Project GGW-02 And IR-01 [pg5]

Ill test I guess. Send it to my AIM

I already tested [:D]

I already knew you were, un-smart [:D] . Looks pretty good.

I'll test.
guitarplayer673@hotmail.com

Well as the woodie has been changed (once again form the latest updates, sorry!) i decided to gice project IR-01 a face lift. It has some elements again, but this time they are even better! Heres some pics(without terrain).

Turn out of 65-68 m.p.h launch - http://nldc.interfix.net/i10560

Ground hugging turn - http://nldc.interfix.net/i10559

Pretzel - http://nldc.interfix.net/i10561

Above and w/ Shadow - http://nldc.interfix.net/i10562

Should be awesome terrain here - http://nldc.interfix.net/i10563

Either underground or extreme ground hugging turn - http://nldc.interfix.net/i10563

Cool angle of the turnaround - http://nldc.interfix.net/i10565

Both elements - http://nldc.interfix.net/i10566

I hope you like the changes I made!

Even though nobodies said anything i'll just give ya'll an update. Pics will be in a few. All track has been completed. And now I need a name and colors to move along with. Please put any suggestions here. So far I have Fusillade and Cannonade. The track after the turn in the last update includes:
-dip
-Highly banked iversion thingy lol
-overbank
-turn
-cork
-cork hop
-turn to brakes

Once again, pics shortly!

me, j.ruyven@chello.nl

Supports Started:


Woodie Man will be pretty much be guiding me through the supporting process. Thanks for all the help man.

I've ridden it, and it's pretty good. Some crazy elements here and there. He's definately learning elementary quickly which is great, meaning I'm personally looking forward to his new rides after this one comes out.

First turn done:

Hey, I may be guiding him through it a bit, but once he saw basically what I do for supports he took off. All I have to say now is make sure the supports are tall enough to support the track-support connector tube.

First two turns done and added in 2 pretty cool head choppers!

Why the sucking hell is everyone using tools, is it that hard to work with hand?

Who cares...not this again.

Originally posted by RCT-3-Crazy

Why the sucking hell is everyone using tools, is it that hard to work with hand?

You do understand that it is impossible (or nearly) to recreate any sort of realistic element by hand that has nearly the same calculations as a real coaster, right?

Intamin and B&M design their rides down to nearly a calculation every inch or so.


In NL, in order to achieve ANY realistic acting or looking element such as a Barrel Roll or Zero G Roll you need segments at least every 8-10ft.




When you can design a coaster in every 8-10ft, give me a ring. I will send you real money but no one I have ever seen or heard of can design at that level. The best hand designer i know is Cactus22minus1 and he designs down to around 20ft.


Its not about making it easier, its about doing something you CANT do by hand.




CASE CLOSED

Amen brother!

I like this coaster, even if it has that ugly overbanked turn.

And, why the sucking hell does everyone complain about people using tools?

Jimmy, people just complain because they want their coasters to be rated high, but without using tools. Some say that tools just take down the amount of originality in a design. But there have been many great original tracks made with tools.

i dont get tools

and is that how they make smooth tracks? by making LOTS of segments?


oh and, looks cool jakizle

Tools only use many segments because of the high level of precision. The precise, the fewer verticies.

I don't think that is the way they work.

I'm pretty sure that they run the track through a bunch of filter formula only removing the really little pumps and jerks. They're not going to remove all the pumps. IF you have a huge jerk, chances are, it's only going to get worse. The better the input track, the better the output track.

Also, most of the tools don't divide the segments up like that. The only real tool that does that is the AHG, and that's only to make the banking even and smooth.

I wouldn't consider elementary a "tool" either. It doesn't actually make minute adjustments to the track. All it does is make the elements that you put into the coaster. I would consider it a program, has more features than most of the tools.

Originally posted by Jimmy Yoshi

IF you have a huge jerk, chances are, it's only going to get worse.

I don't know why so many people say this. Maybe it's just to make it look like you actually need skill to use tools or something. In reality, if you have a big jerk in the track, and you use a tool that alters the track, it's only going to get better. I have put many horrible tracks through the AHG and smoother before and the result is always much better, even if that result is still poor.

But alot of the shaping is there after tools. I know I have a pump, but owell. This is my first attemp with elementary. Over time I know i'll get better with the equations and such. Supports have been started with the pretzel, but im stuck on the big ones holding up the half loops.

Originally posted by IntaminFan397
even if that result is still poor.

So when we say it comes out worse, hows that any different from it still being poor?

Its the same thing but I guess for the sake of being so PC we could just say "it comes out slightly better but still really poor."

Originally posted by Real

Originally posted by IntaminFan397
even if that result is still poor.

So when we say it comes out worse, hows that any different from it still being poor?

It's because it's a false statement. Most people say it to make tools look like they need a certain amount of effort put into the input track to make the result relatively better.

Well, they do.

You cant load up the AHG and without having some knowledge of it get the result you desire.

Too little a starting velocity = banking lesser than you need leading to higher laterals.
Too high a starting and the opposite happens.
That also applies for the ending velocity.

The AHG will for the most part smooth out some jerks, but it doesnt mean its passable. You even stated that. The AHG is the only program that would do that since it rebuilds the track.

Fact still remains -
Rough crap in = smooth crap out

Show me where rough crap in = smooth good out and Ill retract my statements because it seems like you are just being PC and nitpicky. We all know that it doesnt turn crap into a good ride but because some people word is slightly different from others there has to be a flag thrown? :
I dont think thats worth responding too. As long as everyone understands that you track needs to be good before it goes in to be good coming out it makes no difference. I havent yet seen a track that was crap before come out and actually be a different track. Its just smoother and heartlined but still crap since neither a perfectly smooth ride nor does a perfectly heartlined ride (or combination) make a ride good.