Handbuilding

yeah, i guess im stuck with nut cancer for a little while longer too.

Originally posted by tmv8888

hand building is alot like testicular cancer. you love your balls, but not when they have cancer. unfortunatly i never took the time to learn fvd's so i guess i'm stuck with nut cancer!!!

wat

...Yeah, wutt?

Wow, a 3 page rant on handbuildning... This is sad.

Why?

[Coasterkidmwm]

It was a semi intelligent debate until you and "Mr. Nut Cancer Will Make Everyone Think I'm SOOOOOOOOOOO Funny!" had to post followed by 3/4 of the site's emo population going "wut".

lol, its kinda true though^^^ fvd's are the way to go

Na fvd's arent are perfect or hard as people think they are. No matter what meathod you go with, there are positives and negatives. Just stick to what you know, because any technique can still make great rides.

i just don't like how FVD'd and other tooled tracks get much higher ratings then a handbuilt track that's equally as smooth/controlled.

people should take the tooling/handbuilding aspect of the ride out of the rating.

^ agreed.
A lot of tooled rides can easily be worse than handbuilt. I think once people who are 'afraid' of tools for some reason try them out and see the process, you can get a better understanding and be able to rate on actual smoothness not just because " wow you used tools that must be hard 10!"

@Z00Z3R - is that the Diana? I already have a Holga but have been eyeing the Diana a bit lately.

I think your perception is that non-FVD tracks are equally smooth when they really aren't most of the time. I think Real is one of the best if not the best handbuilder, but I don't think even his BT is as smooth (strictly speaking of smoothness, not shaping or anything else) as many (most?) peoples early FVD tracks.

I agree, with some reservations, than tooling/handbuilding shouldn't be judged. With that said, tooling tracks, when done right, are just mathematically much more accurate to real rides and real ride design, so most of the time shaping will be better or more realistic than that of a handbuilt track.

I will also say that I think people tend to give more credit than is deserved to handbuilt tracks. Even on Breaking Point, there were a few people that were like, "the ride is smooth because of FVD." First of all, FVD wasn't out when I did 95% of the ride so I didn't use it at all, and secondly, but more importantly, statements like that imply that I didn't not give as much effort because FVD did the work for me.

So based on that, and many other things I've seen over the last few years, it seems that people tend to sympathize with handbuilders more, and augment their score. I rate based on the ride quality, but I can't say that about many raters.

One thing to keep in mind if you think tooled tracks get much higher ratings than handbuilt ones: how many times have you seen someone state in their description that they "completely 100%" handbuilt their ride using no tools, vs. descriptions where the designer says he used tools? I've seen the former much much more than the latter, and from the way those phrases are constructed, the designers imply that they want sympathy or understanding if their ride isn't perfect. I know there are some other reasons, but generally, why would people do that if they didn't think it'd give them a little boost in scores?

the thing is that smoothness is great an' all but it annoys me when people knock off for a slight bump or pump, and because of that bump or pump there is a G spike for a fraction of a second so they knock off more for that, i am a handbuilder and time again i will be made to sacrifice smoothness over shape or vice versa, it annoys me so much! I can understand if there is a massive pump or bump you knock but when it is only slight it gets on my nerves SO MUCH!!!1!!!!

Dude, bumps arent cool. It doesnt matter how you build it, you should be aiming to get not pumps or g spikes. Its kinda important haha.

Yeah, think of a real ride, you wouldn't be too happy with bumbs or g-spikes there, would you?

Originally posted by Symbiotic

Dude, bumps arent cool. It doesnt matter how you build it, you should be aiming to get not pumps or g spikes. Its kinda important haha.

If you want to recreate a woodie (or Togo, in some cases) that is bad you maybe want the bumps in there for realism.

But yea, you are right in every other case.

Taken from a comment on a coaster (Gerstl said this):

Why would that be true, when shaping is the only thing that matters with a recreation. Recs don't have to be smooth to be good, they have to be right.

^ Your statement would be true if the geometries used by those companies were flawed, but generally they are perfect circles or whatever. If you want that kind of roughness just turn on shocks.

^Well, in the case of the not-so-successful companies, there are (unbelievably) small imperfections that do make the ride more rough.

Originally posted by Symbiotic


@Z00Z3R - is that the Diana? I already have a Holga but have been eyeing the Diana a bit lately.

[:O][:O] never thought anyone would know that on here, but yes, it is. i have an holga as well, and the only reason i got the Diana was for the pinhole function...

Originally posted by dcs221

I agree, with some reservations, than tooling/handbuilding shouldn't be judged. With that said, tooling tracks, when done right, are just mathematically much more accurate to real rides and real ride design, so most of the time shaping will be better or more realistic than that of a handbuilt track.

mathematically, i agree. but design i believe wavers both ways. tooling and handbuilding can result in equally realistic designs. not just for steelies, but woodies as well.

i just feel that most of the time a handbuilder will go for whatever pops into their heads and build whatever without focusing much on realism till much later into the design.

Originally posted by dcs221

how many times have you seen someone state in their description that they "completely 100%" handbuilt their ride using no tools, vs. descriptions where the designer says he used tools? I've seen the former much much more than the latter, and from the way those phrases are constructed, the designers imply that they want sympathy or understanding if their ride isn't perfect. I know there are some other reasons, but generally, why would people do that if they didn't think it'd give them a little boost in scores?

i'll admit to doing that . i don't even know why i do, i just throw it in there. but i agree, some people do that just to gain sympathy points. however, as i've stated a few times before, the only thing i care about is the amount of downloads; i don't trust raters to see the ride like i do.

[jayman]

wont name any names, but there are members who build wooden rides that function beautifuly in the simulator with tools.. these rides function beautifully in the simulator, smooth and all Gs in check.. but they look like cartoons, and have no real character.. i'll take a nicely built, realistic looking ride with a few bumps and "higher than desired" G forces over a bland smooth ride any day..

I always handbuild my coasters; I just don't like using programs like AHG to refine my builds. I always want that feeling of a runaway freight train barreling down the tracks rather than a smooth, graceful style that many tooled coasters have.

Originally posted by EElover2

^Well, in the case of the not-so-successful companies, there are (unbelievably) small imperfections that do make the ride more rough.

Even on Arrow's and Togo's, the roughness isn't created by pumps and bumps in the track. It is usually the restraints, transitions and weird banking that makes them so unappealing (or appealing in Coasterkidmwm's case).

Also poor track assembly plays a role.

"with bumbs or g-spikes there"

dammit it's bumps! omg c'mon, it's not that hard.

I think the misspelling of "bump" is one of my top internet pet peeves, I don't know why but it reallly annoys me lol.

But more on topic, many of you guys keep saying things about smooth tooled woodies and...I completely agree. The vast majority of people don't even attempt to get correct shaping on wooden coasters, which means their rides look like some version of the same HSAK turns and hills but in a different order. And to address Z00Z3R's comment, I don't think a handbuilt track has the potential to be as realistic as a tooled one, for the same reason that a SolidWorks or other program's solid model isn't really legit unless it's dimensioned and such. It is possible for them to 'look' more realistic, but the full potential just isn't there because real coasters are not made visually since precision is so important, and tools best approach the real technique and results.

With that said, I'll take a realistic looking handbuilt ride over a ride that's tooled just to be smooth... if you go for realism, the random HSAK ride just doesn't cut it at all. Tooling a ride doesn't necessarily mean it's better, it means you have the potential to make it better. Most people don't use that potential, which is why you get many bland, generic HSAK coasters like I mentioned before.

My next ride that I'm going to release is a CCI, completely made with Elementary purg and AHG, and will purposely have all the transition bumps you'd see in a real CCI. Perfectly smooth transitions, non-circular shaping, etc. just wouldn't be realistic, nomatter how it's done.

So overall to sum it up, a ride that's tooled can be much better than a non-tooled ride, but only if it's done right. Doing it correctly is up to the designer, and doesn't have much to do with the tools that are out. If you don't do it right, then you deserve points off no matter what.


Of course, everything I say is for the people who want as realistic a ride as possible. If you think it's more fun to build a ride by hand and you're designing coasters more for your own enjoyment than realism, then by all means do that and be happy. That's great. It's all about what *you* want out of the program.

[Coasterkidmwm]

I think what kills most handbuilt tracks is that unless you use the AHG you can't really bank horribly smoothly. You can bank smooth, but it won't compare to something the AHG can do. I'm under the impression that if you handsmooth well and then AHG, you'll have to really look for the inherent problems that will be present.

It won't ever reach the mathematically perfect closeness you can get with tools, but you can get damned close in my opinion.

Well, I'll admit to adding "this track is 100% hand-built" to my track descriptions numerous times in order to gain sympathy points. Actually, I did that with every single track I uploaded from fall 2004 to spring 2007. And I do still take it easy on hand-built tracks in the technical category. But since what Elementary tracks gain in the technical department are often lost in the adrenaline/originality departments unless the builder knows what they're doing, it tends to even out.