Wow I did not expect that, well done on bdub engineering a good quality car. I’ll wait and see what my co-entrant has to say about doing the next round before I say yes or no myself.
4 Likes
Dang
My first challenge win, even in part
Im proud it was this
As for hosting, well
I have a solid idea percolating but no pc (and auto) access right now and probably not for a bit so I’d want to co-host as a minimum, but more likely it’d be mostly martin doing it so, up to him and what we want to do
5 Likes
@mart1n2005 @bdub1 Congratulations! I knew it would be a gamble going full-on luxury with mine. Excellent writing, and in the end they made the correct choice.
I won’t be able to host, if it comes down to it. Hopefully mart1n2005 and bdub1 can figure something out.
4 Likes
The lux interior was about a wash between the comfort bonus and the cost and reliability penalties. It was a very close call vs. the Ariete, and the decisive bit was fuel economy. With the Ariete’s engine, it’d’ve won hands-down.
Other “This might’ve won if only…”:
Bolland: a size down, more compression, perhaps AWD
Bordeaux: milder tires and more civilized engine (R6 or H4)
Flint: two more doors, one more pedal, a size up, perhaps a leaner fuel map
KPAW: RR had a fundamental handicap with the trunk space
Sayoko: bigger tires (ATS was explicitly allowed for this purpose), milder cam tuning, more budget spent on fuel system, architecture, and exhaust quality
SUMA: 4WD or AWD
DGM by @dog959: this one came closer to winning than the results may read. Even to the end, nobody had as few flaws. It could’ve won with more budget spent, particularly on engine reliability and refinement.
Yamaguchi: bigger tires and more rustproofing, for starters.
ARVA: fundamentally - less replica, more inspiration.
Miller: more techpool, less fancypants engine, 5 seats.
Centurion: engine quality
General reflections:
- Only one entry took advantage of the full-time AWD rule. It was the winner, and the simultaneous boost to Driveability while preserving a modicum of off-road was indeed decisive.
- Four entries took advantage of the diesel ruleset, three of them finalists. I think that both of these things are true: that the ruleset is a bit too powerful, and that the people choosing diesels are strong in Automation engineering in the first place. IRL, diesels have a cold-weather penalty that is not reflected here. SVC costs and reliability are indeed better, but not by as much. They also tend to have higher upfront costs, also not reflected here. The refinement and power restrictions, however, feel like they work well.
- Nobody took advantage of ATS for tire size or ride height. It would’ve mattered for the Sayoko and others.
- Nobody took advantage of locking LSD. I doubt it’d’ve mattered much.
- Nobody went over budget, despite it being a soft cap.
- Environmental resistance has a vague correlation to things that make sense. It should’ve been manually recalculated.
Thoughts?
3 Likes
Regarding the compression, it’s been a while now but if my memory serves even just one click higher would push my emissions out of WES4. Applying emissions equipment with higher compression I found was not worth the trade. Regardless, I felt going diesel was a no brainer with the ruleset, and that an offroader of this era should be expected to be slow.
The size I chose I felt was as small as I could reasonably go for something with 4 doors that wasn’t based on a military platform, and was roughly the size of the SJ Jeep in the inspirations. Going much smaller than that would have stretched the realistic likelihood of the SUV having 4 doors rather than two, which the premise appeared to heavily favor. I ruled out going smaller for this desire to be realistic, but…
At the end I ended up ditching a number of my own realism choices anyways. The specific focus on sound deadening and the de-emphasis on interior and infotainment reliability felt like a huge neon sign saying “USE LUXURY INTERIOR” which is hugely anachronistic for the era, when the Range Rover was wildly praised as luxurious for simply not being basic. I culled the rear leaf springs from my pickup-based platform because they were not beneficial, despite being the most reasonable choice. Having already sacrificed the realism of the build, moving to a smaller, objectively advantageous MPV body crossed my mind. But prior to the deadline extension, I was out of time and did not want to start a new design from scratch.
3 Likes
Wow, didn’t expect my french tractor wagon to get that high LMAO.
Congrats to the winners!
3 Likes
Diesel was indeed meant to be a straightforward choice, but not the only one, as it would be IRL. The sound deadening multiplier was however meant to increase diesel’s refinement penalty, not to promote a lux interior. Yours with a premium interior would’ve fared just as well.
I’ll investigate the emissions/compression issue, but will note that none of the other diesels had single-digit compression.
Why the aversion to military-origin bodies? Half the inspirations were. (I wondered the same thing in QFC49).
The Bolland was certainly a respectable build, and utterly demolished the top priorities. Where it faltered was a few weaknesses further down the list. The Armor had lesser weaknesses, and the Ariete fewer and lesser (albeit a three-star, hence the Armor nearly taking first place, and part of why this review took a while to get out the door).
3 Likes
Because these would have had basic interior, standard at absolute most. Civilian versions of military trucks were incredibly spartan.
Reminiscing about my couple of drives in a VW Thing… most were, absolutely, but there are enough examples of properly refined ones (G-wagen being the poster child) that a military-looking body dressed up to standard/premium levels would hardly be a stretch, even if we adhere to the “has been done” paradigm of realism rather than “could’ve been done.”
But the G Wagen was still years away at this point, and was incredibly basic on release. It would not see interiors moving past basic or standard until well into the 1990s.
And though you say there are “enough” examples, the G-Wagen appearing 5 years later than this challenge being the poster child makes me wonder what other examples you are speaking of.
In 1975, not so much, indeed. But the point besides is that Automation bodies are canvasses not bound to their real-world origins. You can take a body inspired by the 1950s GAZ-469 or 1940s Willys Jeep and make it a 2020s carbon monocoque with handbuilt interior and other hardware to match. The realism question then becomes a matter of how close the (probably very dressed-up) result looks and works compared to an actual 2020s vehicle on the real-world civilian market, not how closely it matches the original inspiration in form or function.
This has become tangential. I’m open to continuing discussion on Discord. Here, though, we have a standing question: @bdub1 and @mart1n2005 - will you host JOC6D? Or 7A? If not, @donutsnail, the torch is yours.
1 Like
Me and martin have a solid concept, we’re thinking on details but im confidant enough to say we’re able to host
4 Likes
It’s a stretch of realism that I as builder don’t like to tango with. SUVs in 1975 were not luxurious, full stop, so if wanted to justify the use of a premium interior (eventually evolving into a luxury interior in my case) I felt it should truly be something designed from the outset for a more comfortable civilian passenger use like the Jeep Wagoneer or Range Rover. Converting a military vehicle to such a standard at this point is hard to believe, and believability is a major focus for me as a player. I’m more than aware that you can click on whatever options you want in Automation. I’ve been here a while and I’ve seen all kinds of crazy builds. But it is building vehicles that are eminently believable, that would not look out of place in a period magazine or driving past you on the street, that’s really where I have the most fun. So when I’m told the poster child for the concept is a vehicle that wouldn’t be sold for another 5 years in a luxurious form that wouldn’t exist for another 10+ years after that, I think, there is a disconnect between what you are looking for and what I see as believable for the time and place of the challenge.
All’s well though. 3rd place is a strong result, and as mentioned in previous posts, I knew well in advance of submitting that I was going to have this issue with this challenge. I sacrificed some of my own ideals to make a more competitive entry and could have done more so had I choose to invest more time in the car. Or I could have made my vehicle exactly as I would imagine it to be and have landed a few spaces lower. It is my choice as a player at the end of the day to decide how much to balance building what I want to build vs building what I think will score well. Whether I will more enjoy the process of building or more enjoy a strong finish. I prefer a challenge where the two are less opposed, but I know I cannot expect that from every ruleset in every challenge.
I fully agree that converting a military vehicle to a luxury one in 1975 is beyond a stretch, my point was that just because it resembles a military vehicle doesn’t mean it ever was one.
The 90s civilian G-wagen was the poster child for a tangential argument, not for this challenge. I apologize for this confusion.
Quadra-Trac (fitted to Wagoneers starting in '73), a bit firmer and lower footwork, and some more power would’ve given the Bolland the win with even a Premium interior, possibly even Standard. I know we’ve clashed on the meaning and value of realism before (I have nothing but respect for your deconstruction of trans boxers), but I don’t see that as a decisive matter here.