07-29-2007, 01:47 AM
|  | The original Maverick since 99 | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: Cleveland, OH Age: 27
Posts: 1,113
| | | Jackal
Jackal
This is my Intamin Jr Hyper entry to the "Elementary Contest." All but 10ft of straight, flat, "connect" track was made in Elementary using a "straight" formula, the ever-useful HSAK wizard, and the fairly new FVD formulas. The entire layout from the top of the lift to the start of the brakes was created with 4 FVD sections. Trackwork is nowhere near perfect as I'm still getting a feel for the FVDs.
Also, this is my first stab at fully custom supports. All the support nodes and the track connecter flanges were hand-placed. I left out the mid-tube flanges on purpose to save on framerate.
Take note that there are NO brake fins anywhere on this ride. It passes e-stop perfectly using "LIM" brakes and "friction wheels."
Questions, comments, criticisms all welcome!
Enjoy!
Last edited by CP Maverick; 07-29-2007 at 01:51 AM..
|
07-29-2007, 04:43 PM
| | Looping Poster | | Join Date: May 2005 Location: between PHL & MPG Age: 46
Posts: 314
| | | It's suffering a lot from these alltoo long segment lenghts. All the banking transitions are slightly wobbling throughout, since there simply are too few vertices to accurately cover the rotational changes.
Try to re-AHG it with like 1.5m and see/compare for yourself...
__________________
Limits? NoLimits!
|
07-29-2007, 07:20 PM
| | The original Maverick since 99 | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: Cleveland, OH Age: 27
Posts: 1,113
| | ^ Yeah, I kinda figured something like that might happen. I also need to work on my transition timing too. Using ~1 second zones for quintics leads to pretty fast snaps. I haven't uploaded it to CS yet as it's not quite perfect enough for them.... or me. I never really thought of that track length divided by # segments thing... I'll have to try that  [I also AHGed the 4 sections seperately  duh...] |
08-03-2007, 03:49 AM
| | The original Maverick since 99 | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: Cleveland, OH Age: 27
Posts: 1,113
| | Posting this here as I was denied posting it under the file itself. Quote:
Emann
Rating 6/10
Well I thought the supports looked good but they were sort of overdone and could have been spaced out further apart. I also suggest using thicker support tubes to make your coaster look like an authentic Intamin Mega Coaster. The track work was good for the majority of the ride but riding in the back exposed small pumps in connections from one element to another. Also when you ahgd it you should have used more verticies to eliminate these wobbles you get in the back seat. One major thing that I noticed was that the track did not pass the tunnel test in 3 areas...it was a real head chopper!lol. I did not really notice any ejector air seen on most Intamin Mega Coasters. Another thing that I did not like about this ride was the pacing. The elements were spaced out too much creating the effect of going slow. Towards the end it felt like you were just dragging on the layout, just to get it past the length requirement. Best of luck to you in the contest!
| Quote:
coasterman1234
Rating 6/10
BT: trackworking was pretty good, some wobbly/snaps turns seen from the back, but overall nothing terrible. The part that killed this rating was 3 places where the coaster failed the tunnel test.
O: very original
A: decent in the beginning of the ride, but terrible towards the end.
Overall, it was decent, but not great. The pacing really hurt the ride, as did the tunnel test failures. The supports seemed a little too close (that did not effect my rating), but were very well done.
Good luck in the contest!
-Note- I was not overly harsh just because this is a competitor in the contest. It is not my vote that counts anyways.
| Where in the heck did you guys see tunnel test FAILURES? I know of 2 close calls where the track spine comes in contact with the top of the tunnel. But such that tunnel clearance is designed to be "out of reach" those would not be problematic to riders.
And Emann, it's a junior hyper, and it has spots of more than -0.5 G's which would, if you were riding, feel like "ejector" air. I'm also not sure what "pumps" you're referring to as the whole coaster is essentially made of 4 elements. I will admit to "dragging" it out to get to the length requirement, but that was simply the helix at the end. The pacing is about how quick it goes from one element to the next and, quite honestly, couldn't have been a whole lot quicker without causing G-spikes.
I'm sorry you didn't like it. I just hope your scores weren't excessively low based on the fact I rated your coasters less than perfect. (coasterman1234... you almost admitted to doing that by saying "i didnt do that"... so... lets hope thats not the reason)
Last edited by CP Maverick; 08-03-2007 at 03:51 AM..
|
08-03-2007, 12:30 PM
|  | Carowinds Hater Poster | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: North Carolina Age: 17
Posts: 1,473
| | | No, actually, just as I said, I did not rate harsher just because its a contest entry, or because you gave my coaster a lower score (it doesn't matter anyways, it's the judges vote that counts). I put the -Note- at the bottom to clarify, since, from what I've seen in other contests, people get very defensive about their designs, if they aren't given a very high or perfect score. I don't expect perfect scores, which is why I put most of my coasters on CS to see what ratings they really get.
I've always understood tunnel testing (attached pictures) to be where you put tunnels on both segments of the area being tested, then go to the simulator, and check to see if both tunnels collide. That's what I do on my designs, and that's what I did on this one. I did see that, without the top section of track having a tunnel, it clears it, but I've always used the top and bottom tunnel testing. If I am doing this wrong, I do apologize and will change the score, but that's what I've always understood it to be.
__________________ Boycott Carowinds 2009! |
08-03-2007, 11:49 PM
| | The original Maverick since 99 | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: Cleveland, OH Age: 27
Posts: 1,113
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by coasterman1234  I've always understood tunnel testing (attached pictures) to be where you put tunnels on both segments of the area being tested, then go to the simulator, and check to see if both tunnels collide. That's what I do on my designs, and that's what I did on this one. I did see that, without the top section of track having a tunnel, it clears it, but I've always used the top and bottom tunnel testing. If I am doing this wrong, I do apologize and will change the score, but that's what I've always understood it to be. | If you have multiple trains running on the circuit with multiple block sections and different blocks cross, then yes, you tunnel both. However the whole course was a single block, therefore you only need to tunnel for track/support clearances. Had there been a MCBR between any of the questionable clearances, they would have failed tunnel testing. |
08-04-2007, 02:37 PM
| | The original Maverick since 99 | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: Cleveland, OH Age: 27
Posts: 1,113
| | Quote: |
The part that killed this rating was 3 places where the coaster failed the tunnel test.
| Quote: |
If I am doing this wrong, I do apologize and will change the score, but that's what I've always understood it to be.
| You should modify that part of your comment if you're going to change the rating as well. To say it "killed" the rating and then edit it from a 6 to a 7 isn't consistent. Don't base your rating on Emann's because he gets really defensive about his scores. I mean he's going to nit-pick my ride about support tube size to give me a 6 because I pointed out the BT error of uphill brakes. Lets play fair. The reasons I gave you a 7/10 were stated in my comment. I have yet to see a 10/10 coaster built in NL and would personally give Jackal about 8.5 as an overall. I just think there should be some consistency. The fact he said your "creative" supports looked like a B&M hyper and my supports which were modeled after Goliath at Walabi World were unrealistic basically shows me he's biased against me for being critical of his ride. I know mine isn't perfect, but it doesn't have many BT errors. My biggest problem came from the AHG values, which, if I had used the proper value, would have slowed my computer down to the point where I wouldn't be able to properly judge rides. As it is I have to run almost everything with 1 or 2 trains else I get sub 5 fps.
Edit: I was not intending this to be a complaint about a 7... I just think the comment should be fixed as well. Sorry.
Last edited by CP Maverick; 08-04-2007 at 02:46 PM..
|
08-04-2007, 03:30 PM
|  | Flavor of Love Poster | | Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 1,043
| | | Frankly, I think how I rated his coaster really doesn't concern you. Don't say that I was just overly picky on your coaster, because I am on everyone's. Also, I wasn't biased towards you, as stated in my comment I pointed out the problems I found and gave it a fitted rating; You are really making a bigger deal out of this then you need to. Thats all I have to say, and all I need to.
Last edited by Emann; 08-04-2007 at 03:33 PM..
|
08-04-2007, 03:38 PM
| | The original Maverick since 99 | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: Cleveland, OH Age: 27
Posts: 1,113
| | | I'm not making a big deal out of it. I'm correcting an error. There are no tunnel failures on this ride and thus being down-rated for such is unwarranted. If you want me to comment on your rating I will. Such that my supports were "overdone" and need to be "further apart" and "thicker tubes"... Which, if you knew about the properties of steel in compression, you would know that there was nothing structurally wrong with the spacing and size of my supports. Also, you term "ejector" air as being non-existant when there are at least 5 moments when you would feel such forces. How could you downrate my coaster for having 7 moments of -0.2 to -0.7 Gs when yours has -1.7 which would be totally unacceptable by any standards? Heck, -1.0 Gs is a LOT and you seem to aim past that. Ignorant ratings are an annoyance and make the poster seem biased and/or arrogant. |
08-04-2007, 07:11 PM
| | Carowinds Hater Poster | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: North Carolina Age: 17
Posts: 1,473
| | Quote: |
You should modify that part of your comment if you're going to change the rating as well.
| Sorry, I forgot about that.
__________________ Boycott Carowinds 2009! |
08-05-2007, 02:51 PM
| | The original Maverick since 99 | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: Cleveland, OH Age: 27
Posts: 1,113
| | Thanks coasterman. It reads a whole lot better now. |
08-08-2007, 11:52 AM
|  | Banned | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: my room Age: 19
Posts: 259
| | | don't listen to 'em
the dunderheads!
this coaster took a long time to make and to have someone put it down really really kills
Such as (not mentioning ANY names) cough cough EMANN!
Keep up the good coasters
I'll keep trying to make them
Have you ever noticed the longer you work on a coaster the more downloads it gets I mean i worked a week on that Spitzer coaster and got 36 downloads (not bad) but i worked a day on one coaster and got like 17 downloads so i think i'll work longer on them |
08-08-2007, 01:08 PM
|  | lieks mudkipz | | Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 989
| | | I really enjoyed it, especially the weaving areas, it must have taken quite a while to get it smooth.
The supports were very realistic too.
__________________
o hai. i herd u liek mudkipz?
|
08-08-2007, 01:26 PM
| | The original Maverick since 99 | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: Cleveland, OH Age: 27
Posts: 1,113
| | Thanks guys My next project is going to be my first with 3ds. I'm also drawing up plans for a 160ft out & back wooden coaster.
Feel free to leave comments and/or ratings on the coaster page.
Last edited by CP Maverick; 08-08-2007 at 01:34 PM..
| | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | | |
