All of which you said about the design is pretty much spot on about what i was going for. Midway through i started thinking 1st gen ford taurus/sable, so thats where the chrome, vinyl roof and hub caps came from.
2 Likes
I knew the Cago was going to get eliminated early, I just thought it would be funny. The prestige was due to a turbo being there. It seems though that the front grille (thatâs there on the regular wheelbase version) is missing, you can see it in my post. GG anyways.
2 Likes
Yes I saw it earlier, but game acted weird yesterday for some reason. Aesthetics score is set by looking at the complete car.
I didnât really have much faith in my [car name I wonât mention], mostly due to the engineering. I know it got eliminated early on, but this verdict was a pleasant surprise.
jesus christ sweet home alabama im somehow not eliminated yet
the hap : )
Unfortunately, you are if you look at the post above. 
I am very sorry for missing this, but this challenge seems to have been cursedâŚitâs not the only thing that went wrong.
2 Likes
fuck
what naming scheme? and how do i check the max budget
The price is shown here, and 20700 is âa bitâ over the maximum allowed 10500.
The naming rules was posted under âsubmission detailsâ which may be confusing, I have realized now.
Tons of things went wrong with this challenge, and I really donât want to look like I am innocent or ignoring stuff, so my suggestion is that we discuss what went wrong and not after the finals though, so we get them out of the way first. It should not be too many days awayâŚ
4 Likes
EARLY ELIMINATIONS, PART 2
In this part you will find cars that either had slightly better stats, but still not good enough to âcut itâ, or cars where the stats could have taken them to the top 10, but stuff like for example engineering realism or styling made them jump down a notch. And once again it should be stated, the playfield was very even, and your car ending up here does not necessarily mean that it was bad. Also, like last time, no actual ranking of the entries here, draw your own conclusions from the small reviews.
CHEVAER @Lorgot
Stats wise, this is honestly not a bad performer at all. Service costs are a bit on the expensive side, and it uses up all the budget, but thatâs not discouraged in itself, so.
On the other hand, it is very economical, has outstanding comfort, high driveability, is prestigious, safe, practical, decently sporty and has good offroad stats.
Where it fails? Engineering realism. Narrow and tiny tyres on 17 inch rims, huge 4 wheel drum brakes, and a carbed VVL lump with a rather weird VVL calibration feels like statsmaxing, which means that this wonât climb up the ladder further than this.
I usually donât comment on, or grade colours. Not that I do this time either but it honestly looks like if it is wrapped in gold anodized foil. The shape of the hood combined with the tiny protruding headlights makes it look like if someone stepped on the front end. Weirdly proportioned details and other than the odd stuff here and there not much more than âan carâ.
VANGUARD ORION 15/45L (discord user)
A bit old fashioned, but not bad looking, in its style. Stance kind of looks like it is on stilts, though. Overall nicely proportioned and nice detailwork. The interior is kind of a weird mix between old and new for the era, but good looking and well detailed.
It also scores good in all the top priorities, though it is not the most comfortable or prestigious car. It is also good on practicality and has decent sportiness, surprisingly enough considering its major drawback, it is S L O W.
47 hp and a redline at 4500 RPM, this isnât Replawnmower, in case youâre wondering. Nah. Seriously it is too underpowered for its time and segment, so, goodbye to this.
CAPABLE CONNECTOR 86 M S @Vento
This fails on the styling just being too much beyond saving. This is just a blob with no hope left for it. Awkward proportions, awkward shape, awkward detailwork. Thereâs so much wrong with this so itâs too much to list really. There is an interior, but it is just a pile of random parts put together to resembleâŚsomething.
Thatâs a pity since there is few other drawbacks It is a bit underpowered and low on sportiness, and despite looking like if it is standing on stilts, it has mediocre offroad performance. But it is the safest and most driveable of all the cars, reliability and comfort is great, it has good fuel economy and low service costs. But the looks paired with a mediocre prestige score means that the typical client wouldnât have wanted to be seen in this, indeed.
RĂGAL 154E 1.6 L @karhgath
Like surprisingly many entries, body on frame. Not very keen about that since absolutely anything at least remotely modern would have been unibody in this class back then.
Proportions makes the car look bigger and more exclusive than it is, and the shape is sporty and elegant. Overall a clean design with good detailwork. It also has good looking and well detailed interior that gives off an aura of quality and niceness.
That makes it a bit ironic that the prestige rating is low. So is the comfort and safety, and it is sluggish and not very sporty. On the other hand it has the lowest service costs and is extremely reliable, has great weather resistance, and driveability and practicality are fair, it is also among the top when it comes to the, albeit very minor, offroad stats. So it is a mixed bag stats wise really. With too many drawbacks to get further than this in this competitive field.
TIEMPO @A_Harmless_Fly
Partial monocoque and 4 wheel drum brakes are odd choices, other than that the engineering makes sense overall.
Design is generally clean (with some weird takes like the split indicators) and period correct, but it is also rather boring and lacks detail. Even if this isnât a segment where we would have found the most exciting cars, a little more depth would not have hurt. This is just âan carâ.
It eats up the whole budget but you donât fully get your moneyâs worth for that. To start with the positive sides, it is very reliable, comfortable, easy to drive and has decent fuel economy. But service costs are on the higher side, weather resistance is low, it is sluggish and not very sporty, offroad stats are mediocre and practicality suffers from the two door body. So, there are absolutely more attractive choices available for the price point.
CAMBRIDGE COBOLD GL INJECTION @Maverick74
It obviously draws large amounts of inspirations from the Austin Montego. But it is a nice attempt at resculpting the body, and generally well-designed, elegant and realistic looking. It features a very basic interior that does not have a lot of detail, but the basics being there looks right. Engineering realism feels rather spot on too.
The reliability is fair (so donât insert BL joke here), as well as the driveability, it has decent performance and sportiness, and scores high on practicality. But comfort, prestige and safety suffers, probably from this being among the smaller cars here. Also, service costs and offroad stats are at the low side of the scale, not to mention weather resistance, so well, insert BL joke here I guess.
Another decent attempt beaten by cars doing it even better.
VOLTARI ICONIS 1.6 GS VARIOMAT @vero94773
In the end, the only car making it past the instabins that went the CVT route and took the price penalty, meaning that the budget is maxed out here. The rest of the engineering makes sense, too.
This is a prime example of how a futuristic car, still not too extreme for regular people to swallow could have looked in 1986. Sleek, good looking and yet realistic. Maybe the bodykit and low ground clearance appears a bit on the sporty side for what it is, maybe some details appear a bit on the smaller side, but thatâs some minor gripes, overall it is a very good looking car.
It has great driveability and the service costs are low. But it is thirsty on fuel, has low weather resistance and a low prestige rating. Also, the âminorâ sportiness and offroad stats is somewhere this car does not score great. Other than that it is a rather average car.
Thanks for building this, it feels like proof that I put the CVT penalty at around the right level.
SVM SELTAR 1.6i 4AT @abg7
This car looks a little bit like a Mk1 Mondeo if you see it from the sides - hence it would have been more in line with a Repmobile 96 challenge. Itâs not ugly, but bland and lacks depth and detailing. Engineering wise, it packs in some advanced technology for the era, but still believable.
It is not the most economical car since it uses up the whole budget, is expensive to service and drinks a fair amount of fuel. But it is comfortable, practical, easy to drive and has good weather resistance. When it comes to the âminorâ stats, it has decent sportiness (it should be said that the bar here was pretty low, but still) but a little less so when it comes to offroading.
Another mixed bag stats wise, that was beaten by cars having a better mix there.
YAJIRUSHI ESTELLE DL @Ch_Flash
Among the sharper looking entries. Sure, a bit bland, but in this segment, which IRL car wasnât? Very convincing looking entry. Interior wise, the basics are rather good, though it could have made use of some more detailing. Engineering wise, there are only minor things here and there that could be questioned, overall it makes sense.
Fuel economy is very good, so is the practicality. But it is low on comfort and the weather resistance could be questioned. When it comes to the minor stats offroad is good, sportiness not. Other than that it is a car that could be said to be at the lower side of average in most of the stats, with only $100 left of the budget. So, another case of âgood enough, beaten by betterâ, I guess.
HAMMARDIIN STJĂRI 1.6 12V @xsneakyxsimx
Like the Blackthorn, another rather âflatâ and âboringâ design mainly helped up by its Mercedes 190-esque silhouette due to the body being used. Slightly better detailwork than the Blackthorn though. Engineering choices generally feel fine when it comes to this car.
This car feels like a case of âour client would like it but the fleet manager would hate himâ. It is very comfortable with decent driveability, fast, sporty and safe. Practicality is good too. But it is not reliable, it has rather terrible weather resistance, service costs are high and the whole budget used up, so I guess this is a case of âdream onââŚ
COMING UP NEXT: Top 10 with a little bit more detailed reviews than this, I felt that I could not give in depth reviews of 30+ cars after allâŚ
18 Likes
How is the Connector have such a bad styling when it looks almost exactly like the Estelle???
Good question. Both are blue and has round wheels so I guess I did it just because I like to occasionally be mean to random people.
17 Likes
In what world do these cars look anything alike
5 Likes
Ah well, my visual design skills (or rather, lack thereof) have not done me any favours.
2 Likes
Oh I see it! Once i take off my glasses thoughâŚ
Almost the same.
No front though. I think what Vento meant was the car above it, the Seltar. And even if this is true theyâre still very distinguishable from each other. The only thing they have in common is the body used.
2 Likes
Well, the Seltar didnât really score high on aesthetics either, albeit better than the CapableâŚ
2 Likes
As someone who mostly dabbled in campaign mode with little focus on design before joining the forum, I have also had a number of entries that have finished poorly in large part due to bad styling scoring. Sometimes, design scores really are just in the eye of the beholder, and a particular host just might not like something you do. But if youâlike meâare consistently getting not very good design reviews, then that probably suggests itâs an issue with the designer and not the judging.
I have been discovering how much the devil is the details with these designs, and how adjusting the proportions of something, adding some well-placed molding, or putting in some detail can help make a better overall design, and even can make a big difference. I am still far from a design wizard and have plenty of designs that fall flat (and might yet have such a design in this contest), but I have at least managed to have a few entries where the design has been good enough to not tank my overall score. This has required changing my design approach from slapping on a handful of fixtures in a half hour to spending hours in multiple sessions trying different designs and trying to refine them.
I guess my point is that you can either take the feedback to heart, pay attention to detail, and put more time and effort into designing, or you can just keep doing the same thing you have been doing and blame the judging repeatedly for any bad design review. Only one of these approaches actually stands a chance of improving your scores.
Taking criticism to heart is tough, and I hate putting time into an entry only to have it get ripped to shreds in a review. But being able to step back from your initial anger or frustration and look at what is valid in the criticism is an essential part of learning and growingânot just in a computer game, but at anything.
9 Likes
2 Likes
I have never once blamed the judge