If the name of this track sounds familiar it’s because a guy by the name of
GyverX made the very first “Back 2 Basics” in July of 2001. However, the comparisons between the two tracks begin and end with the name. According to the readme.txt included with Cr@$h’s version of “Back 2 Basics”, this was his very first track--one he added a few models to and released recently.
The track’s racing surface consists of narrow, twisting roads (with “Crazy 98 textures) raised above ground. Many of the ravines within the confines of the track have just enough water to quench the thirst of a parched parrot lol (kinda shallow, in other words), with the immediate outer area surrounded by grandstands and a two-tone barrier of some sort…seemingly put there to keep non-paying types from getting a free peek at the race. Moochers - you know the type.
My immediate impressions of the track after reading Cr@$h’s readme.txt were as follows:
- Nice layout, liked the concept of raising the racetrack above ground level.
- Heli works, and in most cases you can drive out after a crash, however the cost in time is signficant
- It’s a shame more time/effort wasn’t devoted to this project. Given the layout, “Back 2 Basics” could have easily been a very good track.
As is it’s certainly not a catastrophe – not at all. However, if this track were presented to me as a beta, some recommendations I would make would be to use barriers on the corners. Adding risk factors to a track is one thing; opting to not compensate for characteristics that preclude close-quarter racing is quite another. In addition, the barriers (coupled with the insertion of sensibly dispersed trees) would serve as landmarks in effect, making it clearer to the racer where to turn, as well as seeing exactly where the road begins and ends. Also, the grandstands could have been set higher. As is there are people who can’t see the race (I mean, if they were real lol) because of how they're placed on the track. Landscaping the outer areas to raise the level of the grandstands is an idea that could’ve worked. To my knowledge this
visual anomaly occurs when you place tree models (as in several) within close proximity to one another. It’s not a major issue, however it does grab your attention as you drive by. Finally, I think smaller checkpoints (near ground level flags maybe or something else discrete) set to no collide facing would have been a better option.
Let’s assume the things I pointed out make sense to you, Cr@$h, and if you had known about them, you would have tried to do a few things differently…possibly make reparations to the obvious flaws. The operative portion of that statement is “
if you had known about them”, which justifies the rationale behind beta testing. It just makes good sense to have other eyes (knowledgeable eyes, that is; not 10 yr-old Billy from next door lol) look at your work. A few suggestions here and there could very well mean the difference between a track with a good layout, various cosmetic blemishes, and race worthiness issues vs. one with a good layout “complimented” by very realistic model placement/positioning, competent texture work, and so on.
This one chalked up a Copey Rating of
6 out of 10 possible points. In my mind you definitely have what it takes to be a very good track maker. As I see it, it’s just a matter of experience and knowledge in certain areas that stifle your work. I sure hope you at least concede to giving
The Beta Room a chance some time in the future. My guess is you’ll much more please with the final outcome of your work…and so will others!
<font size=1>
Edited by SLO_COPE (15-02-2003)</font>
