Submissions are now closed, I won’t have time to check submissions for a few days so there’ll be a grace period on the 5th of January for missing ads/car files for anyone that’s missing one or the other.
I have full submissions from:
@YelloLight
@Riley
@breadtheloaf
@Capri78
@PoseidonAutomotive
@Isabella
@Happyhungryhippo
@superbiirdd
@Hilbert
@VanZandt_Breda
@Ritz
@ArizonaCaseo
@supersaturn77
@06DPA
@Kreator
@Ultimate_Billy
@mart1n2005
@MrTreeMan
@David_Herrera
@Texaslav + @Maxbombe
@wafuq
@moroza
@feffel
@abg7
@yesnt4060
@Marv666
@AKA_NOBUDDY + @Jaeger
@AndiD
@CrazyCat808 + @NotChris07
@LennoxV10
@SheikhMansour
I have an ad but no car file from:
@L_Chad
You have 24 hours to send your car file via forum DMs.
Great job on the details. How did you make the doors open? Did you remake the entire door out of fixtures?
I seperated each door by making everything else transparant, and then i did the same for the car itself by making the door panels transparant instead
And then i spawned in the car and each door panel in the photoscene and moved them around to get that effect
can’t have shit in al rilma…
When are the results gonna be posted? I dont wanna sound pushy but im just really really looking forward to the reviews!
Instabins
-
@06DPA: Exceeded Techpool limit (30.6 million).
-
@Hilbert: Model and family years set to 1998, below the minimum year.
-
@MrTreeMan: Trim and variant years set to 2005, below the minimum year.
-
@wafuq: Exceeded Techpool limit (37.7 million!!).
-
@YelloLight: Trim and variant years set to 2002, below the minimum year.
-
@yesnt4060: Exceeded Techpool limit (30.02 million).
mane its 2k you couldve just let it slide i swear it was 29.8 in the designer
how do you change the trim and variant year independently of model and family?
You go to the first tab of the trim/variant (that would be the bottom end and gearing tabs respectively) and just change the year up in the top left corner. If you do it in the main page for either it will affect the Model and Family years.
You have +2 tech pool for free using the campaign and selecting a starting country. If you used sandbox it would have been over budget.
This is evidently something different from what is clearly shown in the rules, which is the techpool menu within the car designer.
Since you made a separate company for your car and didnt make it in the sandbox company it means that it gets assigned a country from the campaign and the corresponding TP offset, see image:
This offset means that you’re getting two of the TP points for free on all areas essentially. When this car is imported into another persons game the car gets placed in the sandbox company which doesn’t have the offset:
Because the sandbox doesn’t have the offset, the cost of those free TP points gets added back onto the TP cost thus putting you over the budget.
For future reference this is how we do TP for challenges:
1: Open the car designer as normal:
2: When in the sandbox menu, either open a new car with the button at the top left in the bottom menu or open an already started car:
3: When designing the car, the button next to the quality slider shows the current TP in that area, pressing that will open the TP menu for sandbox.
4:This is what that menu looks like, as you can see here the TP offset is +0 and this is what we use for challenges to keep it fair and since importing other companies don’t work:
Small update, i’ve got scores and a full numbered ranking, still working on written reviews.
Reviews: Part 1
The producers and hosts pour into the meeting room, with stacks of papers and cups of tea, ready to discuss the replacement of the current Cheaply-Priced Automobile. They decide to divide the stack of 25 entries into smaller chunks, and enlist the help of interns with an interest in design and engineering to pre-rank the submitted entries. These are their notes on the first batch of prospective Cheaply-Priced Automobiles:
#25 - Turtle Tide @PoseidonAutomotive
A simple design, with some weirdly placed elements and outdated-looking lights, all in all, this is the opposite of a looker, though it’s not the worst in the lineup. On the mechanical side of things, it also leaves a lot to be desired, with a severely underpowered engine for its size, attrocious suspension tuning and gearing, reverse staggered tyre widths and different tyre heights (!!??). It also manages to get close to the budget limit due to baffling component choices, such as a premium infotainment system but only ABS. The decision to only use half of the allotted techpool budget is likewise questionable. Thus, this entry’s stats are all near the bottom, with the exception of safety and practicality.
#24 - Drescher 160S Zippy! @feffel
While it’s not the greatest in ultimate execution and its surfacing and detailing is simplistic, this design showcases real vision and creativity, with its quirky name written on the side, or the windowline kink, it definitely has potential. As for the oily bits, that’s where this entry starts to fall apart. The engine makes power all the way until redline and its torque curve dips down at the midrange and the gearing is extremely short, with no overdrive, certainly hampering fuel economy. The tyres are simply too wide and the staggered widths are completely unnecessary at this level of performance, especially on a front-driven platform. The suspension tuning is stiff and severely oversprung, negating any gains from the progressive springs and monotube dampers. Its comfort and safety equipment is right in line for the era and segment, as is the price point, but its stats are ultimately underwhelming.
#23 - Hexe Rosa 1.2 BE @Isabella
This design is a mixed bag, with molding and trimming elements that are well thought out in the bottom half, and a bulging, eggy top half, with unnaturally curving front and rear windows. A lot of its engineering choices are truly baffling, such as the partial monocoque construction (usually reserved for cargo vehicles) and the manual recirculating ball steering (!!??). Its tuning and calibration isn’t as astounding as other entries, so it scores highly in some regards, with decent drivability and the highest reliablity rating. Notably, it’s the cheapest car in the competition - both in purchase and service costs - by a decent margin, though it scores mediocrily elsewhere.
#22 - HPG HC1 1.0 @abg7
Though some attempts at styling and surfacing are made, the end result is an uninspired blob with some haphazardly placed fixtures. Mechanically, it picks its battles well, with good tuning and calibration and appropriate component choices, nothing here stands out as egregious. Its engine is small and underpowered, which gives it great fuel economy. Overall reliability is also a strong point. Its focus on high-tech driving aids makes it one of the most modern entries, and its drivability rating definitely benefits, but it ends up with relatively high purchase and service costs for its size and power, and other stats are on the middle or lower end.
#21 - CBC Tanner JX @AKA_NOBUDDY @Jaeger
A decently-styled entry, well-detailed and nicely surfaced, though not beautiful, it looks realistic for what it is. What lets it down, however, is its engineering. Its power curve is appropriate, though the forged internals are a bit rich for the segment. The same can be said for the viscous limited-slip differential housed in its longitudinal FWD transmission, as that is simply not necessary or even helpful for what the car is meant to be. Like a previous entry, it employs a manual recirculating ball steering system. Its stiff rear end helps it acheive the highest sportiness rating, though most other stats are poor.
#20 - Mara Selena 1.6 LK @AndiD
With styling that calls to mind the license-built 80s cars that Chinese companies built into the 2000s, but much more simple and uninspired, this entry has one of the most underwhelming designs of the competition. Mechanically, its tuning is decent overall, and it does score well in a couple of categories, namely purchase cost, reliability and safety. It seems to reach its low price via low-end component choice, with some unnecessary negative quality to boot, and most of its stats end up on the lower end.
inam watiching this unfold live
Reviews: Part 2
After a nice, big lunch (and a pint), the team starts looking at the next batch of candidates.
#19 - Montiago Metz 1.4 Elite @ArizonaCaseo
Definitely one of the most radical designs here – low-slung, with a massive rear overhang and a tiny cabin. Visually, it doesn’t really seem to fit the purpose, as it’s not a rational, sensible design for the segment it’s supposed to participate in. The execution of the design, however, isn’t too bad and definitely shows potential, though perhaps for a much larger, more premium vehicle. Its engineering also leaves a lot to be desired, as it’s not very drivable or particularly comfortable, with extremely soft suspension up front and a much stiffer rear end. One strong point is its reliability, which helps to soften the blow a little bit. Engine component choices are not the most rational either, with light forged internals but cheap components elsewhere. It is also one of many vehicles in the competition to use positive turbo techpool while not equiping forced induction. Given that it underutilises the techpool budget, more thoughtful techpool assignments may have helped its case.
18 - Rosewood Studio @SheikhMansour
A very simple design that basically consists of a smattering of the basic, necessary fixtures, though everything is where it should be, it’s not really inspiring or realistic. Notably, it’s the only MPV in the competition, which gives it an advantage in practicality. Its reliability is also on the upper end, helped by its under-stressed supercharged engine. Generally, its tuning/calibration and component choices aren’t too bad, it just doesn’t have what it takes to go much higher in the ranking.
17 - ACZ Moxie H3B @Kreator
A mostly realistic and nicely executed design, though not very inspiring and with some low points, like the wheel diameter, the size and shape of the mirrors or the double rear numberplate indents. All in all, it’s not bad and definitely shows thought and effort but it’s far from the best. Mechanically, its drivability is remarkable, as is its practicality. Its stiff rear end might hinder comfort, but likely helps in its relatively high sportiness rating. All in all, there really aren’t any glaring faults, but in such a tight pack it just can’t climb much higher.
16 - Yamaguchi Miyagi @Happyhungryhippo
This is one of the smallest cars in the competition, with only a 2.36 metre wheelbase. Couple the small dimensions with the size of some elements, like the taillights, rear numberplate indent and door handles, and the dopey smiley face up front ,and you end up with a somewhat cartoonish end result. That’s not to say, however, that this is a bad design, as it definitely shows potential. On the engineering side of things, it has great drivability and reliability, as well as practicality, but it falters elsewhere, with low comfort and a massive price tag, especially for something this small, due to generous quality application, which doesn’t do enough to help its shortcomings.
15 - Sahabat Rakan 1.3 16v @Marv666
This MPV-shaped hatchback brings a breath of fresh air to this part of the rankings, with well-placed elements and harmonious proportions that all work well together. Only the lower front grille is a dark spot in this nicely styled car. Mechanically, its components and tuning are decent, though not stellar. Its strong point is its practicality - the highest in the competition - helped by its small third row of seats. It also does well in terms of reliability, though its other stats aren’t the best, with poor comfort and middling drivability. Overall, like other entries in this part of the rankings, it’s very close to its nearest competitors, but it lacks that last bit to go higher.
14 - Bovos Cherios @Ultimate_Billy
A three-door hatchback somewhat proportioned like an old-school three-door estate, with well-placed visual elements that make for a harmonious design with an air of quirkiness. On the mechanical side of things, it’s a squarely middle of the pack entry (wink wink), though it’s reliability is remarkable. It is oversprung and its comfort and drivability ratings suffer, and for some reason it makes positive downforce on the rear end, which would have constituted a realism elimination if there had been eliminations. Though it’s not that poorly engineered, due to all its shortcomings, it just can’t get higher in the rankings.
Evidently, not doing a challenge that requires engineering for like 7 months messed me up.
LOLMets forever more.