i do generally agree; with some exceptions (such as isekeb, who seems to make autos based on the old CR/BHR style), there arent really any autos ive seen on frhd that are all that impressive or crazy. in saying that, we do need to have criteria for them made public, because we've opened a can of worms here with the featuring of Probably NTBF. there's some very glaring issues, however:
brush autos
i just cant see how we ever make coherent, 'objective' and standardised criteria for a brush auto. in saying this i dont really know anything about them (never have even attempted to make one) and dont really care for them (i look at a brush auto the same way ive looked at line rider tracks, theyre kinda cool but i dont really get it; they go fast and do tricks, but that's all i can see), so happy to be corrected here. but in saying that, i dont think there's anyone around who even *could* correct me. darksmoke (iirc?) invented (or at least, popularised) them on here, but he's not active. other than this..? we're in a real bind, where there's no obvious 'master' of brush autos who is still active, who could help us. there's potential for applying similar metrics for what makes a line rider track impressive and applying it to brush autos, as the two work pretty similarly (imo). other than this, idk what we'd say. length? detail? tricks? speed? slow-ness? vehicles? verticality? recycling? use of powerups? what, if any of these categories, differentiates a feat-level brush auto from a normal one? i cant tell, and idk if any of us can with the same certainty of a traditionally detailed track
autos
unlike with brush autos, we do have some 'masters' still active, and there is still a pretty respectably-sized community (if we published criteria, i think we'd see it grow even) in contrast with brush autos, which are much more randomly and sporadically uploaded. i really am hesitant to make criteria, however, without consulting from people in the know - weem, east (inshallah he's back soon), backtwice, fin (i think these two are still active on discord). it is a bit gatekeep-y, that all these years later we still default to CR and BHR standards for judging autos, but the truth is i havent really seen anything that suggests these standards arent the best. i hate to put the responsibility on him, but frankly atp it's kinda just up to
weem to impart his wisdom. im very relcutant to see us release auto criteria without his/their input, because i (and pretty much everyone else here) just dont understand it well at all
the only other option we could try, is to see if ness can get a hold of rene again (bhr dev) and see if they have BHR's forum saved somewhere. i vividly remember there being resources on there for creating autos, and we could use that. ig we could also trawl CR's old forum and see if there's any resources/discussion there as well
id also love weem to do a write up in the interest of preserving this knowledge. if he quit tomorrow, the technical intricacies of autos would be largely lost, which would be a real shame.
to answer your question
Sltg28 , we do need criteria made public, but this should not be done until we have standardised what techniques of all auto types separate a mid auto from a good one - just like we do between a mid ride and a good one, or mid detail from good detail. to do this, we need to start with people like weem on standard autos (and ig holdups, iirc there was some overlap between these two types on what made an auto good), and then see if we can come up with something - perhaps with tetration and others who have made a brush auto before, perhaps rooted in stuff we learn from talking with weem et al - for brush autos. until we've done this, we shouldnt be publishing anything
Click to expand...
