December 2005 Unofficial NoLimits Contest

**Erik Leppen** · #1 12-01-2005, 11:44 AM

This month's contest is about making a non-inverting coaster. Some unknown amusement park is looking for a tall non-inverting steel roller coaster to attract thrill-seekers from all over the world. You are challenged to make the ultimate coaster for the park. There are no financial restrictions, and you can use as many ground as you like.

Track must be steel, you can choose any of the following track types: Corkscrew Coaster, Hyper Coaster 2 Seat, Hyper Coaster 4 Seat, LIM Launched Coaster, Vekoma Motorbike Coaster.
Vertical G's between -1.5 and +5
Lateral G's between -1.5 and 1.5
Exactly one station
Either exactly one lift, no launch. Keep lift hill speed under 20mph
Minimum height 250 ft = 76.2 m.
Minimum length 5,000 ft = 1,524 m.
No inversions are allowed. Anything banked over 135.000001 degrees is considered an inversion. For this contest, banking is only counted at Vertices.
Minimum 2 trains
Must pass E-stop
Terrain is not allowed
Trees are allowed, but will not be judged
3ds are allowed, but will not be judged and the ride should work without them (i.e. not depend on 3ds for supporting)
Maximum drop angle is 90 degrees

The park will judge the ride on

Building Technique such as G-forces, smoothness, blocking, supports, track shaping.
How fun the ride is
Original or unique ideas

This is an unofficial contest, there is no prize.
The deadline is December 31, 11:59 Eastern Time (US). Let your creativity flow and make something of it. In the first week of January, we hope to get decided which of the coasters the park will choose, and which are second and third.

Use this thread for questions.

CP Maverick · #2 12-01-2005, 05:58 PM

Is there a specific limit on angle of descent to be considered an inversion?

**Erik Leppen** · #3 12-02-2005, 03:35 AM

Why do you ask such a difficult question?

Let's say the limit is a 90 degree drop angle (i.e. vertical). Because, anything over it will have a very small section which is officially banked 180 degrees, which would officially count as an inversion.

CP Maverick · #4 12-02-2005, 04:14 AM

Ok that's all I needed to know. Thanks! :-D

willski2002 · #5 12-02-2005, 10:41 PM

Sweet! A contest to enter my new coaster into!

If you're wondering what it looks like, check my sig.

CP Maverick · #6 12-03-2005, 01:12 AM

I have a coaster similar to that but its not quite tall enough for the contest, so I'll have to go with a new coaster if I get time to piece one together. Your supports look great though, I still have yet to dig deeply into custom supports.

JordanMullins · #7 12-03-2005, 01:50 AM

Is there a maximum lift hill speed?

**Erik Leppen** · #8 12-03-2005, 10:14 AM

Make it a lift hill with reasonable speed. As long as it isn't a launch, then it's okay.

Just don't make a 40 mph "lift"

EDIT: Keep lift hill speed under 20 mph.

Tanks4me05 · #9 12-03-2005, 03:30 PM

When you mean banking over 135 degrees is counted as an inversion, does that mean 135 degrees and more or 136 degrees and more?

JordanMullins · #10 12-03-2005, 03:40 PM

Im pretty sure he meant over 135, so 135 is acceptable but 136 is not.

**Erik Leppen** · #11 12-04-2005, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanks4me05

When you mean banking over 135 degrees is counted as an inversion, does that mean 135 degrees and more or 136 degrees and more?

If you are unsure about one degree? Please just make your banking 134 degrees and be sure it's safe? Why doing difficult about one degree?

It's very simple. NoLimits' banking angles can't be exact, 134.999658 degrees is ok, 135.000437 is not.

And if you really insist on having 135 degrees, then yes it's ok. But jeez...

Especially for you, I have changed it in the rules post

Matt M · #12 12-04-2005, 10:47 AM

The one thing that's bothering me is the beyond vertical drops. Could we please make beyond vertical drops? 90 degrees is rather limiting.

JordanMullins · #13 12-04-2005, 01:38 PM

Limiting!?!? You dont need to go beyond 90 for thrill, look at Millennium Force, every Schwarzkopf ever, and Nitro

Matt M · #14 12-04-2005, 01:48 PM

I understand that but I'd prefer beyond 90 degree drops.

CP Maverick · #15 12-04-2005, 07:42 PM

Just leave it be Matt, I've had to settle for 90° so should everyone else.

As far as banking on a vertical track, would TTD's 270° spiral be considered an inversion? It's banked past 135.000001°

Edit: That 250ft minimum, that's based on the grid in the editor, correct? Has nothing to do with the top of the lift to the bottom of the hill?

**Erik Leppen** · #16 12-21-2005, 12:20 PM

The 250 ft minimum is based on the grid in the Editor. That is, you can not go over 250 ft in the Editor, even if the lowest point of the ride is at 10 ft.

I'm sorry to have forgotten to say, height is measured at track level.

A request to participants, can you please either give a message in this thread, or send me a PM about it? This makes sure that, whenever the email notifiation thingy fails, I can judge all entries.

dukeandPCfan · #17 12-21-2005, 02:39 PM

i had a coaster that I was going to enter, but its only 230 feet tall, and adding those extra feet completely messed it up... i might piece together another since we're on break, but I don't know yet.....

CP Maverick · #18 12-21-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Leppen

The 250 ft minimum is based on the grid in the Editor. That is, you can not go over 250 ft in the Editor, even if the lowest point of the ride is at 10 ft.

I'm sure you mean it must be above 250, not below. I guess the question was kind of redundant to start with as the rides are not terraformed so ground level is at 0ft in the editor.

I haven't even started one yet...

**Erik Leppen** · #19 12-23-2005, 01:11 PM

Oh. I made a mistake in the post on top of this page.

You must go over 250 ft. That is, the maximum height should be at least 250 ft. THe lowest point of the track may be anywhere, but since terraforming is not allowed, you have to support 250 ft high anyway.

Emann · #20 12-27-2005, 11:32 PM

I finished mine today. Go check "Murcielago" out in the speedzone and that is a picture of it.
<--

http://www.thrillnetwork.com/speedzo....php?file=1772

**Erik Leppen** · #21 12-31-2005, 05:47 PM

Today is the last day of the contest. If you have an un-uploaded finished entry, it is wise to upload today.

dukeandPCfan · #22 12-31-2005, 07:18 PM

I uploaded mine to Speedzone.
Varg-the King of the Forest, a 4 seat hypercoaster at 273 feet tall
I checked the box to enter the contest, but just in case it doesn't register like last time, here's a link:
http://www.thrillnetwork.com/speedzo....php?file=1778

**Erik Leppen** · #23 01-03-2006, 07:35 AM

Please can all contestants say "hi" or whatever, with a link or so, so that I can find the entries? I know of DukeandPCfan's and Emann's entries.

Emann · #24 01-08-2006, 08:42 PM

Any word on the winners?

**Erik Leppen** · #25 01-09-2006, 07:17 AM

As seems, no one else has entered

, so there were only two entries. Emann's Murcielago, and DukeAndPCFan's Varg: the King of Forest.

Murcielago
Very good coaster, Supersmooth and very good trackwork. Lots of work went into the supports. There are a few things to remark. At first, some of the supports were too weak to work. Very long very thin tubes will buckle, because of the compressive force on them. Most supporting however was good and sufficient. Support aesthetics are very good. Layout was nice. One thing I don't see the function of, is the use of two-spine track near the end, and the use of three-spined (triangular) track after that. Also i believe that the two-spined track has too few supports under them. The track is very thin, so there cannot be 30+ feet without supporting.

Varg: the King of Forest
The layout was very good, as was the whole coaster. Main point of criticism however are the supports of especially the highest parts of the track. You made use of two tubes to connect at one point to the track, the point is hwoever that those are way too close to each other, not making a very rigid structure. It seems to me like you just have forgotten to move the fundamental Nodes for the second tube, but I cannot give you points for something you have forgotten. At the helix, the supports are better. Predefined supprots used are not as good as customs most of the time, but whenever track is low to the ground, it is okay to use them. Smoothness was okay, not perfect. There was one big banking issue right after the helix. Use of elements was good, there was good variation.

However, Varg: The King of Forest couldn't beat up against Murcielago, so it is the latter one which is the winner.

It was very close, but Emanns Murcielago did get a higher score. The main reasons were Murcielago's very smooth trackwork and Vargs wobbly supports.

dukeandPCfan · #26 01-09-2006, 04:36 PM

^ yeah the whole second half of that coaster was whipped up quickly (which is why it kind of dies completely after that little banked turn, heading back towards the station....) thanks for the comments and i can't wait to enter the next contest... hopefully we can get more entries for next month, however!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode