Wild Racing’s boats and tracks put my AI tools to work

The boats in a Wild Racing image needed to look like the boats in my game. The tracks I was building needed to pass above and below each other through the same landscape. Those were two of the jobs behind the AI comparisons in my October 26 update.

They gave me concrete reasons to choose different tools. An image could look convincing and still use the wrong boats. A landscape could include a waterfall while missing the mountains that were meant to surround it. Meanwhile, the ordinary coding and bug fixes still needed to get done.

The boat artwork needed the right boats

I tried Argon on a Wild Racing boat-race image. The first result used generic boats, which missed the point of the request. I wanted the artwork to represent the game I was actually building.

In the recording, I described taking three prompts to get the image closer. I could recognize some of the boats by then, but I was still unsure whether all of them were right. That uncertainty mattered: getting closer was not the same as finishing the job.

I already had five reference images that ChatGPT had made using the correct boat models. That made the new attempt particularly frustrating. The useful comparison for me was whether the result matched those existing game elements, rather than whether it looked like a plausible boat-racing picture.

The boat-artwork discussion starts at 2:03.

Two tracks running through one landscape

The world-building job had a different challenge. My vision was for one track to run above another, with both passing through the same world. Players on one route would be able to see people on the other.

In the update, I compared landscape images from Sol 6.1 and Astra, both at High. I pointed out missing mountains and waterfalls in one version. Those details were part of the scene I wanted, and the difference was large enough to affect which tool I would use for that kind of work.

This was where I preferred Astra. I described using it for game physics and world-building tasks, even though it used more of my allowance. The comparison in that section was a rough picture of the landscape; it was not a measured physics test.

You can watch the landscape comparison from 10:37. Later in the same section, I explain the idea of the tracks running above and below each other.

Sol for the fixes, with Claude still in the mix

For coding and bug fixes, I said I was using Sol almost exclusively. In that work, Astra did not necessarily give me a better result. It could still take several prompts, used more of my allowance, and felt much slower than Sol 6.1.

That did not make Astra irrelevant to the project. The landscape example was a reason to keep using it selectively. I wanted the extra effort where it made a visible difference to the world I was trying to build.

Claude also remained part of the game work. I credited Opus 5.5 with the Wild Skies work I had just done, without switching to Astra for it. I did not know whether it would have handled the overlapping-track landscape as well. That was an open question, not another result I had tested.

The game still needed Roblox Studio

There was another practical distinction in the update: where the work could be checked. I described Codex launching Roblox Studio and testing things on my machine. The cloud setup I was discussing could handle code work and syntax checks, but it could not run Studio for the in-game checks I needed.

For me, that kept local tools relevant even when cloud coding worked well. Fixing a bug and seeing the game run were both parts of the job, and they did not always happen in the same place.

These are my observations from October 26, 2026. They explain the choices I was making on this project, rather than establish a controlled model ranking or confirm a finished rollout of the track ideas. The full recording includes the wider discussion. For the game changes themselves, my earlier Wild Racing update covers the redesigned first course, Tidal Caverns in progress, and the Wild Skies beta.