Real

Strangely enough, I created an Inverted coaster version in 2003 for a ride I released in feb of 2003. It is really cool to see something I came up with over 8 years ago, in some form (but really similar in angles and such) take reality. Very cool. The element on my ride was pretty fun I thought.

See, thats so hard to do...I used to be able to do that but having been on one for the first time and seeing just how monstrous that track is and even with the 8 across seating...lol it just doesnt do it justice. Nice looking Dive.

Its been about 5 years since I was at HHN and the memory is quite fuzzy. Are all the coasters open in both IOA and USF during HHN times? Google wasnt being very conclusive...lol

make sure the segment is long enough to engage the train...maybe move the position it starts braking up to the beginning of the segment and starts with the front car. Um...

I have a feeling the PTC's would never make it through some of those transitions. Do you check for wheel hits?

Only glaring issue is the track shaping. Its actually harder than it seems to shape it as primitively as Arrow did with these designs. The banking and radii used on this are close but off to a degree that is noticable at least for me. For instance, the airtime hill on yours has a changing radius - on the real ride its one radius over the top. Also the banking on the diving turn from the first cork isnt quite right. It stops banking somewhere near the bottom and holds that bank through the rest of the turn up till midway where it unbanks for the airtime hill. Lots of other little things I noticed but only because Ive watched that POV a hundred times and knowing Arrows techniques. Its actually quite hard to replicate with the NL software. Still, quite nice. well done.

Wow. I bet the FF and EMT on the site were about to declare the guy DRT. Considering his condition that looks horrific.

Its 3ds... kind of like this And yes, I created those LIMS - they are 3ds, before anyone assumes otherwise.

No, I think theyre fine. Guys, its not like its going to take Maverick sized transitions at 90mph. McVeens animations are always very pretty and well done but never exact and track shaping, while good, is never exact. I doubt a few of those transitions are as bad as they look. Also, a few of those twists actually dont twist that bad as seen in the video. Sure it takes a lot of speed but the angles at which it twists entering and exiting will make for a smooth transition.

Well, it wasnt handled promptly. Paintballer, who had the answer, posted first to instruct him where to post it. Sort of a "hey, buddy, wrong place." then, his next reply is laced with sarcasm again about how he was in the wrong, THEN hes actually helped. then, after i give a detailed help (or just before...on phone, dont have time to go backk) mcjaco again has to remind him how he posted in the wrong place. i know all about keeping boards "clean" but i dont see an issue with threads devoted to individual problems. Its 100 times easier than sifting through huge threads. And search doesnt always work, sometimes spelling or terminology thwarts those efforts. Pumping in NL is, like the "rules" thread, something that wouldnt hurt popping up to the top every so often. Many people still dont understand it or know of the term. id have done the same thing he did. Threads get noticed far faster than huge, sticky topics that contain 20 pages and your answer is buried somewhere in there.

Well, both sides have points. Hes new and venturing into the world of NoLimits is a steep learning curve. You have to pick up how G Forces work and how to manipulate them safely and correctly. You need to learn the program and how to manipulate it to do what you want it too do. Its all a very steep learning curve. I remember thinking Id never get the hang of it when I started. But hang in there, take what people say, try to ignore the nasty stuff and know that the vast majority just want to see you improve and build better stuff.

The readme that comes with it is all the information you need. Itll explain it in a little more detail than what I did.

Few things to remember for inverions: No REL ROLL! AHG doesnt know how to read it. Just use Con Roll and bank it till you get the same angles. If the inversion g forces go below 0.0 at any point, might as well color code those segments black so itll be told to KEEP the banking where it is. That way it wont go all crazy on you. Higher red filter smooths out transitions but also decreases the accuracy of that transition. Sometimes you want a quick transition and if you throw too high a filter on it youll lose some of the shaping.

http://www.themeparkreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29233&start=550 Interesting how that was handled...

Pumping is when the radius of a said element changes multiple times in the wrong directions. Its hard to illustrate without showing you an illustration. Download this file. The first hill is perfect in the idea that it doesnt pump entering it, through the apex and exiting it. The First turn also is perfect in that the radius changes 1 time (from infinite - the straight to whatever it is at its apex - then goes back) So thats how you want your hills and turns to look. The second hill pumps at the top. Watch from the back of the train, youll see the front of the train pump, or sorta inch worm its way over the hill. The exit of that hill and entrance of the next does the same. Rough and not a smooth radius change. However, the top of the third hill is just like the first - to illustrate good vs bad. That third hill is just a copy of the first but because the exit of the 2nd hill sucked, it screws up the entrance of the third. The last turn illustrates a pumpy turn. Itll do exactly what the 2nd hill did, but in a turn. Avoid turns and hills (really, any element, even an inversion) that makes the same motion the SECOND hill and SECOND turn do. No-Pump and Pump2.nltrack

Um, that is a fail. Buster had nothing to do with it. It was Phyter.

Is it too hard to learn? its really simple...I could heartline it in about 15 minutes and tell you what I did and why.

Yea, this sorta thing wouldnt be as embraced in the states thought its such a GREAT artistic expression. LOVE it.

So, instead of reading 40 pages of backstory, whats the quick recap? Has the first drop been reprofiled? I assume that flat section has been rounded out? Any other "major" reprofiling changes?

Purposely underbanked Laterals never get out of any realistic standards and considering that most of the underbanked areas are smooth entrances and exits - would be nothing but a nice swift push into your riding partner

PAcing is crazy, but also leads to some serious problems if you want it compared to a TGG. First, G Forces are too strong. Bottom of the first drop you hit 4.5 - MF hits 4.5. Youd break the track down so fast it would be jackhammering by mid summer. Just not realistic. Id say 3.8 is tops for a ride like this. Intamin woodies can go much higher but its not a true woodie and the way the wood is cut it can withstand a lot more pressure. Negative G's are a little high in a few spots. I try not to exceed -0.9 on a wooden coaster like this. Again, compared to an Intamin which Im sure can pull -1.3 to -1.4 easily (which is due to trains mostly) the G's are just too intense. LAterally things looked ok. The positives were really WAY too high in a few of the turns. One, part of the first turn around you hold the G's from 3.5 to 4.5 for nearly 2 or 3 seconds, banked. While it could be built, it would be destroyed quicker than the first drop, without question. Voyage just doesnt pull that many positive G's. Even its negatives arent high by number but because they switch from positive to negative so far, it feels more intense than it is. The overall trackwork is hand built and is great for handbuilt. However, its not really close at all to a TGG. But by itself, very smooth and very well built. My other main concern is the use of the MCB. You used it what felt like 4/5ths of the ride through. The first half is really, really long and after the MCB its like maybe 1000ft of track then done. See, theres a bit of a formula for this. You should take the length of track from the drop to the brakes or where you estimate you want them to be. If thats say, 3000ft. Put the MCB at around 2000ft. I try to use a 2/3rds rule. It works out well and seems to be right about where most real coasters utilize a block brake to add another train. You needed to hit that block brake at least before you crossed over the drop. Iron those issues out and youve got a true winner. As it stands for what it is, its still a good ride and a solid design.

"Official" release of coaster created in 2005. Reason its called Pier is it once was designed to sit on a pier along its lift and drop. Does not use new physics model and does not adhear to newer, more realistic G force limits we know today. 2 hills would need to be reshaped to lower negative G's. Its perfectly safe, just a lil extreme. This was all hand built and recently AHG'd. I know nothing else was used on this ride. I think I even started it in 2004 but dont have files dating back that far. Oldest I found was 2005. Enjoy. xxrealxx_realpiertest_final.nlpack

If you use the method he used, but move the angled support down and then slightly past the vertical one you can line it up WITHOUT the crease in the supports. It takes time but shows that little bit of extra effort. Also looks REALLY nice since most supports are welded at those angles. Look and see how what you see in the editor doesnt really look the same in the simulator. This would be an example of what I just said.

Go here for a config file that will correct your G Force limits in the simulator to reflect real world standards http://www.themeparkreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=51649&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Nemmy is an unfair comparison. Part of what makes Nemmy what it is is the surrounding area and the fact that a large portion is underground. If that ride were perched up above the ground it would first look silly and second not be as effective. Sure its intense but it wouldnt be nearly as good without all the interaction. And most parks dont have that kind of terrain. How about the BTR's? Intense, compact layouts that make sense and are cheap by comparison. But Im pretty sure it was about the supports and track style that B&M just doesnt feel an urgent need to break that barrier. What they do now is quite good. Diamondback in the back seats is RIDICULOUS airtime compared to Nitro. Nitro feels so tame...so theyve taken their design limit and built within it creating better trains and actually reshaping their hills and transitions to be more intense. Diamondback is a winner. Standing airtime? Ill take it every time.