HSAK Radius Problem

This probably isn't very difficult to do with a decent understanding of FVDs and the Elementary, but since I only use the Elementary for basic parts of the ride such as the station and lift I would like to know a way to control both the vertical and horizontal radius of a turn. I'm trying to create a turn at the top of a lift similar to the one on Legend, but the HSAK only allows me to set the radius of the turn itself, not the radius of slope change on the entrance or exit.

Here's a couple of screenshots of the area I want to have a constant radius going into the drop.
http://www.nolimitsdevcenter.net/p4113

Well, as for HSAK and even Reds Cornu formulas i can say without hesitation there is no way to get a constant radius in the place where you want it (Hey, not even my private versions cant do that). Even with FVD you couldnt do it since you control forces and banking, not some radius. Which leads me to the question why you would need constant radius there.

You're right, I don't need a constant radius on the pullover into the drop, the only radius I need to remain constant is the turns'. Is there any way I can do that and not have the exit flatten out like it does? All I want is a constant pullover motion into the drop instead of that small flat exit.

To my knowledge, no. Kinda like the drop turn on Goliath WW. You would need to create your own formulas for something like that where you need the radius to carry over instead of stopping then starting again.

IF397, why dont you use FVD's? Just wondering. I fought with it for awhile and finally began to understand it. Once you get that basic understanding its pretty easy to do things especially like that.

You can use the cnake formulas for what I think you need. Uhm lemme whip up something quick like a lil' tutorial.

Originally posted by Real

IF397, why dont you use FVD's? Just wondering. I fought with it for awhile and finally began to understand it. Once you get that basic understanding its pretty easy to do things especially like that.

Since I can't use FVDs, my complaints with it have to come from the rides I've seen built using them, and the information I've gathered reading these forums. First, I don't like the way the formula creates the elements. Creating elements based off of g-force inputs isn't ideal compared to the way HSAK creates elements -- I would rather have full control of the shape first rather than forces.

The main reasons I don't even bother with FVDs though are the following:

1) I can handbuild anything I want to make. Sure, it's a pain to try recreating the level of engineering Intamin uses, especially using beziers, but not only is it possible but handbuilding allows me to design the element with the EXACT shape that I want.

2) CCI designs their coasters using very basic shapes that I'm not sure if FVDs can recreate. For example, if you look at the way CCI designs their turns, they almost always use a perfectly constant radius, and if it isn't constant then it's probably expanding or tightening in a mathematically perfect way. Every FVD coaster I've seen uses unrealistically shaped turns instead of turns with constant radii.

3) I've never seen a coaster designed using the Elementary have the actual feel of a real coaster. I only care about complete realism, and handbuilding gives the track small inconsistencies a real wooden coaster may have.

Trust me, if you want complete realism, especially for a CCI style woodie, Elementary is the way to go. It can be done, and very easily. Eventually I'll release something that clearly proves that, (and some peoples' already released rides do a pretty good job of proving it) but for now... experiment and learn. I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Originally posted by dcs221

Trust me, if you want complete realism, especially for a CCI style woodie, Elementary is the way to go. It can be done, and very easily. Eventually I'll release something that clearly proves that, (and some peoples' already released rides do a pretty good job of proving it) but for now... experiment and learn. I'm sure you'll figure it out.

I'm sure if anyone can create an extremely realistic CCI using the Elementary, you and Real would be the ones who could do it. I'm still going to remain skeptical until I see it though. [;)]

However, this post has inspired me to take a whack at FVDs again and see if I am able to at least create a segment of track.

Trust me, Dcs definitely has nailed down the CCI style in Elem...hopefully you'll get to check them out in like 2014...

just change it by hand... it's not that hard. if you take so much time to try and remedy this minor problem to an already minor piece of track, it defeats the purpose.

Originally posted by SMer

just change it by hand... it's not that hard. if you take so much time to try and remedy this minor problem to an already minor piece of track, it defeats the purpose.

Nah, it really doesn't. Because he can use this knowledge in future rides. I'm sure an element like this will be used again.

And as for controlling both radii, I do know somebody who has done it.
Wing-Over wrote his own formula that worked out quite nicely. Pretty much everything he did was with the modified version of H:SAK that he wrote. Pretty impressive what he did really. So if anybody still talks to him, he's the one to talk to.

Originally posted by SMer

just change it by hand... it's not that hard. if you take so much time to try and remedy this minor problem to an already minor piece of track, it defeats the purpose.

It's not exactly easy to modify something with a constant radius that's so tight by hand. Whatever I do, there's going to be some kind of weird bump or shaping issue that will result from it... I would not just have to modify the last segment, but the few before it.

Originally posted by Iron Man
And as for controlling both radii, I do know somebody who has done it.
Wing-Over wrote his own formula that worked out quite nicely. Pretty much everything he did was with the modified version of H:SAK that he wrote. Pretty impressive what he did really. So if anybody still talks to him, he's the one to talk to.

Nobody has heard from him for over a year, so either he has lost his interests in NoLimits completely or something very bad has happened to him..

I like that you're still skeptical IntaminFan397, gives me more of a challenge and makes one more person I get to prove wrong haha

FVD is a really bad idea for CCI tracks, but yeah by all means practice that, it opens up a lot of possibilities with Elementary. Great for most B&M and Intamin shaping.

You could always have constant radii with the FVDs, totally independent and controlled for both vertical and horizontal even. The big drawback will be that you have to be fully aware of *all* the required forces and their orientations at any spot of the track. This would require you to handle two additional vectors instead of the one used, plus including speed/height into your calculus, with then creating the actual FVD zone-input out of these two vectors. You'd have to extend the public formulas on your own, that's just it.

Moreover you will have the time of your life with finding valid and realistic transitions from constant radii to actual plain vanilla FVD design and back. Buster and me have done all that, but since the FVDs (as you know them) were never ever intended for such tricks, we neither commented on that, nor will we give any advice.

The required math might probably burn your brain.

P.S. Therefor, any braindead peeps might still give it a risk-free try.