Real

Basically, you have a lot of areas on that ride where the banking isnt as quick or as precise as it should be. This is because you used a higher filter and/or (and this is the bigger problem) not nearly enough verticies. When I AHG a track, I take the total length in ft and divide by 4 so I have a vertex every 4ft. This allows a very accurate track. Second, and this takes a little more time, but certain areas will require a higher or lower filter and I take the time to go through the track and filter the segments I need accordingly. I think the main thing here is you needed almost double the verticies to get a track that has more realistic shaping and as a result, better G control. I could tell just from pushing my way through in the editor (I do that before I ever ride...just a habit when I rate) that several areas were under or overbanked and it wasnt a result of you, it was the AHG (proof the Ahg doesnt always make your tracks better) I was going to take your original track, run it back through and see what I could come up with. But infact, I know how to reverse engineer it anyways. Give me a few mintues, Ill throw up a revised version with an explanation of what I did.

Yea, I think a thread needs to be constructed to give a simple outline/guideline to reading the G's in NL. Far too underestood. I almost wish Ole would ship the game with an updated script. Which, you can do yourself. You can change when the colors go yellow and red. Hey, DBru, I assume youre AHG'g your rides. Care you throw me the original file you created the AHG from? I want to try somethign that could drastically improve your rides.

100 was Voyage.

lol. Well, remember that banking is relational to the speed. You were pulling 0.7 through the tops of those inversions which, to get hangtime you really need at least 0.0 or maybe -0.2. You take it with a lot of speed. I think your loops should have been taller with a more vertical exits from the half loop portion to allow a top thats more round - so you can have more hangtime. Yours are pointy, almost too parabolic and thus you carry a lot of speed losing that effect. See, I wouldnt have known you were going for that effect because everything else points to "I wanna rip you through this element asap" which is ok!

7 out of 10. Im boosting the score because I know a lot of planning and thought (plus a fair bit of trial and error) goes into creating a dueling coaster. Other than that, which was done well for the white track but not so well for the blue track, it suffers from sub average trackwork and G control. The trackwork all the way around was kinda bad. I could feel almost every node and transition as if it were trying to tell me. On top of that your G-Forces, while you dont have to adhere to strict realistic guidelines are way out of line for a Invert. I was nearly pulling 5 G's a couple of times and forces were well over 4 majority of the ride. Thats really too much. Not to mention laterals, which are more important, were off the charts. I definitly had my head throw around one too many times. That was and is my real complaint. I wish it were much better constructed to match the thought that went into the track itself. Other than some foot numbing G forces that were too much, some headbanging from lateral spikes all over its a fantastic idea. Kudos for a few things I didnt expect like how they dueled on the loops and how the white track follows the blue in the wingovers. I liked that.

6-7 out of 10. Why? First, the techincal. The building tech isnt so hot. Its slightly above average and I can tell youve got a grasp but theres a few areas I think could use a lot more polishing. First, the actual loops themselves. You have the banking at the top starting late, imo. This produces some laterals that really dont need to be there. They can, with those trains, but wouldnt be (I doubt) IRL. Because your train has so much speed through the loops I feel it should have started twisting sooner and lasted a little longer. Ever been on Chiller Robin? That thing had no sudden movements to it at all because it carried ridiculous speed through it. Plus, as you exit the second immelman, I get a 1.5 lateral G jolt that no doubt is from the banking and the transition. This stuck out to me each time I rode it because in a situation like that I dont want to be jolted so suddenly. Secondly is the section from the 2nd immelman to the 2nd spike. Two things I think would have been better. Either a flat section, or, making the radius the same from the spike to the immelman - which would have been harder, but more satisfying. WHat I mean is it creates a very large pump which I admit, in these circumstances isnt such a big deal. Heck, a few rides do this, namely Great Bear between the loop and immelman. However, the radius is so large you barely feel like your still "swooping". Yours is definitly noticeable and I think should have been either more flat or a constant radius. The 2nd spike then, at the top, not sure if you intended for it to curve slightly, but it seemed out of place since the transport sections are dead straight. Its such a slight curve you dont notice in the sim but in the editor its obvious. The ride itself is fun, nothing crazy or over the top. Above Average as noted. Im not fond of being pulled up first, head first. Id rather get pulled the other way. This does keep everyone in the dark initially about the layout and how its going to be since you cant see, however I wonder if that effect is diminished because on the way back its all forwards. People might actually only remember that last part and not remember the initial craziness of being backwards. I personally think saving the backwards for last is going to heighten the overall experience. Leave you with the best for last. Decent ride that IMO is marred only be the techincal side. Good concept, wish it were pulled off with more polishing.

^^Dbru, the lake turn is smoother than years past. But that section due to its nature will never stay smooth for very long. I know that 2 years that lake turn was bad, there was a nasty kink in it. This year (for Holiwood Nights) it wasnt nearly as bad. Especially for as insane as it was running. itsasamccormick - Ravens lift goes that slow to start so they can run 2 trains. By slowing the lift down till the top they gain those precious extra seconds. Since Raven only takes an average of 44 seconds from drop to brake run, if they can gain an extra 10 on the lift hill it helps with blocking issues.

IMO Preview shots with absolutely nothing to show off...about as useful as no picture at all. Doesnt make me wonder at all.

Crazy airtime would be...SROS, or Voyage, or a lot of other rides. In over 100 rides, in all weather and times of day, Ive never gotten crazy airtime on anything but the drop and bunny hill. The other 2 hills there isnt enough speed, nor are they shaped properly to deliver "crazy" airtime with the speed it could carry. That thing could hit 100 at the bottom and it still wouldnt carry enough speed over the 2nd hill to generate anything more than say...-0.5? It barely hits floater (on a consistant basis) as it is. Itll never hit -1, ever on that hill. Same for the hill thats parallel to it. Quite a shame really. I dont see where the problem was in making that hill 20 or 30ft lower and adding some much needed airtime.

That was the point though. While most would notice its pretty much the same ride, they wanted to give the appearance of a new ride "experience" which they did. I dont think its a bad thing at all. Considering the trains are all new (even the structural design) and the effects, its NOT the same ride.

And this is where you are spot on. If all this progress is a result of their moves financially, then well see them only start to produce more and more profit and regain what was lost. If its all a bunch of smoke and mirrors...itll show itself pretty quick.

Sorry, I meant there to be one more carrot. Not directed at you! the person who quoted me rather.

Well, I can understand that, however I could sense a great deal of frustration from Wings Fans both friends and workplace who are lifers in terms of their devotion to the Wings and hockey. I would think boo the moron but once he announces the winner, you dont boo louder. They didnt stop untill he was done which, while the intent is to humiliate him, also IMO is disrespectful of the winner. I too am glad SOMEONE made a stand as visitor in Game 7. Just for a comparison...This is last year in Pittsburg. The booing is obviously less, but somewhat there. Even though its in Pittsburg, there was actually cheering and it got quiet so he could announce. Then theres the 97 Cup Presentation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOtfC-X2038 I dont hear any booing. Maybe 1/8th of the crowd. And before that, the 97 Conn Smythe Presentation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkzLxJfRN0M Booed as he talked but as SOON as he mentioned Vernon, exploded. So, I understand the hatred of him but I certainly feel in the heat of the moment Wings fans in that building were far more sore than its being played out to be! Not to say I wouldnt be if my team blew a 2-0 lead in the Finals either...So I cant say its wrong. Just that they werent as gracious in that building as I had hoped.

Well to not cheer a legend is unspeakable anyways. I am quite sure I heard the booing get louder as he announced the winner. Im also quite sure at he been saying the Detroit Red Wings, the booing would have instantly stopped and switched to cheering. Which I would understand. But out of respect for the winners, why not just boo as he comes out, then stop when he announces the winner? Well, no one to blame but the Wings for losing this year. Up 2 to nil and you lose the next 4 out of 5? That suckage. I was lovin Fleurys epic standoff on those last 2 faceoffs.

How could you place much blame on the new management? You cant possibly change things that were years in the making and you cant expect them to turn around something that was so run into the ground that it would take monumental efforts to rectify - and even then, you might not be able to. I think its fair to say majority of the issues ARE last managments fault. Its a lot like a presidency. Sometimes a bill passed doesnt show good or bad till the next president takes office. Then, that next president is either hailed for that achievement or burned for the failure. Old management did run SF into the ground and then continued to dig a deeper and deeper hole. Im sure Shapiro has made mistakes but they are far less significant I believe than where SF WAS at. This is good news. They can start to move forward now like they have been.

^^^Your point is valid about why the track is so strong, but thats how its always been. Most manufacturers have always designed the main track system so that it can not only handle the load but also span a certain distance without support. This does save on cost. But Im also thinking this track system will only be used for insanely huge or fast rides with high g's. I dont see it as a total switch by Intamin.

Guys...since when is a designer locked into a certain track style? Especially when the current track style isnt handling speeds nearly what this ride (especially the F1 Coaster (NOT RING RACER) is proposed to push). It seems to me that because of the speeds and forces that going for a track this style shows this isnt going to be some pansy coaster. Remember all of the rockets use shorter, lighter trains. Only MF is in its own category but its only going 93mph. If this thing will eclipse the F1 Coaster or be close, were talkin like 140+.

Comparing to the F1 Coaster it seems rather clear itll be Intamin since I believe thats whos doing that one. Second, the double spine would probably be for the forces exerted on the track. Im also anticipating a larger or longer train than a rocket, thus a more pressing need for a track that can handle immense speed, g forces and weight. Just look at the Ties...cones?! Do you realize how strong that is? Then the spine they are attached too? It does make you wonder the scale and size of this thing. You wouldnt make track THAT beefy if there wasnt a good reason for it.

Voyage is suffering a similar affliction. On the walkback I listened in to a conversation with Korey and one of the lead Mechanics, Dennis. They explained where the track was developing some serious kinks and how they were working with the ledgers to unkink it. They also mentioned and explained what bolsters were and I knew after my first ride this thing would be a beast to maintain. Or, as Dennis called, "The Monster". PTC's + fast speeds + G Forces arent good. I think the D&S rides werent initially made with respect to what the PTC's could do, nor were they kept up. I think now theres a better understanding of what these trains do to the track and it seems that TGG has altered the way they design along with how its built to maximize the coasters life. Itll still beat itself up, especially rides like Voyage or Boardwalk Bullet but not as quickly. MS went to hell really quickly...and has never recovered.

There is no "way" to ride it. No one good seat. You can ride loose or you can ride rigid. The trains will still track the rails exactly like it usually does. Itll still jar and jackhammer. Its not like an Arrow where you can hold your head against the restraint in the right direction so the jolts are minimized. They arent? PTC's are comfortable for me and my 270lb friend who barely fits. I dont see how they make the ride uncomfortable. ANY set of trains (without a retrack) is going to track like garbage around and it will still suck and jar and jackhammer. The problem is the trains but not how they feel. Its the fact that PTC's are heavy trains and without proper maintenance, they will tear up not so much the structure, but the running rails. Voyage is experiencing that now and needs bolsters every year to anchor certain spots as the running rails are shifted around. Holiday World invests in the ride to maintain it, Cedar Fair generally does not. If you did stick Millennium Flyers, it would still suck UNLESS the ride was retracked. The supports are fine - I actually think its oversupported. But I think another problem was initially at the inception of the ride. We compare to TGG and especially GCI in terms of tracking and thats terribly unfair. These 2 companies have been around the block and have developed new and better ways to install the track and as a result their rides last longer. GCI especially is amazing at their handiwork and combined with the light and articulating trains, the forces exerted are minimal.

thats better. Hard to see on my phone but that looks better. Im all for creative supporting, but i think it still needs to be realistic. Thats the payoff, being creative and innovative while making it realistic. ACTUALLY, (Now that Im on a computer and can see) The support right at the back of the train is what I was talking about. Theres a lot of load on the track in that spot. The airtime hill can be far less supported but when youre pullin positive G's, you need a direct support. I think you could remove the supports you added and put them there. Youll still retain your look and itll be more realistic with functionality.

I felt that immediatly when I saw that. On that airtime hill, the connections to the track where theres no support directly under (or even coming off at the same angle) I really feel there should be a support at least going back to the main base of supports.

Well remember this was supposed to emulate the original settings. Not the settings of years past. It ran with its primary speed in reverse, getting the back seats pretty much within 10ft within the back spikes plunger stops both trips. The front however, on the last run, the back never quite got vertical on a consistant basis. This is also why the ride lacks the extra supports that were later added and the changed up sequence.

You mean you cant tell that the cars vibrate and shake around like crazy instead of the train not vibrating around? Well really its just the camera, not the train, but it makes everything look a lot shakier. Im not sure 100ft would do it. Even if you made the elements more intense, 100ft doesnt take much off the actual ride time. Just some observations! I say finish this, fix on your next rides.

First impressions are eh. Ride is very linear with 180 degree turns around the mid/end. Transitions from turns to hills were pretty bad. Also, for a Mini-Hyper theres a line between too long and too short. I think yours went too long. You dont want to drag the experience on. You want just the right amount where you know the riders are satisfied and wowed, but not overdone. Its a decent looking ride but needs more TLC with the trackwork. Oh, turn off shocks!