Why Tunnel Testing Is Invalid

I figured that it was time to post my theory on tunnel testing in NL, since so many people do it and use it as a criterion for the judgement of a ride. This pertains particularly to wooden coasters, although I have some good arguments for steel coasters as well.

I think that tunnel testing either needs to be done away with, or the concept needs to be changed. The reason I think this is based on one major issue - the entrance of a tunnel on a wooden coaster is narrower and shorter than the inside of the tunnel, and the inside of the tunnel is used for the tunnel test. If the tunnel is proportional to begin with (and that is a controversial statement in and of itself) it would make sense that the actual boundaries of the tunnel test should be the entrance framing of the tunnel, and not inside walls.

This directly implies that tracks should be able to have lower head-choppers and tighter crossovers than were allowed previously. Intrusions into the top of a tunnel during a tunnel test should only be an issue if they exceed the height level of the tunnel's entrance framing.

An idea that I had is to try to create a tunnel using the tunnel maker that matches the entrance frame of the regular wooden coaster tunnel. This way, we can have more realistic boundaries. Hopefully, NL will eventually have a test available to determine minimum heights that are properly scaled and calibrated. Until then, I still hold that the tunnel test doesn't work.

Any thoughts?

How about using your gut instead having the computer do it for you...

Yes, the gap is barely anything so theres no real point in going through all the effort to make it 1 inch closer to the supports. It's not theoretically correct but it saves more time if you tunnel test it like you normally would.[:)]

You can always convert the track to the looper and do it then.

I say better safe than sorry.

I usually do just use my gut instinct on my head-choppers, and occasionally I'll even go so far as to use relative measurements with the train passing under the area in question for the closest of them, but there really does need to be a litmus test and I still don't think that the tunnel test cuts it.

Insofar as the distance being worth the effort, it depends on the scenario. The current best-measurement that I have is approximately 6-8 inches of difference between the top of the entrance frame and the tunnel's roof. Depending on the scenario, this can mean alot of difference. I tend to try to bring my coasters in as tight as they can get with the head-choppers and such, and people who subject my rides to the tunnel tests often say that they fail, and this is the main point that I'm arguing.

Interesting idea with converting the tunnel to steel-type, but wouldn't that increase the restriction instead of knock it down a notch? The steel tunnels are all-around larger than the wooden box tunnels, and I still think that the box tunnels can go shorter than what they are now. Which brings me to my argument with the steel coaster tunnels - those tunnels don't take into account the differences between coaster types, and in particular, restraint types. An OTSR should allow for a much lower clearance than a lapbar because hands can't be raised up much past the headrest with OTSR's.

My point really is that I don't feel that the current tunnel-testing criteria are particularly accurate for realism in coaster design. I am going to try to make some new tunnels using the tunnel maker for more accurate dimensioning.... I can use some pictures of some real-life head-choppers as referrence, and if it really comes down to it, I can probably call up some people over at GCI or Philadelphia Toboggan and find out some solid numbers. I just feel that the envelope can be pushed further than it has been with the current tunnel-test system.

What I often do is just pause the train where a chopper effect is nearby, and use fly view and try to judge it, tunnel testing takes some time. Often, it's obvious that there is no collision, but on cases where they're close and if I do tunnel test, I don't care if anything sticks a small bit into the tunnel, but if it goes in quite a bit, then it's a potential danger. It's probably better to use the 3ds tunnel as it is smaller in radius and more accurate to test with. But what I do hate is people complaining about a collision with tunnel testing when it's just 1 texel of the tree texture sticking in there.

But even then there are still problems. Build a B&M inverted, put tunnels around the station, and near the lift in a way you can compare the location of the catwalks directly with the tunnel. The station floor and the catwalks sticks way into the tunnel, but that doesn't mean they're at unsafe levels. And on regular non-inverted coasters, the catwalks would still go inside the tunnel if they existed in tunnels, but still do not collide with wheel assemblies. This is why going with tunnel testing so strictly simply doesn't work. Passing tunnel test should be more of a minor safety recommendation rather than a strict rule as you're just seeing if certain head/foot choppers are worth being looked at.

I've never liked the tunnel tests becuase there is ofter way to much excess space which people judge.

The steel coaster tunnels are a shape of an "O" a perfect circle. They should look more like a
__
(__)

to be more accurate. Wherever seats are at the test area should be flat above and below that.

Coasteragent is right in that its not something to live and die behind. Hell it'd probably best be used to locate close calls and then you make your own judgement on if it will be docked or not rather than just "oh a support was intruding 2 inch, minus .5 points"

Personally, when designing I would rather pass a tunnel test, and use an illusion of being too close - such as a covered segment of track to increase the appearance of speed and danger to the arms and head. However, tunnel testing ensures you are safe all the way around.

[hyyyper]

What wrong with tunneltesting? The tunnel is just beyond reach and anything is in reach, anything out is clear...

and for woodies, like real already said, just switch to a steel coaster style, add the tunnels, check, and make it a woodie again

This is a visual aid for you guys to show what I dislike about strict tunnel testing. Any tunnel intrusions should be check by pausing and using the fly view, unless it sticks in and is so obvious. As for the tunnel maker, that is a pretty good idea to go by. Sometimes in real life, you might get those kind of rides where someone can still stick out their arm and still get injured.

It is well known that the tunnel test isn't a very accurate method of determining whether a coaster built in NL is safe or not, but it is universal and pretty fail safe and everyone can do it.

Until another fail safe and error free way of measuring the clearances is made, I think the 'tunnel test' is a pretty decent and easy way of making a definative decision on whether objects come too close to rides.

My only, and my biggest problem with Tunnel Testing is not how accurate testing it might be. My real problem is how some people take off so much just for one little intrusion. It is highly unlikely that some TINY little intrusion on the side will ever be a real problem especially since, as many have said, the tunnels are very inaccurate.

[hyyyper]

yes, but tunneltesting is, wel, accepted as a standard by everyone, it's the fastest way to determine such things, and well, check however you want, but you can't just ban tunneltesting, ppl will still check coaster with the tunnel option

That's what I'm trying to argue against. I don't think the tunnel test is good enough anymore. That is why I'm working on doing a custom tunnel of proper dimensions for a tunnel test - I'm not suggesting banning tunnel testing, I'm suggesting changing it and making it better and more realistic.

Yeah, I didn't mean to ban tunnel testing or anything, I just don't want any "strict" tunnel testing. It can be used to quicky determine if a collision is worth having a look at, but cannot, at any rate, be used to strictly judge intrusions. Some contests require complete passing of the tunnel test, which is quite a pain and doesn't make anything more realistic nor better.

Jon, are you making the tunnel(s) as a universal one, or are you going to work individually for each coaster type?

jon - the looping steel (Shwartzy) is the smallest tunnel in the game.

Im more about creating an illusion rather than just being downright close. Why? Takes a bit more skill, more patience and better planning. Anyone can throw in a headchopper close to the limit. It takes some planning and design to create a headchopped that looks and feels like its really close but in reality its not.

I was looking at making individual tunnel types for different coasters eventually, but I had wanted to start with wooden coasters first since that is really what I spend most of my time working with.

Real, as far as the planning and head-choppers are concerned, it's not that I'm not into planning ahead and getting the illusions going (every coaster of mine is drawn out on paper with elevations before I even begin to put it into NL, so every part of the ride is pre-planned) - it's that I often restrict my designs to such compact areas that the resulting close-call head-choppers are often unavoidable. The reason I am fighting against the tunnel testing is that I measure the head-choppers on my rides based on relative referrence of the cars passing directly under the track section in question from all angles, knowing full well that they do not strictly conform to tunnel tests. But they are no closer than the head-choppers on many actual coasters. For me, the tunnel test is a frustrating additional restriction because it doesn't properly represent actual allowable clearances.

My point may not be really important, but there are a few coasters out in the world that would most likely fail the tunnel test, and they are still quite popular. (SFDL and SFA's S:ROS and Galaxi coasters) I have ridden Sylvan Beach's Galaxi and S:ROS at SFDL and they are the ONLY coasters I put my hands down for any part of the ride due to head choppers. (Coming out of the first helix on S:ROS and the second drop on Galaxi)

I would be interested to know if the headchoppers would actually hit your hands if you did put them up - not that I'm recommending that you try it lol. I wouldn't argue that coaster designs in NL should be allowed to be dangerous because of clearances.

[jayman]

i once scraped my knuckles on the giant dipper here in san diego, on that wall just before the third turn.

[hyyyper]

another thing, WWO's goliath's last turn, you can grab flowers

[Dirk_Ermen]

Originally posted by hyyyper

another thing, WWO's goliath's last turn, you can grab flowers

I told them they should cut down those bushes last year. But they are bigger then before, if you are in the right seat and a little to big your head even can hit some twigs It Fricking hurts!


jonbkchill, why do you want to design a whole new tunnel just special for the tunneltesting safety. Only the more experienced people use it and it would require alot of work just on applying it. A lot of people don't want to do tons of work just to check some hits when they simply can turn the tunnel on and look if they see some hits.
Small interactions with the tunnel isn't a problem to me, but if there are sticking whole tubes in there it's a big hit to me. Even though that might still be safe. If you are scared that people rate you down on tunnelhits, just make it sure that it doesn't hit anything with the NL default tunnel. Since you always will have people that keep using the NL default instead of some custom made.
I think the same happened with Busters realistic g'scale. Some people used it but you still keep those people who don't grab it and still use the NL default, and rate down because it's bad for their standards.

IMO the best is just to keep with the NL standards. Some people always try to tighten or loosen some restrictions since it looks more realisic to them. But the people who just start on building and rating. Won't have those tighter or looser restictions and keep on the NL standard.

So like real kind of said:
I'd rather use the default tunnels and use an illusion that it's way too close, then it is too close and people could touch it.

[hyyyper]

Originally posted by Dirk_Ermen

Originally posted by hyyyper

another thing, WWO's goliath's last turn, you can grab flowers

I told them they should cut down those bushes last year. But they are bigger then before, if you are in the right seat and a little to big your head even can hit some twigs It Fricking hurts!

Whoohoo!

I understand the point of view of using the NL standard tunnel tests. Sure, it's quick and easy. It doesn't need any extra tools to utilize. But if I create a tunnel specifically designed to locate interactions at a realistic safety clearance, then I have a credible argument for the clearances and distances that I use in my rides - a credible argument that disagrees with the standard tunnel tests. I'm not saying that everyone should use the tunnel that I'm making for a test. What my custom tunnel test will do is validate my rides or the rides of people who want to use it in a more realistic way - rides that would fail the regular tunnel test.

[hyyyper]

^how do you know your tunnel is valid then?