Poor Rate

[SauronHimself]

devilsrule911 made an uniformed and inaccurate rate of my ride Metalingus, which can be found here: http://coastercrazy.com/track_exchange/ ... ?tid=16938

"First, I'll start with the ties. The ties hold the rails and keep them with the spine. When you take those away, the supports are only holding onto the spine. That train will push those rails down and break them. Obviously, you need the vertices to be separated more."
The NL simulator generates the track ties. If it fails to show some of them, that is not the builder's fault. It is a simulator, and a real coaster would obviously not have this problem.

"Now, I'm going to have to assume you used newton on this one. A lot of the mistakes look like classic Newton mistakes. The trackwork really proved that that was true. First thing is to save with 2 meter segments. Second is to watch your shaping. Honestly, what was with that exit from the MCBR? That was WAY too tight and definitely needed to be wider. Look at the train. I would get jammed there and operators will have to come to pull it back up. It would just not make that that radius. Play around with the transition types and see what makes it looks more realistic."
The radius of the post-MCBR turn was not too tight. It was a realistic size and shape which I derived from real-life X-car coasters.

"Third, speaking of transitions, look at the entrance into the barrel rolls (heartline rolls). Do you see that jerk? That is because you did not transition with your vertical forces. It was going at 2.15 gs for a while and then all the sudden, it is at 0.3 gs. That is what created the jerk. You need to transitions those and it is very unrealistic when you don't."
It is not an unrealistic transition as there are similar ones in Colossus at Thorpe Park and when Maverick had its heartline roll.

"Otherwise, the trackwork was decent. There appeared to be some pumps but it flowed nicely for the other parts of the ride."
If the track work was decent, why was sa 4.75 given? This track work would receive at least a 7.5. He also failed to mention E-stop and tunnel test, which passed.

"The supports also needed to be worked on more. They had weird connections where you had 2 beams meeting at a track node. I would have like to have seen a connector piece that connects to the track like some of them did."
This is commonplace on many looping coasters where two beams connect to the same node. It is widely seen on vertical loop supports.

"Also, you need to modify your flanges after you put the supports in the auto flanger. Some of them were too close together. You also had some that were so close to other supports and went into them, which is extremely unrealistic. Take a look at real coasters to figure out the separation and distance. Also, the flanges that don't go into the supports will need to be moved into a better position. You also need to make sure that the supports have connector pieces. This comes up again because you have long supports that go from tack node to fundament node. The auto flanger does not flange that because it thinks that it is a connector piece. Either flange it yourself, or spend a little extra time on the supports. The flanges seemed too inconsistent and really detracted from your score. Otherwise, I thought most of the supports were decent."
Not many people flange their coasters altogether, and yet they receive higher BT ratings for their supports. The auto-flanger isn't 100% realistic, but neither is the simulator. Flanges were added to make the coaster simply look more realistic than it already is, and this should not be in contention for judging the BT score.

"A: I understand the difficulty to do something for this contest, so, I will go a little easy on this one. I felt that it was on the short side. It definitely needed some extra push to it but I thought it was pulled off pretty well. I liked the barrel rolls at the end and the drop was a great boost to this ride. Of course, the poor trackwork really distracted me form the actual fun of the ride and will also create a deduction in points here."
Every ride for this contest will be short. They must fit in a 100ft x 300ft rectangle and not exceed 100ft in height. Either the ride is super short with a lot of adrenaline, or it is longer but very tame like a wild mouse/Dark Knight coaster. Furthermore, the track work was not poor, thereby unable to distract one from the fun of the ride.

"O: I thought you pulled off this design well. It was planned out well which really showed by you not having a crazy layout. It needed something original though. The layout worked but it seemed to not have the extra step to make this a good ride. A longer ride could have definitely made this a better and more intriguing coaster."
There was very little leeway in the size of this ride. Again, it had to fit within a 100ft x 300ft rectangle and not exceed 100ft in height. Rides for this contest will inherently be short and perhaps not as exciting as most larger coasters.

Finally, devilsrule911 failed to realize that this design was for Omnigeek's micro-coaster contest. Only Omnigeek himself can judge the entries, so devilsrule911 can only leave his rate as a comment.

[Oscar]

Wrong, Omnigeek's contest was an unofficial contests so by uploading to the exchange here, it is treated as a regular track. Unofficial contests are not barred from ratings etc.

That rate is fine IMO and I agree with most parts of it.

[SauronHimself]

If that is the case with unofficial contests, then fine, but the point remains that I have logically refuted the claims given by the rate.

This is the last time I will ever spend 45 minutes to help improve a design. First, I would like to say that you seem to be angry. If you had left a rating with a lot of detail (and made sense) that was lower than I expected, I would let it go. I may back my coaster but I wouldn't complain about it. You should be more worried about someone backing their opinions. Here are my responses so that I can clarify any misunderstandings with my rate:

The radius of the post-MCBR turn was not too tight. It was a realistic size and shape which I derived from real-life X-car coasters.

I looked through every X-Car coaster and none of them had a radius as tight as that. Not to mention that I looked closely and saw the wheels digging into the car.

The NL simulator generates the track ties. If it fails to show some of them, that is not the builder's fault. It is a simulator, and a real coaster would obviously not have this problem.

If we were going by how the simulator "generates something" I would ignore ugly corners created on supports. Do I? No.

It is not an unrealistic transition as there are similar ones in Colossus at Thorpe Park and when Maverick had its heartline roll.

That's the thing. There is no transition. You need to bring the vertical force before the barrel roll to what the start of the barrel roll is. Otherwise, there is a jerk in between 2.2 gs and .3. If you can't understand that, (it is a difficult concept) than you are at a loss. Those designers who understand that have pulled out some great rides (not all of them). Maverick and Collosus were designed by one of the smartest people in the business. They would not overlook a transition. That never happens. They have it smoothly flow.

Not many people flange their coasters altogether, and yet they receive higher BT ratings for their supports. The auto-flanger isn't 100% realistic, but neither is the simulator. Flanges were added to make the coaster simply look more realistic than it already is, and this should not be in contention for judging the BT score.

The flanges are optional. The coaster I am working on now has no flanges; however, I expect them to be good when they come up. If they are going to be poor, don't do them. Some people disagree but those are my expectations.

Every ride for this contest will be short. They must fit in a 100ft x 300ft rectangle and not exceed 100ft in height. Either the ride is super short with a lot of adrenaline, or it is longer but very tame like a wild mouse/Dark Knight coaster. Furthermore, the track work was not poor, thereby unable to distract one from the fun of the ride.

The trackwork was poor as I mentioned before. I said that the jerk and the weird exit. I understand it is difficult to make it long. However, what separates the good (like yours) from the great is the ability to compensate for that and still come out fun. Same applies for originality. That is also the reason I didn't upload.

Finally, devilsrule911 failed to realize that this design was for Omnigeek's micro-coaster contest. Only Omnigeek himself can judge the entries, so devilsrule911 can only leave his rate as a comment.

Nowhere does it ever say anything related to that. You may disagree but, oh well.

[Oscar]

Hopefully that clears anything up you have Sauronhimself.

[SauronHimself]

One thing you need realize, devilsrule911, is that leaving a BT rating of 5 opens up a lot of room for...finger pointing...for lack of a better term. When you look at the smoothness and support quality of my track and then look at other creations whose trackwork are clearly inferior, then you have to go to each one and give them what you consider a "proper" BT rating. Otherwise, that's hypocrisy.

"The flanges are optional. The coaster I am working on now has no flanges; however, I expect them to be good when they come up. If they are going to be poor, don't do them. Some people disagree but those are my expectations."

It's not about what you expect. The BT portion of a rate is by far the most objective portion, and it has nothing to do with your personal preference. The track is either smooth or it's not. The supports either have structural integrity or they don't. Etcetera etcetera. I can understand someone giving additional points for adding flanges, but to penalize someone for that is illogical. God forbid someone should put a tiny bit more effort into the supports even if it's using the Auto-Flanger.

"I looked through every X-Car coaster and none of them had a radius as tight as that. Not to mention that I looked closely and saw the wheels digging into the car."

Considering that the X-car rides I've been on in real life do have these tight radii and still survive the circuit, I'm just going to leave it at the fact that the NL simulator isn't perfect.

"If we were going by how the simulator "generates something" I would ignore ugly corners created on supports. Do I? No."

Aside from the obvious non sequitor here, you penalized me for something out of my control. I don't have to save the elements with at least 2m spacing. Any other track type lets you save with 1m spacing and doesn't render missing track ties. Once again, it is a glitch in the NL simulator that will hopefully be rectified with NL 2.0.

"That's the thing. There is no transition. You need to bring the vertical force before the barrel roll to what the start of the barrel roll is. Otherwise, there is a jerk in between 2.2 gs and .3. If you can't understand that, (it is a difficult concept) than you are at a loss. Those designers who understand that have pulled out some great rides (not all of them). Maverick and Collosus were designed by one of the smartest people in the business. They would not overlook a transition. That never happens. They have it smoothly flow."

Maverick's heartline roll was removed because it was one hell of a transition. It would've hurt the riders, the trains, and the track itself. And yes, transitions have been overlooked in the past. There is a wealth of information on RCDB, Wikipedia, Google, and this site that you can search.

"First, I would like to say that you seem to be angry."

If you think so, okay then, but you can't tell that through text only. If me making logically sound arguments and refuting your claims makes me seem angry, I don't know what will make me come off as happy to you. Frankly, it was a poor assumption, but I understand. I was once 14 and knew everything, too.

lol Sauron, when are you gonna stop putting people down and realize you're just not all that good at NL (and simply 100% wrong on most of your points there)? Pretty sure when that happens, you might actually learn something and get better. Until then...

Isn't that Xpress

[SauronHimself]

Well, dcs, a man of your age should also know that claims mean nothing when you can't logically support them. Good try, though.

[Metazoanhaddock]

Confucius says: The first step to getting better at NL, is to admit you are bad.

That said, I'm a horrible designer too, but at least because I admit it, i use rates like the one devilsrule made to better myself and help incorporate those tips he gives into future designs. I don't just refute his claims in an attempt to make my ride look better than it is. It is what it is, and a lot of what rates are based off of IS the way the simulator generates it. If you go the extra mile to make your ride look pleasing and realistic, such as with supports that extend a little further to prevent odd corners, it's noticed and put into the rate, even if it isn't mentioned. That said, you can do whatever you want with my advice. You could listen to me and think about what I've said, or you can keep acting childish and not listen. Your choice.

[jayman]

.. i dont know alot about this sort of ride, but that drop out of the mcbr was a tech killer. ..bowserjoe is missed, but we can still make new memories

Originally posted by A113

Isn't that Xpress

Seriously Sauron, you could do what could be considered poor rates. Your rate on Bobcoasters Reed's Point Cyclone completely ignored that he was trying to do it to a certain style.

However we didn't complain about it. Don't badmouth people if your going to end up being a hypocrite.

[Oscar]

locked