[quote=“strop”]If this misfires, it’s because the initial rules looked too daunting (and there are a lot of criteria!). Also, perhaps because a similar hatch comparison is being run in the Car Reviewing thread.
IMO if there is no more response (which would be a shame), it wouldn’t be wrong to close this thread and reincarnate it anew, with the adjusted rules. I would suggest a slightly different scoring system however: how about one in which your car has a base score but the score is multiplied by how much it exceeds the base requirement of a certain criteria? This way, if you don’t hit the criteria, you won’t fail automatically, only your overall score will take a hit, so you can have the freedom to choose whether to make a balanced vehicle or whether to really try to improve on a few things.
e.g. Aim for a sportiness of 30 (I would suggest dropping this from 40, for sure.) If the car gets a sportiness of 30, then multiply the overall score by 1. If it’s a sportiness of 45, then 1.5 etc. This is a tiny bit similar to the way the Automation scenario scoring system works.[/quote]
Yes… i though before that my points system couldn’t be balanced. For example we can catch the limits like the 100% and then catch the percent of improve to take points. For example, for the sportiness limit of 40 if you have 44, it’s an 10% of improvement, 10 points… what do you think? I’m doing in a excel chart and is so easy to do entering the points and time.
Thanks for your car Luilakkie (bloody hell it’s really fast hehe), is interesting how different are our cars technically hehe. In a few minutes i will put photos and specs in first page.
[size=200]Scoring system modified using this percent method.[/size]
Yep give big points for extra sportiness, it’s one of the few things I got easily .
Well I probably won’t be winning this, but I did pass all of the criteria. I also managed to mount an unreasonably large engine into my hatch haha, 2.7L of V8 goodness .
[quote=“CheftonUTD”]Yep give big points for extra sportiness, it’s one of the few things I got easily .
Well I probably won’t be winning this, but I did pass all of the criteria. I also managed to mount an unreasonably large engine into my hatch haha, 2.7L of V8 goodness .[/quote]
Oh! I see you changed the maximum costs… Hm nah, I’ll keep the car as is! No point revising over and over again, I’ll just be able to charge a bit less per unit
EDIT: arrrrgh am so conflicted! check your PMs ViruTypeR!
EDIT2: Right. Here we go again! An extra 500 bucks and delimited quality sliders brings out the lairy, the funny, and the quirky. Get prepared for an even more Enigmatic GTi, complete with… ricey Akrapovic fart cannon, unnecessary bypass valves (for when you want to really piss off the neighbors… FOR THE SPORTINESS!!!), pretentious downforce aero kit (because you don’t really want to be able to service your car without spending an hour on the rack first), even more tuned engine (a whole 7hp gain!!!), superfluous launch control (which makes this thing go slower around the track for some funny reason…) You get the idea. It’s a whole 270hp of flaming hot hatch and fun without the actual speed!
Feast your eyes on this sweet tribute to the classical hatches of yore while taking due care and attention to not bark a shin on it’s ruler-ified body!
Feast your eyes on this sweet tribute to the classical hatches of yore while taking due care and attention to not bark a shin on it’s ruler-ified body![/quote]
Man sorry for you, but your car is very penalized because of the utility, very tiny space on interior and boot (the RWD and longitudinal engine doesn’t help)… your score is very low for that and some other point like emissions (with less RPM sure you get more realiability and lower emissions)
In a moment i will upload some interesting stats like power, weight, accelerations…
Click the aero tab before testing the cars! It’s a bug, and you’re probably getting the wrong values for the performance values as a result!
(My car’s top speed should be 263.5km/h, everything else however is about the same. The game needs to be reminded of the aero slider values, otherwise it assumes maximum possible cooling which generally means more drag. If you’re still having trouble, I do have a replacement version with the adjusted aero, but it doesn’t look as good ).
In other news, this will be one of those unique experiences in which my car is probably the slowest of the lot
[quote=“strop”]Click the aero tab before testing the cars! It’s a bug, and you’re probably getting the wrong values for the performance values as a result!
(My car’s top speed should be 263.5km/h, everything else however is about the same).
In other news, this will be one of those unique experiences in which my car is probably the slowest of the lot [/quote]
Yes i know that, and do it… but the result are a bit different sometimes… a bit puzzling. Anyway, the scoring is not affected, because the car’s tameness, sportiness, etc… some of them goes a bit up and others a bit down, mantaining the balance.
When we have more entries, i’ll redo those graphs again don’t worry hehe.
Yes, that’s true, there is some variability in the results on testing, even independent of the aero thing, for some funny reason. I’m not sure what it is either.
On most tracks I don’t mind that little difference, but it will translate to at least half a second on Nordschleife, which is what bothers me! I know I’ve sent in like 3 revisions already, but may I send a final one with the adjusted fixtures just to get that sorted? It won’t change the stats otherwise, and I promise that’ll be the last one
Before 30th all revisions are allowed, but no important changes in chassis or drivetrain (Well if HighOctaneLove wants to remodel his car i’ll admit it, has a base problem for the utility).
Also need to say that i see, your’s car weight was not updated in my xls, your power/weight ratio is the same that my car and CheftonUTD, 4,36kg/hp.
[quote=“ViruTypeR”]Before 30th all revisions are allowed, but no important changes in chassis or drivetrain (Well if HighOctaneLove wants to remodel his car i’ll admit it, has a base problem for the utility).
Also need to say that i see, your’s car weight was not updated in my xls, your power/weight ratio is the same that my car and CheftonUTD, 4,36kg/hp.[/quote]
I picked my car because of the aesthetics as I was aware of the utility shortfall but thought that some variety would make for a more interesting competition . The car I made is something that I’d personally choose over the usual turbo 4 cylinder AWD’s that’ll be all over this comp and I’m bored with trying to win at all costs; if I wouldn’t buy it, I won’t enter it! I passed all the requirements other than the one for utility (out of my hands) so I’m very happy with my entry being able to qualify in the first place!
I got that feeling too, but in fact the best solution here isn’t necessarily a turbo 4 cylinder… it’s probably a naturally aspirated V8. It’s got better prestige for 8 cylinders, can easily make 300hp at low displacements (so it can fit any which way you like), be made to be more efficient, use cheaper tech, is essentially half price because it doesn’t use turbo, and is tamer, but also sportier and more comfortable because it’s more way responsive. If I used a RWD V8 instead of a FF turbo i4 I could have way better points in tameness, sportiness, comfort and prestige easily and have money in hand and use no more gas at the pump, plus go as fast, if not faster around the track. The main thing that balances it out is the loss of utility. Also, I wouldn’t use the not-2002 Civic shell, I’d use the not-2000 Civic shell as it’s lighter and frankly easier to fit everything in and I could use 4 seats if I wanted to sacrifice a few points of utility, I could get all round better performance and comfort and times around the track by sinking the extra money into the tyres. In this scenario, using AWD actually can be a drawback, because it wrecks your choice of engine and body, puts an extra hundred plus kilos on your car and the powers we’re getting generally isn’t enough to make a positive difference to most aspects of performance.
But like highoctanelove, while I know how to ‘win’ this challenge, I insist on using a ‘faithful’ format typical of hot hatches because the extra challenge is more fun that way. It definitely won’t win (as you can see, it’s already actually the slowest car in most aspects of straight line performance), but I’m interested to see how it does against its mostly higher powered competitors on the track. Plus it has insanely good utility rating! (not something you’d ever catch a Gryphon Gear tuner saying ever…)
[quote=“strop”] the best solution here isn’t necessarily a turbo 4 cylinder… it’s probably a naturally aspirated V8… The main thing that balances it out is the loss of utility…
In this scenario, using AWD actually can be a drawback, because it wrecks your choice of engine and body, puts an extra hundred plus kilos on your car and the powers we’re getting generally isn’t enough to make a positive difference to most aspects of performance.[/quote]
I don’t know about that, I’m getting an absurdly high utility score out of my NA V8 powered car .
You are probably right about AWD hurting performance though, my lap time is quite poor to say it nicely. I’m currently leading in 0-100kph times though at least.
oh yeah good point. The added “go slippery places” of AWD (this is something that will receive much further refinement when the diffs come in, as actual 4WD setups get big offroad boosts), probably ups its utility a lot and offsets any potential loss of cargo space as a result of the extra drivetrain.
Guys, but remind, this is an overall competition and the balance is the best way (and i like the variety of transmissions and engines), and also the best cars in each feature will catch protagonism. I’m thinking in a review with images and a short texts like a Magazine, don’t be sad lol all your cars will appear in one way or another.
I was reviewing the car now i’ve seen it on the OP and, crap!!, always forgot the slicks…, and ‘allocate’ those quality ‘points’ in a clever way
PS: nevermind.
.
.
.
.[/quote]
).
