Home | Wiki | Discord | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

UE4 Open Beta Body + Variant Issues list



Wrong Thumbnail.

Every car of that type, in 4 connected families has 1955 year. One has 1950.

The roof line ins awry.

Broken one side of trunk.


Open beta, hotfix 5, 60’s series sedans “melt”.



There is some issue with the rear of the crown victoria body. The morph may be in cause.


Open Beta, Hotfix 5

This body has an extremely excessive weight to it, while the rest of the trims are fine.


Can You make more missing Kee engine bodies please?

And Thanx for 1975 SUV - it was one of most awaited :slight_smile:


So I started making an SUV using the modern sedan/crossover body thing, and at this point I’m mostly fixture free but have optimizing the stats to the best of my ability. The market scores were poor no matter what I did, when I spotted the culprit.

This body is 86 inches wide. EIGHTY SIX.

For reference, that’s the same as a Hummer H1, and 5 inches wider than a gargantuan H2.

I just don’t see any reason why a body which is supposed to be used for a modern family sedan and crossover type vehicles, would be this unrealistically wide. I tried moving the wheel arches inward to see if that worked, and they were already at their narrowest position.

Due to the width and “accessibility”, this body has serious issues with practicality, which make the market scores plummet.

Could you guys look into it? Thanks in advance.


70s Coupe has an asymmetrical front and rear arch morph.

Open Beta branch


For some reason the 2.5m 80s_E90_hatch_cpp (and the 2.6m mid models) has some bizarre stats on the 3 door hatchback. Comfort related.

Same engine, different models.

5 door stats

3 door stats


Got this issue using the open beta build with the 1955 Sedan Mini body, this makes the car flip and roll like nothing, I’ve tried making it heavier and it doesnt help and making the tires worse doesnt help


I got that but the car was fine in Beam. Can you post your car?


Problem with the rear two windows on the coupe version, it is slightly deformed
It is called “Convertable”, when it should be “Convertible”


It has been mentioned before, but the civic body has some severe issues in the cabin space department.
That of course, results in zero comfort


Criticisms and Complaints Regarding the New Focus Body

With media and comments compiled by various members of the Automation community.

Background and Summary

As of the Open Beta update on May the 2nd, a new body based on the Ford Focus was added, with four wheelbases spanning lengths of 2.5 metres up to 2.9 metres. Although multiple variants were added among all lengths, various issues arise, with many of them typical in all variants. These issues make designs on the bodies jarring and disproportionate, similar to the issues with the CH-R body which sees little to no use due to similar problems.

This report’s criticisms are shared with multiple members of the Automation community, and aims to address problems regarding:

  • Wheel arch proportions
  • Lower body proportions
  • Rear trunk area morphs
  • Front bumper and skirt morphs
  • Chassis Issues
  • Body Widths
  • Crossover proportions

It is to be noted that all issues listed above were instantly recognized minutes after the selection of the Focus body, and are requested to be fixed as soon as possible.

Wheel Arch Proportions - Typical on All Wheelbases and Variants

Observed on all variants are significant issues with the size of the wheel arches, which create issues with the fit of various OEM 2012 Focus wheel sizes in-game. One of the most significant issues being that the wheels nearly touching the edge of the arches.

Figure 1: 2.6 m Focus Body on 215/50R17 wheels

Figure 2: 2.6 m Focus Body on ST-Sized Wheels

In some cases, wheel sizes that are seen on real life examples of Focuses do not fit either. The above example demonstrates the placement of wheels seen on a Focus ST, which completely fill the arches and potentially rub against them.

Figure 3: Overlaying In-Game Body with Focus ST

Matching the wheel size with the one of the ST using an online photo shows significant deviations in wheel arch sizes. It is requested that said arches should be enlarged in diameter and made more elliptical, rather than a near-perfect circle. Exceptions can be made for the MPV and van bodies, but for the hatchback and CUV bodies, it should be fixed.

Lower Body Proportions - Typical on all Wheelbases and Variants

Similar to wheel arch issues, multiple variants suffer from having their front lower bumper straight-cut, creating a strange body line unsuitable for CUVs and MPVs. Although this may create a suitable area for lip and bumper fixtures to stamp, the lack of a slight taper gives the front strange proportions.


Figure 4: CUV Side Skirt Proportions - Note the Excessively Small Wheel Arches too

Albeit sacrificing effective area to stamp fixtures on, is requested that a small taper be added at the front bumper of CUV, MPV and other variants

Rear Trunk Area Morphs - Sedan, Coupe and Convertible Variants on All Wheelbases

The rear trunk area of the sedan tapers outwards, and only outwards as you move up. Compared to the real-life variant, there is a small section from headlight to top of trunk which inflects and tapers inwards.

Figure 5: Sedan Profile


Figure 6: Real Life Sedan Profile

This causes significant issues in the proportions of the convertibles (where I will break out the informal language and say that it looks like a Hot Wheels toy)

Figure 6: Very Disproportionate Rear

It is proposed that the rear trunk area of the sedan follows this profile, either stock or in the form of a morph. Clarifications are shown below.

Front Bumper and Skirt Morphs - Typical on All Variants

The front bumper does not taper with the fender, creating a rather tack-on looking bumper. Shown below.


Figure 7: Front Bumper Shape Key and Fender

Figure 8: Morphing either front, side or rear will morph entire section

It is also impossible to morph either part on its own. We propose that the front bumper tapers with the fender, while each morph (front, side and rear) can be moved separately.

Chassis Issues - Typical on 2.6 m Variants

When morphed as short as possible, the chassis sticks out on the 2.6 m bodies. This is expected to be typical on all other wheelbases.

Figure 9: Chassis slightly sticking out

Body Widths

It is to be noted that the shorter wheelbase 2.5 m body is wider than the 2.6 m body by 10 cm±. This may cause strange proportions in subcompact vehicles.

Figure 10: 2.5 m body width

Figure 11: 2.6 m body width

Although known to be difficult, it is proposed that the 2.6 m body be wider than the 2.5 m body.

Crossover Proportions

Shown in Figure 4, crossover proportions regarding wheel arches deviate significantly compared to its real-life counterpart. Proportion issues propagate in longer wheelbases, notably the 2.9 m CUV.

Figure 12: 2.9 m CUV Profile

As noted before, the wheel arches are escessively small, while morphs make it more suitable as an MPV more than a CUV.

Figure 13: 2.9 m MPV Profile

Comparitively, the MPV looks more suited for a CUV application due to its windowline. Note that the side skirts are somewhat low in these variants

CUV Body Proposal

It is proposed that a new model be made for CUVs with larger arches, and potentially also higher side skirts.


This means that we can utilize the existing CUVs with smaller arches for MPVs like the Wuling Hongguang. Shown below.

_Figure 14: Wuling Hongguang S3

Although very rough and not 1:1 with what was in mind, draft proposals are shown below:

Figure 15: Existing 2.6 m CUV Design

Figure 16: Rough proposal for CUV bodies


EDIT: These fender arches should also be painted black with the side skirts.

Closing Remarks

With the majority of the focus being directed towards the Light Campaign, various members of the Automation community urge the developers to not neglect the quality put into these bodies, and perform more frequent cross-checks with their real-life counterparts. It is also recommended that community feedback be implemented in the earlier stages of these bodies, whether through public testing or via. the beta testers. We hope this report is acknowledged sincerely by the Automation developers, and hope to discuss further if needed.

  • The Automation Community


The new ‘2005 Spotlight’ body added to the OB today has proved itself to be quite controversial and has resulted in a lot of feedback throughout discord, with the consensus generally being this new family of bodies deserve a reworking of some kind.

Note I - Wheelarches

The wheelarches, which appear and seem to be undersized. Here is a comparison of Automations body and the real life equivalent:

Pictured above, the Focus is fitted with 18" wheels, Ford also offered up to 19" rims.

Here is the new body fitted with 19" wheels and, as can be seen, the results aren’t pretty as the tires are damn near close to touching the wheelarch. Obviously, the solution would be to ““simply”” make the wheelarches bigger. Everyone knows that it’s easier said than done but (as should apply to most of the comments here) it would make a hell of a difference.

Note II - Proportions

Other than the hatchback, the variants present do not appear to match well with their real-life equivalents, such as the sedan.

Generally, the problem here is the rear. As any Automation player can tell you, a tall ass is hard to design on and this would be another contender for that. The rear window would benefit from being less vertical and reaching more over the rear quarter window, becoming more sloped, additionally the upper edge of the bootlid comes off as too sharp and again, too tall.

Here’s a comparison of the angle.


For the coupe/convertible variants, other than the rear enlargement surgery they’ve had, the problem again lies within the rear pillars as they are missing the subtle and smooth curve found on real life variants.

And here would be the in-game equivalent, in it’s blocky glory.

Some other, more minor comments:

Most likely, the pickup variants would benefit from not having the rear bed edge continue the exact same beltline which the front end starts as currently, the sides of the rear bed are too high up. Realistically, having the sides of the bed lower would make more practical sense.

The estate features a slight hump at the rear end, could do with a more straight line downwards.


Note III - Flat sides, please don’t let it continue

The bodies have a case of where the lower sides of the car end abruptly, rather than having a nice curve to them. The above picture shows the new body, the lower image is of the Elantra body.

There is an obvious curve to the edge on the Elantra which is lacking on the Focus and here’s why that’s bad:

1, the car ends up looking more square, flat and less realistic
2, Frankly… it looks a little lazy. That didn’t feel good to say btw, but it just does.

This cue seems to be more and more common with new bodies and I think I speak for everyone when I say that it should frankly stop. It hampers with the overall end products that these cars are going to be and could potentially give off bad impressions to people new to- or unfamiliar with Automation.

This flat-sidedness does not apply only to the sides, as both the front- and rear bumpers would benefit from being curved or shaped more.

Note IV - Wheelarches again yay

When it comes to the larger wheelbases, the wheelarches only begin to make less and less sense. This is the 2.9m wheelbase version, or slightly larger than a Ford Edge but sadly it resembles a Seat Altea more than what is usually acceptable. Increasing the size of the arches would immediately make this body good for generic SUVs and crossovers from the 2000s to the 2020s, a segment where Automation is in desperate need for more bodies.

Compared to the smaller Edge.

Note V - Firewall

In a transverse application, no engine seems to fit withing the engine bay. However, this is apparently(?) a known issue already.

I don’t like complaining about new and free things that someone crafted and obviously put effort into… but in this case, I think this ‎ ahem feedback is justified. This isn’t an attack on anyone, we love you HR. Creating content such as this isn’t the easiest thing in the world and everyone gets that.


I didn’t really want to join the party but here goes…

Just to add to the firewall point with the Focus (because I think everything else I’ve found to be off has been covered) is just how irregular it is across all the bodies. I don’t have a screencap of my issue with the 2.5m wheelbase model, but I simply cannot find a single engine that fits in it transversely. At all. Not even a 300cc 3-cylinder engine fits in.

What about the 2.9m body? Well…

That is a 5.0-litre inline 6 fit into the car transversely. Since the firewall is, dare I say, a bit too far forward, it is impossible to fit this longitudinally. In fact, you can only just about fit a 3.0-litre inline 6 in the car longitudinally with a massive ET penalty, which doesn’t seem right in a car with dimensions similar to those of cars in the E-segment.

To add to this point (again, sorry I didn’t take a picture!), I decided to try and make an M5/E63/RS6 competitor mockup on the largest Focus body and once the wheel arches we’re flared out enough to stick the typical tyre widths onto the car it was 2.01m wide. 2.01m. Again, this is about 0.1m wider than the typical cars in the class. Not to mention how absurdly tall the car is.

Again, something else to add that I came across regarding the poor scaling of the larger variants.

On left, 2.9m wheelbase Focus body, BMW body in middle, 2.6m Focus body on right

Cars don’t generally don’t get taller when they get longer. The Focus is 1.47m tall. An Audi A8 is also 1.47m tall. For some reason, the larger bodies seem to get bigger in all dimensions, which isn’t strictly true to real life.

I love this game and I love this community. Hell, I’ve been part of it for the past 7 years and I don’t see myself stopping any time soon. To see things like this being released with such low quality and with a number of issues I spotted, probably around a dozen, in just 10 minutes of playing around with the body seriously makes me question whether these things are being checked and tested before they are pushed out to live.

I don’t mind waiting for great quality content to come out, but I really don’t think we need 60+ variants of a sub-par product. Quality over quantity, please.


This boye is not centered properly for a very long time, even in beta


Found an issue with the 46_28_Bumerica_Wagon.
This is in the latest Beta version of the game.

When adjusting the roof line, it goes all out of shape, this is after raising the roof-line to maximum;


Thanks for pointing out the issues with the Focus body. There are some things I can do, and some things I can’t to fix some of the problems… Any adding or subtracting of geometry at this point is not going to be possible, so certain elements about the shape, such as the rear end of the coups, unfortunately are too late to fix.

The lower molding shape keys that operate the entire lower molding are done that way for performance. Shape keys come with them large performance penalties, so they need to be kept to a minimum. For this reason, they are lumped into one key. It would certainly have been easier to do three separate keys, but for performance reasons, they are one.

As for the flat sides, I’ve been doing that on purpose, not out of laziness. I’ve been working on the idea that a flat side makes life much easier for doing the side skirts and various other sporty fixtures that seem to be the most popular. But if you would like a more factory looking, curved in rocker panel, I can do that in the future. Unfortunately on this body, there isn’t enough geometry to either correct it, or even add a morph to it now.

But let me talk about what I can fix and improve.

First, the firewall and the chassis clipping are easy fixes.

The wheel arches I can do something about. We can’t have different sizes between variants inside the same family, so the smallest arch is kind of just the default arch for the whole range. But what I can do, which is a new violation of the “no-clipping” rule, is I can add a shape key to make the arches overall larger, to fit bigger tires. This will of course create the potential for tires clipping through the body, since there’s currently no way to constrain a maximum tire size to a morph size. But we think it’ll be a reasonable compromise, so you can have small arch fuel economy bois, and big arch shporty bois.

As for the dimensions, they are all taken from the Fiesta, Focus, Fusion and Taurus. Yes, the Taurus is significantly taller than the other three models, however, I will take some height out of the Taurus sized bodies, just to make it look a little less odd.

Making car bodies is incredibly difficult, and time consuming work. This family of bodies took me most of the month of April to complete, and required a number of revisions along the way thanks to feedback from other car body artists. It’s impossible to please everyone, and it’s nearly impossible to walk the line between generic and replica as personal tastes always overlap in this area. I do my best to make enough variants, so at least a few of them will appeal to you individually, but I don’t expect, and I don’t think you should either, that you’ll like every variant. I don’t even like every variant :stuck_out_tongue: but I do the best I can to produce quality content, with a large range of options, in a reasonable time-frame. I’m sorry I appear to have missed the mark on this body, and I’ll do what I can to make it better, and to do better in the future.

PS (RE the Bumerica morph problem: I was able to locate the issue, and I’ll correct that as well)


I really appreciate the effort you put into bodies, I think most of us do, but I think you’ve got some more underlying problems with the lack of understanding of car design (at the very least with the 80s-10s stuff) that lead to a lot of issues with proportions and just general design mistakes, which if at least addressed could benefit the future works a lot.

What I frequently notice is that you keep guessing how the variants should look like, seemingly not consulting with the real-life equivalents for some of them (sometimes there’s literally that exact variant existing) and seeing how real manufacturers approach certain design features. And that results in flat tall rears, flattened curves and rear quarter windows, and many other mistakes in the design of a body. I don’t know if it’s an attempt to make them more generic, but frankly without looking at real-life (or sometimes not following it) you’re making them more unrealistic rather than more generic. And in case of the Focus, and a lot of other bodies, they’re already pretty generic themselves, I don’t see how they can be generified more without losing realism.

I can’t list all the issues with all your bodies here, most of them have been probably addressed with the focus, but I have one example of what I’ve said:

Here’s the AE86 body, sedan variant, and a highly similar Corolla E80. As you can notice the real-life equivalent doesn’t have a rear quarter window going behind the door, it’s just not a thing designers did on this style of cars. The same mistake is present on the CRX body’s sedan variant. And that’s what I’m talking about, not consulting with real life makes you make up incorrect design features.

Well, that’s all I wanted to say. I wish you all the luck to get better at these aspects in the future works! I know you can do better! I just hope there will be more quality checks and feedback (maybe even from the community) on early stages, so it doesn’t devolve into too late in the future, for the sake of quality vanilla content. Especially on the shapes and variants, because you’re doing a lot of work and it’s easy to miss important stuff early on, that will affect everything after.