Actually, you got the wagon part great. The Acrobat has good window proportions - if a bit on the tall and boxy side, but then so is a Subaru Forester - in fact, better than most here. The design is good, just lacks visual contrast and features, bumpers in particular.
3 Likes
Any timeline on the next round?
This one hasnât finished yet
Iâm working through remaining reviews. Meanwhile, this is all Iâve heard from the main host:
Do yall want the results released ahead of reviews so we move on?
3 Likes
Head says wait until the reviews are ready, then release them in tandem with the results; heart says give us the results now and the reviews later. Either one is fine by me.
Iâll just add my two cents as someone who didnât participate - I was surprised that this is still the current round, and thatâs why I visited the thread. So, logically, Iâd vote for the results first, but I guess itâs more important to make participants happy.
3 Likes
Somebody else mentioned releasing the list of finalists in no particular order, just for us to get an idea of what itâs looking like so far
Alrighty, the finalists, in alphabetical order, are:
@abg7
@Ananas
@DoesStuff
@donutsnail
@Kyorg & @Texaslav
@shibusu & @xsneakyxsimx
4 Likes
Glad to be on that list - and Iâll host the next round in case I win this one, or if everyone finishing ahead of me is unable to do so.
Round 2: The Wheat from the Chaff
But first, an error correction: the Otori Virgo GR4 by @Rise_Comics is binned, for it has four seats while five were the minimum (although five are modeled).
Otori Virgo GR4
Valerieâs response to greeting the Otoriâs face was to give it the exact same look back: a hard forward-leaning frown. Sharper than anything seen since the early 80s, it ruins what mightâve otherwise been an alright upper fascia. The lower one, meanwhile, has some sensible-looking grills but the lights arenât well integrated. From the side, the proportions are just off. Valerie likes short overhangs but this is just too much; more rear length wouldâve improved both practicality, looks, and weight balance.
In 1988, the wheels wouldâve been praised as âradâ or even âtubularâ, but ten years later they look rather silly, particularly with bright red calipers in odd (default) positions. At the back, the lower valence is well-placed but unfinished, while the taillights are downright sloppy. Valerie scored the looks at 65. Alex liked it a lot more (90) but wasnât around to ask why.
Engineering isnât a strong point, either. The suspension is significantly imbalanced, wastes development resources on the most basic hardware selection, and the alignment settings are odd and counterproductive, the result managing to be ok but with a lot left on the table and increased SVC meantime. Brakes exhibit no fade but the fronts are weak.
The engine, a 2.1L flat-4 named Pandora, is an odd box too. On the small side for a 3.0m wheelbase, it has two twin-scroll turbochargers huffing a full 1.2 bars of boost. However, theyâre sized and tuned not for outright power - which, at 287hp, is there anyway - but for an extremely linear yet ascending powerband. Valerie pondered what it must be like to drive something with this kind of steadily climbing torque curve. Good stuff! Unfortunately, it appears to have arrived at this result by accident, with a lot of errors on the way: the bottom end canât quite take the power, thereâs some knock, idle is quite high, itâs fairly loud for a turbo motor, and fuel efficiency is low.
Stat-wise, it manages to be mostly acceptable, redeemed by the virtues of its basic chassis choices: full alu paneling on a long-wheelbase stainless steel frame. Sport, comfort, and safety are ok. Reliability is on the low side, as is prestige. Despite the power, itâs the third-slowest entry in 1km, ahead of only the Primus and Axxus.
18th out of 23. Accurate L300SW RKS
by @fabiremi999
[badges are missing, but Automation wonât tell me what mod this is, and wonât download it]
Where the Miller was all Show and no Go, this is the opposite: very strong performance and overall good stats, let down by design, and to a lesser extent cost. Highest top speed (312) and tied for second-lowest 1km time, very competitive cornering and brake grip with zero fade. Very good safety score (63.7). Decent if middling comfort (33.4 corrected), reliability (75.3), and drivability (68.1). Low-ish economy (12.5L/100 or 19.0mpg US) and prestige (56.3). Very high costs - maxed-out upfront price and 6th highest SVC (2279). Engineering is sensible and solid, if unremarkable; a little adjustment to brake balance (a bit less front), suspension tuning (firmer rear), gearing (taller), and cam profile (significantly lower) wouldâve improved it further, albeit where it least needs it.
Where improvement would be better placed is design. Alex gave it a 50, tied with the Acrobat and Mara for second-lowest behind the Kite. Valerie was more charitable - 80 - though on further inspection she could understand why her partner turned his nose up at it. Proportions are properly wagon-like but thatâs hard to not do with this body. Features are few and far between - no bumper trim, absolutely nothing on the sides apart from generic door handles, mirrors, and front side reflectors. The rear design is good, though the taillights look tacked-on with no regard for hatch seams. The front however wasnât attractive to her (and probably not him either), and overall, to both of them the design quality doesnât keep up with the performance. Pity, that.
17. Knightwick K6 25 Turbo-R
by @mart1n2005
And the style/substance pendulum swings the other way again. This beauty by Knightwick is tied with one other for the best-looking entry to Valerieâs eye (95), though Alex was more lukewarm about it (85). She wasnât crazy about the color, but didnât take that into account; the only visual flaws by her were two. First, the taillights donât follow the hatch seam. Second, the lack of a rear side vent window, without which it looks a bit empty and the window canât roll down more than a few cm.
Apart from that, this is detailed, tasteful, stylish, well-proportioned, and well-executed. The front especially, while not terribly original, is impressive. Could use a badge like the rear, perhaps?
Engineering⌠not so much. Third-lowest Sportiness (18.3) thanks to a four-speed slushbox, somewhat soft and unbalanced suspension tune, mediocre grip from average-sized medium-compound tires, significant brake fade with the third-worst stopping distance (45.6m), and nose-heavy weight distribution. The turbo 5-pot under the hood makes a healthy 300hp, but between the turbo lag and the transmission, the resulting 1km time is slower than average here. At least itâs comfortable, though not in the top ranks and despite being rather loud. It also incurs the fifth highest service costs, at $2333, offset somewhat by decent reliability, fuel consumption, and upfront cost.
16. R
This mysterious machine, known simply as the âRâ, enjoys several honors - some dubious, some genuine. Visually itâs pretty alright by Alex (90), less so by Valerie (80) who notes a generally sound design, good proportioning, but some hiccups as well. To wit, the lack of a rear side window vent not only looks off and reduces window function, but in this case not even Audi-grade contraptioneering would let it open all the way; the window is just too big to fit inside the door. The other blemish is significantly uncentered front wheels, as if there were major body or suspension problems. The latter serves as an apt visual cue to represent the first of the âhonorsâ this car earns: worst reliability of all entries, at 65.4.
Apart from that, the design is attractive and reasonably well-executed. The engineering, less so, but unlike the Knightwick, hits some high notes as well as lows. Foremost among the highs is the honor of having the fastest 1km time by a small margin - 22.31s - courtesy of the second most powerful engine entered, and despite an unexpectedly bovine 1774kg empty weight. The costs of this accomplishment, however, include the highest SVC ($3117), some turbo lag, somewhat high fuel consumption (13.2L/100km or 18.0mpg US) and an overworked, underbuilt, and ultimately not very reliable driveline. Suspension tuning is somewhat unbalanced, the rear springs a bit too soft. Hardly a disaster, though⌠unlike the brakes, that is, which deserve their own paragraph or three.
In this QFC, the weight distribution slider was free of charge to use, and every single entrant, except some front-drivers, shouldâve taken full advantage of it right from the start, before doing any brakes, suspension, or gearing. Among the benefits is improved braking, both in feel (nose-diving) and performance (stopping distance, which in the Râs case is a mediocre 42.2m).
On any car, whatever the weight distribution, the front brakes should be set up to slightly or somewhat overpower front grip, the rears to overpower rear grip by a smaller margin, and both with zero fade. On all but the most rear-heavy cars (think top fuel dragster), front brakes will be bigger and more powerful than rears. Here, we have 330mm rotors and 4-piston calipers up front, and the rears are also 4-pot but only 10mm smaller. The rear brakes have no fade, feel strong, and routine stops are flatter and more comfortable. In sporty driving, thereâs also more front grip, improving cornering potential. It feels great to drive âŚ
Until it doesnât. Brake too hard, and the rear tires break traction while the fronts are still gripping, easily oversteering and leading to loss of control. Meanwhile, the front brakes are both weak - canât even break traction except in a hard turn - and fade significantly (1.8%), hurting Sportiness among other things. This is in spite of using 60-compound pads, which hurts comfort (SQQUUUEEEEEEE!!!) while driving up purchase and service costs. The front can support up to 375mm rotors, but only 330mm were used - why? In addition to underuse of weight distribution and rotor size, here is also zero brake cooling to make the padsâ job easier, nor increased Quality.
All this saps away at its Sportiness, despite the straight-line performance and amply firm suspension. It ends up at 24.0, after further demerits including mediocre on-throttle response, even worse off-throttle due to a 19.9kg millstone of a flywheel and heavier internals. Itâs loud (49.9), and owing to the 90 degree bank angle, not particularly smooth for a 3L six (63.7). How this works with a Luxury-grade interior is an open question, perhaps best answered by observing that 39.3 Comfort (corrected) is in the bottom half of entries, lower than many with Premium or even Sport interiors, and concluding, âIt doesnât.â
15. Primus Merit X280TA Avance
On the tall side, otherwise well proportioned, reasonably well executed, and attractive styling. The front in particular is a good-looking concept, though could use some refining in execution (headlight overlaps, grill blocking foglights). The rear follows a similar pattern, if a bit more anonymous in design. Lacks a side vent window, which further makes it look halfway to a small MPV. The styling is more conservative than most here, not flaunting its performance capabiltiesâŚ
Which at any rate arenât much to flaunt. With 220hp fed through a 5-speed automatic and put down by narrow (205mm) medium-compound tires, the Meritâs merits are neither in a straight line nor in a corner. The fourth-worst braking, though thankfully fade-free, the second-slowest 1km, fourth-worst low-speed and third-worst high-speed grip. None of these are outright bad, however, and top speed is surprisingly respectable (262kph), owing to the aerodynamic equipment and setup that perhaps hints at what kind of car it wants to be.
This isnât a sports car, even by wagon standards; this is a cruiser. Sensible, practical, economical (10.7L/100), reasonably reliable (78.6), easy to drive (81.9 adjusted Drivability, third highest), easy to live with ($1238 SVC is the lowest of all entries, including the bins and the Mara), and comfortable (46.8, fifth highest). Its job is to get up to a good speed but in no particular hurry, and whisk you along a gently curved Autobahn without making a fuss in the immediate or long term. At this mission it performs acceptably, not excellently. The suspension is adequately firm but a bit sloppy, with excessive camber and insufficient toe. The brakes are too front-biased, as is the weight distribution. The engine is responsive and reliable, but loud and a bit rough for the job (47.9 and 67.2, respectively), a situation exacerbated by the somewhat short gearing (about 3400rpm at 130kph) and modest power.
Finally, there comes the surprise that this ostensibly more civilized, more responsible, more mature family wagon has the lowest safety score - 53.6 - of any entry. This is despite +5 quality on a steel monocoque chassis, and advanced 90s safety. How can this be? A glance at the detailed stat is unenlightening:
âŚand enlightenment will need further analysis that I donât have time for at the moment. I believe @AMuteCrypt has some wisdom to share on this subject. For now, let this stand as a cautionary point to not take the in-game Safety stat too seriously. To be continuedâŚ
5 Likes
The Indicator body sets are lighter than other similarly sized bodies, and hence tend to have inferior safety by comparison.
Thatâs a symptom of the body set used - it dates back to the Kee days and hasnât been replaced or reworked for UE4.
Oh, not again this one, please. This is a QFC. A QFC is meant to be beginner-friendly. You can be that picky in a CSR, not in a QFC.
Yes, you do have a point that a real car would need an additional pillar but I guess 80 percent or even more of the players don´t care about that detail. Neither did I, although I started in the past days to add that feature to new cars or those that will be used for a challenge, if the lack is really obvious. But that´s because I am an old perfectionist who doesn´t want to be called out for small goofs and fixes them.
yes, the car´s character was well reflected, I can´t complain there. It emphasized more on wagon than sport, without being too dull.
Yeah, the first was impossible to avoid with a shape that complex and composed out of multiple fixtures, the second is a clear sign that it´s an older build from me, I could have fixed that easily, and unlike the pillar, this could also be expected for a QFC. Criticism taken and considered appropriate.
Finally, there comes the surprise that this ostensibly more civilized, more responsible, more mature family wagon has the lowest safety score
[/quote]
I am actually also very curious about that thing. I have no clue why and would really be interessed in an explanation, if anyone has. I can see that the vice-host doesnt have too much time to go into research.
3 Likes
Some casual research suggests that the lack of weight is the reason. There are other Indicator-bodied entries, including the fourth-highest, the Regnum SLX which also uses Advanced 90s safety but AHS body construction. Its detailed stat page:
Otori Virgo GR4:
Volaro:
Knightwick:
Yay, my car excelled at something lol
If my input is at all welcome, QFC is also a place of learning. Whilst I agree that a lack of window guide is to be expected on beginner cars and should not hamper their scores, itâs also not a bad thing to point out as advice. Whatâs problematic is when it takes up a large chunk of a review that already flouts the intended short-form recipe of this challenge.
Which leads me to my own gripe, @moroza: drip-feed, vice-host, difficult connection situation or not, I donât see the point in writing feature-length reviews - and speaking personally, and recognizing my teammate, fellow finalists and other participants may not agree to the same, would gladly trade mine for a quicker overall turnaround. Is there anything wrong with the way I did it during QFC37, with 280-character main reviews - with extra bits of advice for designs that needed them?
The Primus review has more words than that, over 350 overall.
You have license, given the couple acting as clients, to double the count to 560 characters; and you could exclude from said count your references to stat numbers. Plenty of tools to make the reviews live up at least somewhat to your standard of detail and holisticism, while making the job much easier on your part and the weightwait lighter on ours.
7 Likes
I still donât even know what is this side vent window we are talking about, and how a window not fitting inside the door could in any way be a problem in a game where we have limited customization of the actual body
This is whatâs being talked about. In most cars - sedan-based ones most of all - window-lets like this are required in order to roll the main part of it down all the way - hell, just to roll it down significantly.
This doesnât affect the actual performance of an automation cars, but there is something to be said about making sure the exterior of a car âlooks like it worksâ. Itâs good exercise.
5 Likes
I see. Took a quick look, doesnât seem like any of the other cars so far have it and it wasnât mentioned in any of their reviews. I donât have anything against the whome window thing per se, I just find it odd
A simulated windowlet (which can be created by placing something as simple as a single bumper bar fixture) is not necessary on two-door cars, though, but thatâs not what this round is about.
Also, this is the first wagon/estate-themed QFC since QFC22, which I remember rather fondly.
Sure, but I felt like that little thing seems to be a bit overevaluated.
For everyone a comparison with and without - I added that feature later to some cars, after having submitted this car loooong ago to this challenge that seems to be the longest QFC so far in the recent past. Still, real life can happen and I am positively surprised how calm the community stayed here.
5 Likes