Is a score really the best way to test cars?
Image Credits: Carblox
THE UNTERGELRICH VEHICLE RUBRIC IS AS FOLLOWS: cars that are built with realistic proportions receive 20 points. Cars that have “no open gaps” (1) receive 10 points. Cars that don’t have glitches like “z-fighting” receive 5 points. Cars that are rounded in the front receive 20 points, and cars that are also rounded in the rear receive another 20 points. Cars whose side panels are not entirely flat receive 20 points. Cars that have more realistic pillars, i.e., “tilted pillars”, receive another 10 points. The list goes on, but in total, the maximum amount of points a car can receive is 180 points. To be considered for placement in the Untergelrich car spawner, cars must receive at least 120 points.
With this system, brick or CSG-constructed cars that were built with great attention to detail and genuine care, will earn the most points—that’s pretty much a given. And, of course, the contrary also applies; the low-tier cars get a low-tier grade. For example: exceptionally-built cars like the Viper F33 series earned a total of 160 points. Well-made cars like the Amfluss Leicht earned a total of 120 points, simply just at the minimum threshold for acceptance. And rather questionable cars like the Marvino Voyage earned a total of just 50 points.
While this is great news for both the top-of-the-line manufacturers, it really isn’t great news for the others.
One manufacturer—or rather, a group of manufacturers—had a lot to say about it when the announcement was made. Alliance 11, or A11, is a massive, yet still relatively young auto group founded by Colfedu (who we may refer to as “Colf” in the future.) While many of his cars like the Vicennis Pursuer, the Zhongshan City EV, the Amfluss Leicht, or the Volattolo Stragadna met the 120-point threshold, some of his other works, like the classic Avantidea and both existing Lakas models, were automatically cut.
One issue with this: even though the rubric is objective, the way in which it grades these cars is flawed.
Let’s take a look at two Volattolo models: the Stragadna and the Avantidea. If we were to judge these cars based on the rubric, we could see the major difference between them. One is a 1960s sedan. The other is a 1980s “wedge” supercar.
1984 Volattolo Avantidea, 1964 Volattolo Stragadna
With this system, brick or CSG-constructed cars that were built with great attention to detail and genuine care, will earn the most points—that’s pretty much a given.
Many cars above the 120-point threshold all have one or two characteristics in common—they all feature curvature in either the front or the rear or both. The Stragadna, intentionally designed to fit the period, meets these expectations. The front headlight is spherical, with a cylindrical housing to go along with it. This cylinder extends throughout the entire length of the car—which is another detail I will mention later.
The front headlight is spherical, with a cylindrical housing to go along with it.
Of course, this is the 1960s. Cars in this time period were characterized by their sleek, flowy bodylines. Compare this to the time period, the context, and the history behind the Avantidea—it’s the 80s, it’s Italian, it’s supposed to be fast. Naturally, the wedge shaped car of the time, akin to the real-life Lamborghini Countach and the Ferrari Testarossa, was the answer.
Naturally, the wedge shaped car of the time.
Volattolo produced a wedge-shaped car during the 1980s. Volattolo had also learned some things along the way and made this car more advanced than its previous models, like the Stragadna. The Untergelrich point system proves this fact directly.
The doors? Points to the Avantidea. Nice pedals? The Avantidea’s got you covered. The interior as a whole? Avantidea.
Arguably, the Avantidea is the better car in terms of detail. If this is true, why did the Avantidea score 20 points below the Stragadna?
It’s because the Avantidea, unlike the Stragadna, does not use a lot of cylindrical or elliptical elements. Why would it? It’s a wedge car.
Because this cylinder, that starts at the Stragadna’s headlights, through the side panels, all the way back to the rear, exists, the Stragadna scores 20 points for curvature in the front and scores another 20 points for curvature in the rear. The Avantidea, which has no curvature in the front or the rear, because it’s more of an 80s wedge car than a curvy, 60s sedan, gets zero points for these two categories.
Speaking of this cylinder that goes through the entire car, that cylinder is also the reason why the Stragadna scores higher in terms of the curvature of its side panels, more than the Avantidea. A whole 20 points more, even though both cars are entirely slab-sided. There is no debate as to which car has a more developed side profile. Because they simply both have none.
So, even with the differences between the interior quality, the Stragadna wins, and meets the minimum threshold for consideration.
Now, this is not a defense to get the Avantidea above the 120-point threshold or to get the Stragadna lesser points. Even so, the Stragadna would be booted from the spawner, as said from Lumius himself. And, if I were to grade the Avantidea, exactly how it was intended. I would still give it 100 points, if not a couple points less.
In fact, the problem lies in how the cars are graded. In fact, here is how I would grade the Volattolo Avantidea and Stragadna:
The 1984 Volattolo Avantidea:
Realistic to the time period? Yes. (+5 points)
Build quality? Pretty good. (+4 points, out of possible 5 points)
Technique? Acceptable. (+3 points, out of possible 5 points)
Nice interior? Sure. (+3 points, out of possible 5 points)
Drives well? Yes. (+5 points)
Functions? They exist. (+3 points, out of possible 5 points)
Total: 23 points. Maximum possible: 30 points.
The 1960 Volattolo Stragadna:
Realistic to the time period? Yes. (+5 points)
Build quality? It’s alright. (+2 points)
Technique? Acceptable. (+3 points)
Nice interior? Couldn’t say so. (+1 point)
Drives well? Sure. (+4 points)
Functions? Not a lot. (+1 point)
Total: 16 points. Maximum possible: 30 points.
Now, the cars are appropriately scored. But, is a score really the best way to test cars? Should they be subject to an examination?
If we’re talking efficiency, sure. It’s quick, it’s objective, and it’s effective. Well, it’s only effective if it’s done right. Matter of fact, I think it’s almost impossible to get it done right. The only way to get it done right is to have hundreds and hundreds of criteria, looking at every possible detail to strive for perfect accuracy, to where it no longer becomes quick and efficient. And clearly, that is not the way to go.
And for those thinking a subjective way of scoring cars is better, it really isn’t. It’s not effective, and because everyone has differing opinions on what is good and what is bad, it really just ends up as a big mess of debate, “I challenge this”, “You’re wrong”, a plethora of what is simply just professional bullshit.
So, let’s just stick to objective scoring. If the points don’t work, then what will?
Actually, the points do work. But as it stands right now, they really don’t. And while my own point system, made up on the fly, is not perfect either, it alleviates cars from the nitty-gritty, technical bits that make the rubric flawed.
Let’s take, for example, the Tavro-Volattolo Votexa. The car alludes to the wedge supercar though modernized. Two flaws with the rubric: the reasoning for the lack of points for proportion, for an objective rubric, seems oddly subjective. The car is not just long, it’s “awkwardly long”. The headlights, which allude somewhat to the Peugeot 9X8, are referenced in the comment, “what the hell are these headlights”. Secondly, the car received no points for curvature in the front, despite the fact that, unlike the previous wedge car Volattolo made, this car does feature some bevelling in the front, rather than a sharp, 90-degree angle transition from the front to the side.
Clearly, this car is stylized. It is a reference to wedge-shaped supercars—therefore, it will follow the design cues of these cars. That means the simplification of edges. For a brick car going towards a neo-wedge-car stylization, it does it well. It’s modern, yet the wedge-car characteristics are there.
This is like the Lakas Zoner, another Alliance 11 car, which scored fairly low on the rubric, its main flaw, according to its score, being that it had no curvature. Though, again, the Zoner is also a stylized car. Its harsh edges represent the ruggedness and the functionalist characteristics of this truck. Likewise, the Votexa’s harsh edges represent the cutting-edge speed of the car.
In the end, though any sort of rubric is not perfect, it is safe to say that the current one in place has its flaws. And each one of them can definitely be fixed.
Commentaires