Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Quick question.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 13
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Thats no inversion, the banking is only around 92*, but its turned on its side (vertical) so it seems like an inversion. If you play NL youll probably understand my point, but because your turning as your banking like that, your never upside-down. Its an illusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ well it's a dam good illusion

 

Heres what I mean, the picture below is from the NL editor and the selected node is banked at 90*. However, if you look at the track compared to the ground it seems as if you are inverting (somewhat) though you indeed are only banked 90*. I hope you understand....?

1386864886_NoLimitsEditor2006-10-0920-59-00-62.jpg.b1c6b712b0598a115c5ed69851e4549a.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats no inversion, the banking is only around 92*, but its turned on its side (vertical) so it seems like an inversion. If you play NL youll probably understand my point, but because your turning as your banking like that, your never upside-down. Its an illusion.

 

^ well it's a dam good illusion

 

Heres what I mean, the picture below is from the NL editor and the selected node is banked at 90*. However, if you look at the track compared to the ground it seems as if you are inverting (somewhat) though you indeed are only banked 90*. I hope you understand....?

 

You're wronk.

 

The max. "banking" of the "track" indeed seems to be 92*, BUT: neither these three inversions nor said "Stengel Dive" seem to be included in this "banking statistic".

 

If you only would look closer at the pic(s). It's all there & obvious!

(hint: how about that support holding up this element at the apex?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I class an inversion, as a peice of track that is rotated to 180* past the original riding position.

 

This 'element' I would call a Stengel Dive.

 

It looks alot like this:

>>Clicky<<

 

So Immelmann's aren't inversions? And neither are some cobra rolls? Neither of these inversions are inverted 180 degrees-that's a poor definition of inversion.

 

 

A better definition is 135 degrees, but that is still disputed by some people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/