Could I have some feedback on this track layout?

[denkitakeshi]

I recently received a comment that the track layout below is not realistic. I firmly believe that with modern roller coaster technology this track layout could become a reality. I want to ask Alvey, and the rest of TPR users, what your opinion of this track layout is.

 

The intent of the track layout is to combine some of the most enjoyable parts of pre-existing roller-coasters, remove some less enjoyable parts.

 

A couple flaws I admit to pre-emptively:

 

-Support structures are not properly calculated or placed using physics & math... I yield that the support structures are not realistic.

-There remain parts of the track that I feel could be smoother, and this serves as a rough draft. (The twist on a downhill slant before the cobra roll is one).

 

Things I want to note that are done on purpose:

 

-The first twist is not heartlined specifically because most twists are heatlined and not heart-lining makes it unique.

-Some parts are meant with the intent to be wild and out of control (Vertical drop and subsequent bunny hop).

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9vt76era5c

[TPDave]

Moved to the games forum.

 

Thanks

[JonnyRCT3]

Banking is needed during the u-turn before the lift/launch. It'd be more realistic if the train just coasted straight into the launch position, rather than inching to a crawl on even track. The banking should be similar to Hydra's, before the lift.

 

Launch- The deceleration is off, that seems like a brutal stop.

 

It'd be more realistic if it had a "StormRunner" top hat. The inclined launch is fine, albeit pricey. The issue is the crown.

An efficient support structure for the launch/drop is needed, if you want it to seem realistic. The "transition" half-way down the first drop seems uncomfortable and would probably put a good amount of stress on the track and structure. The body is weightless during the drop (amusing it's 90* vertical), so any slight change in Gs would be amplified.

 

That insanely high inversion + block section is the most unrealistic thing. Add in the cost of supporting and building maintenance access, no park would want something that pricey that adds little to the ride.

 

Other than those minor aspects, the coaster is quite good. Original layout, and I like the pacing. However, this is not B&M's style at all (I'm not referring to the launch, it's the layout ). This is much more a S&S type of coaster.

 

IMHO.

There is no need for it to be that large. Maybe 60-70 meters. That seems doable.

 

Realism comes from not only the layout. Ask yourself...

How can I stay true to the original layout, yet make it affordable?

[denkitakeshi]

Banking is needed during the u-turn before the lift/launch. It'd be more realistic if the train just coasted straight into the launch position, rather than inching to a crawl on even track. The banking should be similar to Hydra's, before the lift.

 

The Horizontal G-Force was within acceptable ranges so I didn't see why it was necessary... I'll double check when I get home, but if memory serves me correctly it was something like -0.2 or otherwise not more than 0.5 g in either direction.

 

 

Launch- The deceleration is off, that seems like a brutal stop.

 

Since this was a NL1 to NL2 import, the transport wheels may have reset themeselves to decel by 0.6G, but it was designed so that gravity itself stops the train just before the center of gravity crests.

 

 

It'd be more realistic if it had a "StormRunner" top hat. The inclined launch is fine, albeit pricey. The issue is the crown.

 

This was a "money is no object" design.

 

An efficient support structure for the launch/drop is needed, if you want it to seem realistic. The "transition" half-way down the first drop seems uncomfortable and would probably put a good amount of stress on the track and structure. The body is weightless during the drop (amusing it's 90* vertical), so any slight change in Gs would be amplified.

 

I yield to the point support structures are unrealistic. It takes too long to all the math for a hobby I don't get paid for. If I was hired to work professionally then I would have no problem doing it though (it just takes time).

 

That insanely high inversion + block section is the most unrealistic thing. Add in the cost of supporting and building maintenance access, no park would want something that pricey that adds little to the ride.

 

Hmmm... I didn't think about maitenance access.

 

Other than those minor aspects, the coaster is quite good. Original layout, and I like the pacing. However, this is not B&M's style at all (I'm not referring to the launch, it's the layout ). This is much more a S&S type of coaster.

 

I never knew of S&S, but I looked up their website... and the whole company culture appeals to me like some kind of engineering paradise... dead on accurate assessment. Thanks for that!

 

IMHO.

There is no need for it to be that large. Maybe 60-70 meters. That seems doable.

 

Realism comes from not only the layout. Ask yourself...

How can I stay true to the original layout, yet make it affordable?

 

The only reason I made it this large was the sole purpose of experimenting with the side to side transitioning down a vertical face.

 

Money is no object designs won't be affordable, lol.

[Oryp]

This was a "money is no object" design.

 

...the sole purpose of experimenting with the side to side transitioning down a vertical face.

 

Money is no object designs won't be affordable, lol.

 

With the statements you made above, I'm not sure you want feedback on the realism of the design. A massive coaster that spends so much time high in the air is not realistic because it would not be feasible for a park to actually build. I'm not knocking your ride, just saying that realism is probably the last category I would ask for criticism on if it's a "money is no object design."

[denkitakeshi]

 

With the statements you made above, I'm not sure you want feedback on the realism of the design. A massive coaster that spends so much time high in the air is not realistic because it would not be feasible for a park to actually build. I'm not knocking your ride, just saying that realism is probably the last category I would ask for criticism on if it's a "money is no object design."

 

For a lot of the track layouts I have made thus far, I have tended to think of realism in terms of technical abilities of modern roller coaster technology.

 

Essentially I'm asking, "Based upon my shorthand math, this looks technically feasible, what do you think?"

 

However, this thread has made me realize the importance of factoring in political influences like money.

[JonnyRCT3]

The Horizontal G-Force was within acceptable ranges so I didn't see why it was necessary... I'll double check when I get home, but if memory serves me correctly it was something like -0.2 or otherwise not more than 0.5 g in either direction.

 

I'm not saying it's needed due to forces. It would just flow a lot better.

 

 

Since this was a NL1 to NL2 import, the transport wheels may have reset themeselves to decel by 0.6G, but it was designed so that gravity itself stops the train just before the center of gravity crests.

 

I'm sure with some minor tweaking it would turn out fine.

 

 

This was a "money is no object" design.

 

Then no, it is not realistic at all. That's a big deciding factor for anything built ever.

 

Hmmm... I didn't think about maintenance access.

 

Yeah, anywhere where something can possibly break down(the block), you need to make it accessible to a maintenance person.

 

I never knew of S&S, but I looked up their website... and the whole company culture appeals to me like some kind of engineering paradise... dead on accurate assessment. Thanks for that!

 

Your welcome. This resembles something similar to the Bullet Coaster.

[A.J.]

The layout is cool, but you should try scaling it down. If you're going for feasibility, try staying under 140-150 feet tall (for that particular coaster type) and just get the layout in a smaller space.

Edited January 14, 2014 by A.J.

[triggernel]

You built at 400' tall, 6000' B&M sit down? Ask yourself, has anything like this ever been done? Has anything half this tall ever been done?

[Invertalon]

I personally think the layout is very strange and highly unrealistic. Strange elements, the overall flow of the ride, excessive braking in awkward spots and the cost would be completely insane, just to name a few.

 

I could never see this being built, ever. So in my opinion, highly unrealistic.

 

Not sure why you care though... If you enjoy your ride, that is all that matters. Who cares what others say? Its a game.

[rustyinpeace]

I think denkitakeshi meant to ask your opinion on the bases on whether building this structure would be physically possible. Not realistic. By physically possible, I mean throw out the economic factors such has finance and prolonged maintenance (this excludes construction). He/she is asking if you think this coaster would be interesting given that money and labor is not an issue.

[JonnyRCT3]

Is it possible, yes. Would I expect anything like this to ever be built (regardless of cost)? No.

[StLCPfan]

Yes, but along the same lines as a coaster where the riders are dangling upside down and backwards for the entire ride - this TRACK could be built, but it's not practical, realistic, or good from an aesthetic standpoint. Isn't that what the creator was asking?

[yay101]

I think the layout is realistic, except for one part at 1:42. That will for sure hurt my neck!! Also make sure the supports are good enough. I don't think they could hold the track up, and there may not be room for realistic supports.

[StLCPfan]

Realistic if you think a combination of Rocky Mountain and Togo design aesthetics is realistic. For the most part this is NOT a realistic layout, even for a park that would be willing to spend $50 million plus for a coaster. It's just missing something in the flow of the design and the inversions.