Wow. Competition.

Yeah, I just noticed how competitive this last week was. I mean, every track in the top 5 had a 9+ rating.



I mean, just LOOK at that.

cool, im gonna take a look... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Yeah all those great NLT woodies [:P]

Alton and Mikado and CJD deserve the numbers they got. No one else above a nine does. I don't know what's going on...

Its those darn n00bs I tell you!

[Coasterkidmwm]

High ratings like that are what happens when you tool the hell out of a ride and STILL can't manage to keep the G's under control. Adrenaline and BT scores go through the roof despite that BT needs a serious knock off.

^That, and no one knows how to rate for originality.

[Coasterkidmwm]

I honestly don't understand how ANYONE has a rate above 8 in that contest including myself. I've got terrible supports and headchoppers cause I'm too stubborn to upgrade my computer from 2001, and the other tracks don't have proper G's and are all the exact goddamned same thing. Proper G's and tunnel testing USED to be one of those first things people looked for but now it's not anymore I guess.

yeah well i try to take EVERYTHING into account, i rarely give scores over 8, i am a hard man to please, i would like to simply rate a coaster on design because it is so damn difficult to get those bumps and pumps out, i tend to ignore if they're only minor but when they are quite severe i cannot help but cringe and knock off points. most of my coasters that i have built within a few weeks are a lot smoother, bu this one recreation of a coasterdynamix model i just cannot get those gs to lower.
is a g spike of about 5.3 for less than half a second OK?

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

I honestly don't understand how ANYONE has a rate above 8 in that contest including myself...Proper G's and tunnel testing USED to be one of those first things people looked for but now it's not anymore I guess.

Speak for yourself. Alton's ride had amazing g's, both safe and exciting, wonderful custom supporting and an incredibly tight layout. Passes tunneltest. Don't go saying no one made a good ride when there are a few select members that weren't too lazy to go through and check all the minor technical specs...

[Coasterkidmwm]

It has 4.7 positive, something below -1.5, and 1.8 laterals.

ALL ARE WAY TOO MUCH, ESPECIALLY FOR A WOODEN RIDE!

4.7 positive? Are we riding the same ride...?

But no one took into account one major aspect of the contest:

The aim of the round is to keep it realistic, try to get a track that could be build by actual company?????????s.

Maybe about 3 of the passing entries could be built based on what we see. The rest are just over-exaggerations of GG rides.

Yeah, I wanted to make the g's better, but I kinda had to settle for about 80% complete on the track shaping because I was really pressed for time. I only had about 4 days to make my track, so I put all of my efforts into making a good layout. So, yeah, I know the g's are a bit wild, but it's better than making a technically-perfect track that's boring IMO.

It seems like every track in that contest was the same. They all had tons of turns, lots of hills, and helixes, but I didn't ever see a straight airtime hill. They were all either twisted or outwardly banked. I like regular hills better. Outwardly banks hills are getting to be very overused.

I 100% agree with Halo364 and ZOOZ3R...they both completely nailed it. I also am sooo tired of oppositely banked hills, especially considering most that people are making are completely unoriginal...always the same thing over and over. If you're gonna make an oppositely banked hill, do something special with it, or try to make it like the few on the real GG's so it doesn't stick out too too much. Then, outside of this contest, there are people making CCIs and B&Ms with oppositely banked hills...wtf? I'm all for innovation but cases like that are A: taking it too far to be remotely realistic, and B: reducing originality because it's being done on seemingly every wooden track that comes out.

Overall very weak entries IMO, just way too over the top. As ZOOZ3R said, there were a few that might pass as relatively realistic, considering the time constraints at least, but most were just horribly unrealistic, to the point where I really didn't like them at all. Seems only a couple people actually spent a little time trying to make the ride like those from the company they were going for, instead of making the completely stereotypical and increasingly boring "NL style" exaggerated caricature coaster.

Before someone says it, I'll be the first to admit that some of my tracks from last year's contest are over-the-top to some degree. But, with that said, you have to know who your audience is in a contest. It was clear last year's judge, cjd, gave preference to the more out of control coaster styles in the earlier rounds, regardless of the style they were supposed to have, so it's only logical to try to make the subsequent round's coasters cater to that taste. My stuff was more over the top than my normal stuff on purpose. However, when the judge says that he's looking for a realistic ride that he could see built in a real park, why in the world would you build a completely exaggerated coaster with unnecessary and overused oppositely banked hills, insane g's that far exceed anything of the style, transitions that rival those seen on Maverick, and pacing that makes your entire ride feel like Hades' tunnel section but with sharp changes in height? I won't tell you how to compete in this contest, but I will say that some logic might just go a long way.

Also, technically boring tracks may at times seem boring...to those who don't consider what the ride would be like relative to those in real life. I hate when I see a ride built by anyone that has say a 60 mph turn at 3.5 g's rated down because someone thinks the turn should have 5 g's and should have a twist in the middle or something dumb like that. If a ride of style X averages 8 elements in real life, why do people seem to rate down for a ride of that style in NL with less than 15 or 16 elements?

The first round produced some decently interesting rides I thought, though again many of them shared very similar traits, but this round was a huge letdown.

My ride did not pull 4.7.
It was 4.1 max, and i am fully aware 4.1 is still high for a woodie, the template was restricting.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Originally posted by cjd
I know the g's are a bit wild, but it's better than making a technically-perfect track that's boring IMO.

That's kinda the point of the game to a great portion of people. Realism without being "boring" or unoriginal.

btw Alton, I personally didn't see 4.7 positive g's (or even 1.8 lats for that matter)...I saw a max of 4.2 or 4.3 on my fast system at 25% speed, but if I were you I wouldn't argue g's...you happened to have -1.7 positive g's and 1.4 lats all within maybe .5 seconds lol.

OMG those Gs are awesome!

Originally posted by dcs221


Also, technically boring tracks may at times seem boring...to those who don't consider what the ride would be like relative to those in real life. I hate when I see a ride built by anyone that has say a 60 mph turn at 3.5 g's rated down because someone thinks the turn should have 5 g's and should have a twist in the middle or something dumb like that. If a ride of style X averages 8 elements in real life, why do people seem to rate down for a ride of that style in NL with less than 15 or 16 elements?

Ahh, I was hoping someone would bring this up. These days, people will rate you down for not having relentless pacing throughout the entire ride. I just want to say that every ride in real life that is like this (that I have been on) has left me sick. Even ultra-intense rides like Hades have some let up points. Rides do not have to be completely adrenaline-packed in order to be good... Think of blue streak. That is an awesome ride that doesn't really pull any amazing stuff... it is just fun. People here are forgetting that straight airtime hills can still be fun, and that turns don't have to be taken at 60 mph to be intense. When you rate a ride, think about actually riding it, because in many cases here, these rides would be incredibly painful. Every passenger would come off with bruises on their legs and torso.

Also, when someone creates a out-and-back woodie (or any kind of coaster that fits in to a particular style), and labels it as a realistic ride, I think that people forget that the intent was to have it fit into that style. Like, if someone built this out-and-back, some person might come along and say... "good, but it'd be better if you added a twister section...", and take off points for it. If the author wanted it to be a twister, they would have made it one. The point is, sometimes I think people here forget that even a row of bunny hops can be incredibly fun; rides don't have to be completely over the top to be good.

[/rant]

Originally posted by Halo364

... Think of blue streak. That is an awesome ride that doesn't really pull any amazing stuff... it is just fun.

I love you!

blue streak is amazing. but i hate it when you tell someone about a coaster you like, and they completly hound on you because the coasters g's are a little weak... mean streak and millenium force for example. they are both amazing coaster, but when ever i mention either of them, people have to be like "that coaster is terrible because the g's arn't strong enough!!!" who cares about g's? if you enjoy the ride, forcefull or not, thats what its all about...

Wait, Mean Streak? Weak on forces? Have you ridden it within the last 2 years? If you call that weak on forces... lol

[Coasterkidmwm]

Sorry about the 4.7 thing but I have a pretty weak computer so my framerates get a bit crappy at points. I 50%ed it and they were in the range you said. I was wrong. However you made your case even worse because I noticed you have 4 G turns with 1.0 lats AT THE SAME TIME!