Update Speculation thread

oh boy a flying bus with very small rockets strapped to the side sure is realistic

 

It's a joke/physics testing-vehicle, it's not meant to be realistic, anyway do you think we'll get something for this #teasertuesday

 

The devs 'care about realism' in the sense that they want the physics to be correct. I don't think they lose sleep over the fact that an engine is 2cc too big for a car from a specific era compared to real life. In essence, their vehicle line up isn't realistic to begin with, because it features non-existing brands.

As for the #teasertuesdays, my guess is that it was a temporary thing for the summer holiday

 

You do realize the cars are fictional? Just because the roamer looks like a ford explorer it doesn't mean the turn lights have to be arranged in the same way. Please don't continue with this.

https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1995-04.html

 

Well it says it's a urban legend

 

Well a fictional vehicle can be realistic by following contemporary styling trends and rules/regulations, having correct equipment for the market segments, etc...

Just look at the Bluebuck, it fits perfectly into the contemporary market segment while not being a copy of any of her IRL peers either. IMO that's how all Beam vehicles should be: a fictional vehicle that wouldn't be out of place if it was real.

As for the ram bus, I don't see how that's not realistic. Obviously there aren't any JATO killdozer busses driving around town, but it's not like it's physically impossible to bolt some JATO's and a steel plow to something.

 

Except for the taillights, there too small, take a look at the fullsize cars Detroit was pumping out at the time, do you see any lights that small ?

 

the impala's are about that size, (though they are a fancier design)

 

and thats another thing, there are none of those small little details that became the norm in the early '60s, those really enhanced the car and gave an upmarket feel even though it was probably a basic car (chevrolet) on the Bluebuck. Its honestly the most barren thing i've laid eyes. Of course that can be forgiven to due to the time and difficulty of doing all those little things like roof liner and chrome bits. But those puny little things, and i mean no offence to the person who did them, are pathetic. The more i look at them the more i see the wasted potential, whoever did them just took the short, lazy way out. While the rest of the car looks like its come out the sixties, that sad, miserable rear end isn't anything, theres no detail in it. you only need to see any of the '60-64 Fords to see what a let down they are. Its too late now for any any major body changes by the devs, but im sure someone who knows a thing or two about early 60s car will do a mod to rectify it... One day

 

the bluebuck's front and rear fascias single-handedly give me an urge to start modding

 

The front highly reminds me of the late '60s Rambler Rebels, its ok and will do but not really keeping in tune detail-fest early '60s american cars, the taillights look like there from a '60 Cadillac, but poorly executed

 

The chunky Barstow bumpers would like to have a word with you.

 

GRRRRR THESE BUMPERS ARE TWO INCHES TOO BIG THIG GAME IS UNPLAYABLE
I DEMAND EVERY SHITTY, SLOW, OLD CAR BESTOWED UPON ME BE TO THE EXACT SPECIFICATIONS OF ITS REAL LIFE COUNTERPART

 

I actually find it pretty cool that the devs dont stick too close to IRL designs, as the beamng universe seems to have a completely different history than our world, (with different racing drivers, brands, and presumably car designers), it wouldn't make sense to have such a subjective thing as design not change slightly. IMHO the devs manage to ride the thin line between copy and fiction pretty well
Gta V for example just copies real cars with only slight changes and they look pretty bad, is that what you want?

 

I suppose there is some kind of uncanny valley but with video game cars. You don't want it to look very much like a real car, only a car that fits in a certain time-frame as a real car.

 

I rather care about the styling, personality and memorability a car has than throwing a fit about the car being slightly outside the realism department.

 

I'm not so much bothered by some cars being off, but by why they are off - and how those why's are broken so badly on other cars.

The '85 D-Series fascia, for instance, was made the way it was because apparently, having interchangable valances is more important than having an '80s truck that looks like an '80s truck. But on the Roamer facelift, you have to change everything - fenders, hood, radiator support - to get the new fascia to fit.

The Piccolina was made faster for "gameplay reasons", while the stock Wentwards, the stock Pigeons, and the Covet Skidplate - which are all slower than my Autobelli 70 - are perfectly fine.

The Piccolina can't get a smaller engine because BeamNG "isn't meant to be an automobile history simulator", so why were the tire names for the bias-plies and older radials changed to simulate that aspect of automotive history? Isn't that making it harder for people to understand how big the older tires are? Doesn't that affect gameplay?

At least have some established rules for what is and isn't "correct". If I'm getting a better experience of what a slow car would be like from Midnight Racing: Tokyo - a ROBLOX simcade game - than BeamNG.drive...well, that's a bit odd, to say the least.

 

What are you even talking about? The D-series looks like an 80's truck. And with the newer fascia it looks like an early 90's truck.
The reason that the Roamer has a more in-depth facelift is because the Roamer facelift physically changes more parts. The headlight and grille shapes are completely different, and as such almost all of the nearby parts have to be changed. The D-series facelift fascia is the same shape and size as the pre-facelift fascia, so less parts would have to be modified.
You're pulling problems out of thin air.

"gameplay" as in "career mode gameplay." The wentward, skidplate covet, and pigeon exist to be fun in freemode, and to be the centerpiece of some wacky career mode mission. A slow Autobello wouldn't be fun, it wouldn't be quirky, it would just be miserable.

Because the only people who would actually use those bias ply tires care more about history than the average person. BeamNG is steering istelf away from a strict simulator, and making changes that might not be 100% historically accurate as a result. If career mode is ever released, It'll probably be the one main selling point for the game. Your average Joe is more interested in JDM cars, supercars, or generally fun cars rather than the beige, bias-ply adorned cars that everyone on this webside loves for whatever reason.
In other words, the names were changed to bring back some historical accuracy without affecting gameplay.

The majority of people who will buy this game when if career mode drops do not care about slow, boring cars like the LeGran, Wendover, '96 Pessima, etc. Those cars will most likely be sidelined and serve the purpose of "generic traffic car", and "bait for people who get hot and bothered when they see the color beige." Maybe the V6 LeGran and any possible sport versions of the Wendover will serve as "the first car you buy with your own money" or the "one of three first car choices you get after the opening cutscene"

 

Early '80s D still looks like an early '80s truck to me but idk i'm not from the YeeHaw country.

For the Piccolina, why is having an engine a little too big such a massive problem? To me it's an early econobox that is (roughly) the combination of a Fiat 600 and the Beetle, from an auto company looking to cash in on the '73 oil crisis. The body is a little on the large side, but the engines check out - with the Beetle's smallest being 1.1L.


I'm much more bothered by the glaringly obvious USDM bumpers on the seemingly JDM Miramar.
Making it either USDM with the driver on the incorrect side, or JDM with needlessly ugly "safety bumpers"?

No, it's still 100% a simulator - a physics simulator.