It’s probably easier to blame my “needlessly salt” than admit your car wasn’t as good as other entries. You talk like you did everything good and you should win, but let’s be honnest, look at your design, and look at the cars you took from internet.
Don’t tell me they look the same.
I see that you wanted to inspire this pontiac, and the best advice I can give you is: look at how it’s made. Look closely to details, try to use the good fixtures to copy some parts of it. I’m not telling you to make an entire copy of the pontiac, but copying some parts of the car is a good way to improve your skill at designing in automation, to learn the good proportionning of the fixtures…
I don’t host a challenge to be freely salty, and I don’t think anybody does this on the forum. I do it to give your car a feedback, an honnest feedback on what I think of it. If you don’t want my feedback, don’t enter the challenge…
My point was that other cars, even those that got binned, got reviews that were constructive. Mine got “spend more than 30 minutes on your design”. This post was to illustrate my thought and design process, pointing out that I did in fact try, as much as I failed; without derailing the CSC thread, as others have been known to do. So yes, I think it was needlessly salty; as if you couldn’t be bothered. The fact is, you had more to say about this post, than you did about my entry.
Yeah, keep refusing any advice, as intended.
No, my feedback wasn’t only “spend more than 30 min” and you know it. And yes I had more to say, and I took the time to give you some advices on your own thread, others doesn’t have this extended feedback. But you prefer deny everything and say I was salty.
The reality is you don’t want critisism and you don’t accept my help.
Go, keep denying everything I say, you did everything ok and I was salty, you’ll certainly progress like this.
I’m not denying what you said, and like I said, you had more to say. You choose to say it here which is good as it would’ve derailed the CSC thread; but you did not say it in the original response, which is my point. There are challenges where users provide detail write ups, and those where, rather than try, they hurl out an insult. I feel like yours was the latter.
And it’s not just about you. I received a write up that was, “just no”. That’s in this thread too.
All the same this thread is for me to illustrate my thought processes, so they if you don’t like those, you can tell me where I thought wrong; such as your previous post.
The car failed, and I can see that when I look at the other entrants, even before reviews. I’m not saying mine was good. I’m saying that the review came off as terse, and even if you’re completely tired of my designs, there’s a better way to say that.
Everything’s subjective, and at a certain point you’re simply tired of looking at bland design. I get it as well in my challenges.
Honestly, “just, no” is quite good for a car you don’t like in my book. That’s basically a “meh”. If it’s really horrible, that would probably lead to a more colourful feedback.
And, well, the car, even compared to the models that inspired it, looked quite meh indeed.
Have you read the feedback I wrote to the other entries to say that?
I have more to say about other cars too, but the most importants things are here. I make this CSC on my free time after work, If I want finish it in time, I have to be brief on the first round.
And I didn’t gave you much more different feedback on your thread, I juste gave you the best advice I give to anyone: Look closely at a real car of the era.
Stop thinking I don’t like you or that the forum is “bored” of your designs, I don’t know you, and I don’t judge you but your design.
f you’re going to say that something was a certain way and refer back to the quote I’d posted, at least fact check yourself before going ahead and claiming it is something else. It isn’t a “just no”, there actually some constructive points that I have requoted for you to prove that there was a reason behind your entry not being approved. If you don’t like said criticism, that’s your problem for not being able to take it.
If you’re upset that it was too brief, too bad. If you had any idea what sort of time and effort went into hosting any sort of well-attended competition you would understand why reviews can be exceptionally brief, especially for the first round.
Like what has occurred on numerous occasions during the CSR, rather than derail a thread or bitch about something subjective somewhere else, politely request further feedback via PM to the host of the round, rather than attempting to play the victim and ultimately come across as the salty one.
There are two lessons that can be learned here: the definition of “salty”, and how to take criticism
Perhaps since this is the “lessons learned” thread and not the “bitch about shit” thread you could update us once you’ve worked it out.
I understand youre new to the forum but could you possibly not try to insert yourself into every single thread here? The post above isnt even referring to you so your response literally adds nothing and is completely pointless.
As for @undercoverhardwarema, if you want more specific criticism, join the automation discord. Lots of people there to provide instant feedback, be it harsh or kind. If you don’t like the criticism there, well there’s not much you can do really apart from wallow in the steam forums.
I guess I’m not saying this correctly. As you’ve cut MasterDoggo’s quote off there, I’m sure you have to have some understanding of what I mean. I did not say I disagree with these points; in fact I do agree, and I could see that as the other contenders rolled in. I’ve said this in all of my responses; and tried to explain the reasoning behind that.
The rest of the quote:
I am saying, that I read that, and I don’t think unreasonably, as “sob this, I can’t even be bothered with the rest”
On a completely unrelated subject: I would like to hear suggestions on color palettes. Giusseppe Green shown here is loosely based on Italian Racing green, with varying amounts of shine and metal flake for the era.
Other colors - Goddess Gold, Baby Blue, Musclecar Red, Brutal Black, or Primer Gray are my go to colors for lore vehicles (Olympus, Star, Pantheon, and Pegasus respectively). I haven’t settled on a color scheme for Nagoya; originally, it was going to be Mustard (because it starts in the 1970s), with Purple, Teal, and Black, for future models.
What I would like, would be a go to color for each marque, so as to brand the vehicles. It seems however that color can be a controversial topic.
Ultra-Luxury
BMW has Bentley, Volkswagen has Rolls Royce, and Mercedes HAD Maybach (supposedly they’re bringing it back as a sub-brand akin to their AMG badge, but more high end). I am surprised that an American manufacturer (save for Chrysler who was part of the Daimler group during the Maybach era) hasn’t ressurected a dead name like Packard, Peerless, or Pierce-Arrow, as an Ultra-Luxury brand. Then again, the way GM is running Cadillac lately, I’m kind of glad they haven’t.
OK, everyone was loading their CSR99 cars, but I was kind of embarrassed. I sent the RWD version of a car I was working on, instead of the 4x4 version, and didn’t realize it until two days later. That makes 3 straight CSRs, where I’ve done something boneheaded, like not double checking my submission.
This is the one I submitted:ATI-Giusseppe Tsunami - CSR submission.car (52.6 KB)
So, anyway, this car was based on the GMC Typhoon, sort of. I started with my closest approximation of a BMW M88 3.5 liter inline 6, mainly because I did not want to do a turbo. Turbos are not my forte, and especially being 1989, when the turbo tech isn’t that great. I got away from my original M3 concept, and decided to do the Typhoon instead, because I felt it would be unique.
I did some research on this, and found the Typhoon didn’t actually come out until 1991; I figured the body shape was the same, and the main difference is a high torque twin turbo V6. I could not get the 0-100 km/h time (I used metric, so all the conversions would be equal) of 5.3 seconds that the original boasted, with either engine. With the M88, I was able to match the acceleration of a 1989 M3, however. I’ve fiddled with downforce and aero, and I’m still not getting it. I set the fuel system to take 98 RON, and added a turbo and got to about 5.74 seconds. The car is 200 kg lighter than the original.
Here’s the clone, with the 4.3 liter twin-turbo V6 (closest approximation): ATI-Giusseppe Tsunami - Clonish.car (52.6 KB)
Edit: Oh yeah! forgot that the original was AWD, whereas the inline 6 is too awkward a size for AWD, only allows RWD and 4x4.
