Rethinking the way we rate Tech

As most of you know, the number of tooled rides has increased exponentially since the release of newton2. The more i think about it, the more i realize how easy it is to receive a good tech score based on smoothness. I don't want to start any arguments, but i really think its time we reconsider how we go about rating a rides technical score. If a ride is newtoned, obviously its going to be smooth. I don't know about the rest of you, but i'm sick of seeing noobs get a 9 or higher in tech because there ride was "super smooth". Ofcourse its smooth!!! Its newtoned! Duh?!. Its not like newton is a difficult program to master.

I think its about time we find other things to look out for as far as technical score is concerned. Pay more attention to G forces and realism, as well as supports and element flow. I'm sure there are other things as well, but I'm basically just trying to get the point across that just because a ride is newtoned doesn't necessarily mean it deserves a 9 in tech because of smoothness.

If anyone has any thoughts regarding how else to go about rating technical scores, please share them for everyone to read.

[slosprint]

I think that it is perfectly acceptable to consider smoothness when rating a track. I myself would do it based on the track compared to others made with the same tool. I also think that no good rater on this site would rate technical based on smoothness of track alone. That would just make it a bad rate if that is all that was taken into consideration. It would be nice if you were to bring up some specific examples of where this has happened, just so that everybody could see what cases you are talking about where the rater was not either new to the site or just plain incompetent.

Thats the problem though, alot of people are giving newtoned rides high scores based on EVERY ride. Not just compared to other newtoned rides. and newtoned rides are generally smooth in the first place.

i think the smoothness category should be weighted according to the style of build, for example a handbuilt ride should be weighted much heavier than a newton ride, with FVD's and HSAK in between. Also, consider that most if not all newbies cant build supports worth crap, and supportwork is a major fraction of the entire tech rating.

Newton rides should be compared to every ride...it's not fair to have the exact same layout, shaping, and pacing, but call a handbuilt ride better because it wasn't made by Newton.

With that said, I agree with most of what was said in the first post. However, 98% of people know absolutely nothing about shaping/pacing/forces/realism/etc. So you can say that all you want, and I'll agree, but it's gonna change nothing bc people will still rate the way they know how to. I get noobed by these things all the time, and it sucks, but what can you really do about it?

My Tech rating includes things like how the ride was built, and how the ride runs in the simulations.

If someone used Newton I look at how it goes from section to section. There are a lot of little details that the first time Newton-er will miss (things that I've been guilty of myself), things like how a loop is formed. If someone follows the Newton tutorial to the letter their loop will be banked flat as it enters, and then a few degrees to one direction as it exits, which is unrealistic. If I can eyeball something like that, I may lower their tech. I also see hills and drops being made with way too many sections and strange banking changes (like 10 degrees one sec, then 15 another sec then 10 again the sec). They may be "smooth" but they look strange. I haven't started including this in my rates yet, but I'm tempted to take off for how they connect the ride together. I've seen some brake runs that are 2 or 3 feet off from the station. There's then a rough transition form the beginning of their Newton work and the end of their Newton work. The person hides that they missed their mark with a long transport section, or a space between stations. If I see a track that absolutely blows me away, and then there's a rough spot between their stations, they're not getting a 10.

I also include things like how their station, lift and brakes were set up in my Tech score. If I put it into manual operation and I can get more than one train into a block (there's one up this week that I was able to get all 3 into one block), I'm going to take off. If someone has their ride up as being Realistic, I'm also tempted to take off if their block brakes and/or their first brake after the ride have transports in them. Generally speaking, real designers don't have tires in brake runs where a lot of speed is being changed, and if the train is stopped they rely on gravity to get it moving again. If there were tires in a brake run where a train is being decelerated from say about 60 to 0 mph, the first half of the tires would be receiving a huge amount of wear and would probably blow out very quickly.

And finally, I also consider the E-Stop test and the tunnel test in my tech score.

My tech score encompasses a wide variety of things, much more than what I think about when I rate Adrenaline or Originality. Tech is also based on a set of criteria that I consider while I ride and re-ride if I'm rating, while Adrenaline and Originality are mostly gut feelings.

i would agree, newton2 is a very easy program to use and the tech ratings should differ.

smoothness especially on a newton'ed ride is to easy and should be based on flow and build rather than just smoothness that everybody seems to think tech is all about

[Brtnboarder495]

Newton tracks are "smooth", but they can still have pumps, twitches, abnormal shaping, ect. I do agree with most of what you have said though.

Newton 2 is great and all but I'd have to agree that "smoothness" doesn't really mean a coaster has good tech. It can be quite difficult to get the track just right, you need the right g's at just the right timing. I'v seen plenty of ride that just have the basic Newton shaping. Also its deffinately not the easiest trying to capture the roughness of a wooden coaster with Newton2. In conclusion, I agree, smoothness should not be such a heavy wieght in the tech area. But I also think that if tracks are becoming more consitstant in tech, we just need to step our own designs up so we know the difference of good Newton from the bad.

^ I agree with just about everything that has been said so far. Basically, a newtoned ride should not be rated as heavily based on smoothness, because as i said, all newton rides, although shaping and transitions may be wrong, are still generally smooth. Even the noobish ones. There are a few subtleties of a newton ride that do go unnoticed. For instance, many "newton noobs" have the poorly shaped loop, although smooth, it is shaped incorrectly. Same goes for corks most of the time. Also, the signature "newton transition" (described by a fluid dipping motion with basically no change in g force throughout the transition) appears quite frequently on a "newton noob's" ride. These things should be weighted much more heavily than smoothness.

Most of the newton users are too lazy to even bother learning the multi force zones and just slap the simple single zones and call it art. In comparison to someone who diligently works from a week to a month, or more, to perfect the shaping of the ride, the pacing, and the overall quality.

Stuff I look for in a tech reviews: (And generally I reckon would be a good guide)

Realism: Straight brake and transport sections, chain driven existing in one plane only. No track and train interference issues in operation (i.e. could the train actually get round in real life without bashing off of the track or cars bashing each other). Tunnel tests

Operational: How the trains operate, if there's any holding issues etc. If it's a dive coaster for example, are there enough block brakes and enough cars for the track. Are the running blocks equally time spaced etc. Does it pass the E-stop test.

Overall planning: Has the designer had to include an overly elaborate transport section from the end of the brake run to the station because they didn't plan properly.

Supports: Could the supports support the track without a coaster running in general weather conditions (i.e. do high sections have some sort of lateral bracing). Are higher G turns laterally braced towards the inside or outside of the turn (hint: if they are more than about 5-10 m off the ground, they should be braced on the inside of the turn because the buckling stress is usually lower than the general plastic deformation deformation stress)

Track Forces - Limits:
Do the track forces stay within acceptable limits. No forces should be red, yellows are ok provided they are reasonably controlled and don't dominate the ride. Steel should be more controlled than wood, and should preferably have zero lateral acceleration in a banked turn unless deliberate.

Track Shaping.
This is a bit more subjective. Smoothness is more objective, and should be aimed for, although woods can be more loose with that. Good smoothness should have a graduated build up of force to a limit then reduce in one motion. It shouldn't peak, dip then peak again (i.e. pumping) Granted, that's a guide, and certain elements can have differently applied forces. E.g. a wing over could have a set force for the entry and overhead, but build to a higher g for the exit. Bottom line, force has to be appropriate for the shape of the element. Unlike some, I barely care about getting a B&M loop perfect to the Nth degree, that's more of an originality/accuracy thing for me.

Scenery - A bit more subjective, and not as important, but it's more how the track interacts with the scenery. O/C clearance issues are important, but it's more of an economics thing. I.e. does high track stay close to high ground etc. If there's no high ground, I ignore it, but it's something that would be considered for cost saving.

Bottom line is, in Tech, I'm looking for if this ride could be built in real life. I consider good tech and good adrenaline far more important than the originality and accuracy. Also, not all of the above things are applied in the same way. Stuff that I expect a coaster to have are negative stuff, and no matter what the rest of the coaster is like, it could be the smoothest coaster ever, but if it's lethal and has stupid blocking and so on, it's not gonna get a high mark. Stuff like smoothness, and supports are what would get the higher marks, but only after getting the basics right.

damn, gonna have to do work now.... gash.

[Brtnboarder495]

Yea, single-forces in succession is never as smooth as multi-force zones. I don't think the multi-force zones is quite right though, it's hard to use sometimes.

Originally posted by Brtnboarder495

I don't think the multi-force zones is quite right though, it's hard to use sometimes.

multi-force zones are pretty darn accurate once you get a good handle of it. They really have everything you really need to create perfect elements. It just takes some tinkering.