over the years (Dating back to well before the KEE engine had the Lite campaign, before Discord). Processing the files and ordering them vs your criteria is a painstaking process, and writing reviews is very time consuming as well. CSR runs on a pretty strict time flow expectation, so most people who run rounds can’t write a thesis on every single car.
Perhaps if you would liked a more thorough explanation, you could have politely asked JW to explain it when he has time.
But you chose to go the other route. And we’re all behind computer screens. No one knows of or cares about any mental issues you may have (dur, I have them too, bucko). What they care about is your conduct, which right now is less than stellar.
You’ve interpreted what essentially amounts to flavor text as a grave insult, and started lashing out because multiple people called your rather extreme reaction to it. You would be well advised to walk away and come back later with fresh perspective, perhaps also an apology for JW. Maybe then you could politely ask for feedback.
JW, I’m looking forward to the rest of your initial reviews. Keep up the good work.
Nothing is wrong with minimalist, but, there is a significant difference between a minimalist coherent design and just slapping 5 fixtures without an afterthought.
In the same sense, you’re right in that slapping a ton of fixtures on does not make a car good.
If you simply slap fixtures on you end up with an uninspiring boring design
cough a sofa cough.
Anyways lets look at your design in detail.
Red lines are vertical, blue horizontal
As you can clearly see the design clashes. You’ve got three vertical lines and then out of nowhere a horizontal line.
Look at any car from the period and you’ll see that most of them don’t do this. They either go vertical or horizontal not both.
See how the overall design is vertical and apart from the bumper never goes horizontal?
In this one everything is horizontal.
And even if they do both vertical and horizontal lines the grille design is coherent
I never noticed that. I wondered why my Vincent design for the 50s looked way better than my other ones in that era. But they all had that clash, the Vincent didn’t.
Also, I would like to apologise for my incessant ranty-ness, I came into this with way too much confidence and wasn’t expecting it. I always give my first reaction, sometimes that’s not the right reaction to give. My car was bad. And so was the way I conducted the receipt of that fact.
Immediate respect to anyone who can turn an approach around; not even an opnion as such, you can still think your design is good. Just the relativation and ability to accept critique and another view. Good man.
The car wasn’t bad bad by the way. I’ve seen much worse, but especially the horizontal grill compared to the rest of the front made it looks messy compared to some of the others.
Reviews the Third: Tallyho!
again, some colors have been altered
Boccaccino Julius Giovane @machalel
The Boccaccino is a truly odd looking beast. It utilizes a rather unique three headlight arrangement which gives it a somewhat futuristic look, if that look is indeed rather ugly. That said, it does have some redeeming qualities in the styling, as the detailing is at least somewhat tasteful. We are, however, perplexed by the use of two boot handles. Seems rather pointless to us.
Inside, the seating is good for five, and is of an upmarket style. The dashboard is also fitting of the upmarket tag, but the fit and finish is definitely not. Some of the fixtures seem to be haphazardly installed and not properly aligned in there housings. Not a good impression.
Powering the Boccaccino is a real curiosity, a 2.7L V8 OHV that produces a claimed 84hp being fed through a 3 speed gearbox. It seems the company is gunning right for the V8 Pilot with this one
Performance is pretty startling for an estate car, flying up to 60mph in 15.4 seconds, and onto a top speed of 86mph. We must say that we were thoroughly impressed with it’s straight line pace.
Then the wheels came of the proverbial wagon when we measured the fuel economy. An absolutely appalling 14.8 miles per gallon figure is what we recorded, and that was achieved with the car running very lean. For shame.
The driving experience wasn’t much better. The handling was OK, but it felt oddly skittish at lower speeds, and the ride was very jarring for a car in this class. To add to that, the gearbox felt woeful to use, the brakes felt mushy, and the engine was very rough and seemed rather choked.
This car is really a heinous beast. It tries to be a premium car, but it cuts corners at every possible avenue it can, and they still have the gall to charge £1043 for this mess. It’s criminal.
DAAG SZ30 @NiuYorqCiti
Simple and clean. That is exactly what describes the DAAG SZ30 in the looks department. There is not much going on with the car, nor is it the best looking, but, there’s not much bad to say either.
Moving inward, we have a pretty decent five seat layout and wood-grain dash that fits right in with other cars in this area of the market. Nothing special, but nothing wrong.
Powering the SZ is a 2.5L Straight 6 OHV with a claimed 74hp output, being fed through a 3 speed manual gearbox. Again, it’s an expected layout for this kind of car.
Performance is brisk, with 0-60mph happening in 18.3 seconds, and the car going on to reach an impressive 92mph when all is said and done. Fuel economy is 21.1 Miles per gallon, which is perfectly acceptable, although this car was running rather lean, so it may differ in another example.
Driving the DAAG was a mixed experience. Whilst the ride was exceptionally good, the handling was frustrating. The car felt like it was lacking for grip most of the time, especially at lower speeds, and was prone to chronic under-steer at higher speeds.
The DAAG is a rather sensible car, but it’s one that left us constantly wanting. At £1003, it’s a very middling proposition.
Stark Agent B170 @Urbanliner
The Agent looks like a ¾ sized large limousine, with that large grille and subtle chroming, it looks like a small car that you wouldn’t mind being seen in when pulling up to the Savoy.
Inside, we find a well appointed interior, with seating enough for five and a finely fitted dashboard that feels right at home in a car like this.
The Agent is powered by a 1.2L Flat 4 OHV engine that promises 46hp, and is sent through a 3 speed manual gearbox. It’s a very peculiar engine for such a car, but not something totally alien to the motoring world-at-large.
Performance was good for such a small car, with 0-60mph happening in 22.5 seconds, an going on to a 77mph top speed, more than adequate for a car of this size. Fuel economy was also rather impressive, returning 25.1 miles per gallon, albeit being achieved with a rather lean air/fuel ratio.
On the road, the Agent had very sharp handling and a very good ride for a car of this size, however this was let down somewhat with some rather substantial body roll, which is a shame because it doesn’t give you the confidence to drive the car like you are very much able to.
The Agent is a car that certainly belies its small stature and, roll angle aside, is a very competent and capable little car. And, at £630, it’s a very tempting proposition.
Gronolt 59 @MasterDoggo
he Gronolt is a rather dumpy looking little vehicle. It has a very stout front and a very long rear end. That said, it’s not totally without a contemporary European type design aesthetic that gives it a somewhat exotic feel, just maybe not the most cohesive feel.
On the inside, we have seating for five and trimmed in rather nice quality leather upholstery, and a simple painted metal dash with basic, but high quality instrumentation that is 100% fit for purpose.
Powereing the 59 is a 1.5L Flat 4 OHV developing a claimed 59hp, and is being fed through a standard 3 speed gearbox. We must comment that the power figure is handily impressive if indeed accurate.
Performance was phenomenal for such a small car, rocketing to 60mph in just 16.1 seconds and reaching 86mph when all is said and done, meaning that this little French car has some serious sporting potential. Fuel economy was also rather impressive, returning 25.1 Miles per gallon in our road test.
Driving wise, the 59 was perfectly pleasant, if not totally ground-breaking. The ride was very smooth for such a small car, but handling was a little blunted, but very tame, and the body roll was rather acceptable.
To summarise, this is a rather wonderful little car that packs a feature set and performance that puts many other cars to shame, and with a £621 price, it’s a car that should be seriously considered.
Churchill Jaffa @Mikonp7
It’s an odd name that is befitting of a odd looking car. The chroming on the Jaffa is very excessive and rather it gives the impression of ostentatious vulgarity, rather than a subtle, classy style.
Inside, we have five seats, all rather well trimmed, and a set of nice looking dials, but I spot the dreaded 2 speed selector on the steering column, oh dear, it’s got farm gears.
The engine powering the Jaffa is a 2.0L Straight 4 OHV producing a claimed 62hp. This is adequate for such a car, but the 2 gears are probably going to blunt the performance.
On the road, we were right in our assumptions. 0-60mph took a rather sedate 30.9 seconds, but at least the top speed was a far more adequate 86mph. The returned fuel economy was a rather poor 19.4 miles per gallon, which given how lean the engine was running, really should been a better figure.
Driving the Jaffa was a somewhat better experience. The car had decent road holding and handling, if also being somewhat prone to over-steering. The ride was not the best we’ve ever seen, but it was far from the worst either.
The Jaffa is a confusing car. It clearly wants to be an upmarket saloon car, but it the styling is too much, and the engineering too little. At £700, it’s rather cheap, but not without reasons.
Dominion Victory Export @thecarlover
The Victory is a very handsome looking beast. The design is contemporary, without being gaudy or excessive, and it would fit right outside any home.
Inside, there is good quality seating for five, with ample space, and a decently finished painted dashboard with well fitted instrumentation.
Powereing the Victory is a 2.2L Inline 4 OHV producing a claimed 64hp going through a run-of -the mill 3 speed manual gearbox.
Performance of the Victory was rather good, with 0-60mph taking 19.4 seconds, and reaching 87mph at the top end. The downfall at this point was the rather wretched fuel consumption, recording just 17.4 miles per gallon on the road test. It really should be a bit better.
Driving the Dominion was perfectly fine in every sense of the word, the handling was rather tame, if a little vague and blunt at higher speeds, the ride was acceptable, and the body roll wasn’t an issue.
All things said, the Victory is a very competent proposition for this market, however, the fuel consumption might put off some buyers. At £993, it’s acceptable, but only if you can afford to run it.
Hawker CM Special 64 @USDMFTW
The CM Special is a rather cleanly styled car, if to the point it’s a little bland and vacant at times. Still, it’s not a bad looking vehicle, even with the top mounted boot handle.
Inside we are greeted with a nicely upholstered and roomy interior with seating for five, with an nicely laid out dashboard for good measure.
Propelling the CM is a 2.3L Inline 4 OHV producing an estimated 64hp, being fed through a fairly standard 3 speed manual gearbox.
Performance wise, the CM is more than acceptable, with 0-60mph taking 19.4s, and going on to an 84mph top speed. Fuel consuption is rather reasonable, too. Recording a figure of 21 miles per gallon in our road test.
Driving the CM was rather pleasant. The handling was rather well sorted, if a touch prone to over-steering at lower speeds, the ride was reasonably smooth, and the body roll and chassis flex was perfectly acceptable in this kind of car.
The Hawker CM is a very reasonable offering that’s really surprised us with it’s blend of performance and practicality. At £912, it’s also a rather well priced offering.
so with all the magazine reviews complete, Robert’s mind was well and truly made up…
He had seen several car that had taken his fancy, but the Stark Agent B170 just seemed to have the right blend of things for him, the styling had an air of luxury, it was generously equipped, fast enough for his needs, and the low price and the fact that it wouldn’t eat into the petrol ration sealed the deal. he was going to head out to the dealership first thing that Saturday
Special mention to the Dominion Victory for arguably the most accurate styling, the Chapman 1500 for being the best wildcard, the Albatross for being the most comfortable, the Keystone and the Gronolt for coming so close, and for and the Bocciaccino for being the single most bonkers and thirstiest.
Stark Agent B170
Keystone 1500 Deluxe
Chapman 1500 Estate
Well done to all those who entered
Congrats to the winner! Well played!
And hot damn, 3rd? Personal best in CSR!
Thanks for a good round, JW!
2nd place… so close, and yet so far…
Thanks for an excellent CSR!
ooops, I should better check the stats next time before sending in a competition entry O.o
Best wildcard. That’s awesome, although I didn’t know an estate would make me one. Thanks for a great csr.
Perfect! Exactly what it is meant to be