Schwarzkopf Spiral Coaster

I'm making an attempt to create a traditional Schwarzkopf spiral using the classic looping and my good bud newton 2. I'd like to hear some criticism before I continue on any current technical concerns and any directions to take the layout. Also, I know the one hill is too steep, it'll be changed for the next update. No name yet, either.

Here goes you:


Image Insert:

141.58 KB


Image Insert:

152.77 KB


Image Insert:

144.53 KB


Image Insert:

165.14 KB

Using a force-based program is probably not the best idea to recreate geometry-based trackwork.

I do really like how the tracks blends in with the ground. It's really a nice touch!

Should be interesting though, you dont see too many people making these.

[gouldy]

It will be interesting to see one of these on the exchange, but like dcs said, the trackwork is hardly going to fit the ride type. Interesting to see, but not sure how you're going to score technically.

I'm actually using the curved and straight geometry portions of Newton 2 in moderation along the track to give it the correct feel and looks. I believe schwarzkopf rides were a bit ahead of their time amongst track design, so a mixture of force-based and geometric-based design could do the trick.

Anyway, expect an update later today, home slices.

Yea, I don't think Schwarz's were all geometry. Remember, Stengel was part of his team from an early time and helped develop a lot of the formula's today.

But I definitely think theres evidence his stuff used some force, however crude it was.

It's possible, but things are not always what they seem, even with current designers. Some things on Schwarzkophs may look to have been controlled by force, but may have been actually some complex geometry (or combined shapes). Not saying that's necessarily the case, but I am saying it does happen.

I will say Schwarzkoph shaping is often pretty tough to decode relative to some other styles though, so it can be hard to tell.

I think it was the early days of more force based stuff, hence why its so crude. It just seems to differ quite a lot from typical geometry based rides.

Lisebergbanan comes to mind.

Yeah it's so hard to tell that I can't say I'd be able to argue against that unless I had some concrete information...on that note, I wonder exactly when designers started to change the way they look at rides so they could design based on forces instead of geometry? Was it on a Schwarzkoph design? Maybe an Intamin? Those are the two most likely candidates that I can think of on the spot.

When I watch a Lisebergbanan pov i see no real evidence of geometry based design. The airtime hills in particular look like something youd see today. Not all of his rides look so well crafted but that one in particular just sticks out.

You can definitely see a progression in his rides from early to late and how the techniques got better and better.

Then again, that ride was built in 1987 and the firm that helped?
Ing.-B?????????ro Stengel GmbH

Jetline in 88, SAME thing. Both rides, ride like a dream Ive heard.

From my experiences on Whizzer and through pictures, the spirals are a bit more geometric based; so thats the mark I'm going to try to hit with this. I am going to change it up a bit with a second, taller-than-the-first lift and make it as terrain based as can be with such little speed and height. So far max speed has been about 38-42ish mph, but that sounds about right for a family ride, anyway.

Here's some shots of the layout up until the 2nd lift. Prefabs are temporary, just used as a reference to see how high it is off the ground cuz like Jer said, it blends in pretty well.




I got lazy and imageshack'd it.

Edit: Hold on, Imageshack nipped me in the ass. CC upload now.

Image Insert:

176 KB


Image Insert:

148.4 KB


Image Insert:

142.77 KB


Image Insert:

158.07 KB


Image Insert:

144.07 KB


Image Insert:

168.59 KB


Image Insert:

186.16 KB

Baby steps, I be taking.

Consider trying HSAK in Elementary...it may work out better for you. It's certainly better than curved geometry in Newton2 IMO.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Why don't you make the lift radius tighter?

Also copy my supports on the Komet ride I made in the exchange at least.

I think it would be eiser to hand-build in this case, because you could match the track work style.

@dcs221: I've heard of it and looked at it before and was a bit confused. I'll stick to Newton unless it proves shitty; I like the way it's shaping everything at the moment.
@Coasterkidmwm: Yeeah, I noticed that later on. It's also too steep. I'll have that changed for the lifts. And don't worry about the supports. I know what Whizzer supports look like, I see them at least once a year... and there's always rcdb.
@Jcoasters: I'm considering free-handing parts of the ride, but I'm really rusty at free hand; been using the Newtons since release. Do you not think the track work is matching up right now, or are you just suggesting building by hand

^I agree more with dcs that you should more make it geometry based, not forced base. Try using maybe elementary. But for geomatry based, hand building would be the easiest because you can make perfect cicles and shapes easy, which will look good. I myself prefer using tools, but for sertain rides you just gotta go handbuilding. For modern steel coasters, Newton of FVD is the ruler, but for wooden, or geometry based coasters handbuilding is the easiest. Now, I'm not going to stop you from whatever technique you use. The end result is what matters. But, personally sometimes you gotta handbuild. And, if your using geometry based shapes, handbuilding takes no time. The hardest part about handbuilding is heartlining, which you dont have to worry about of you doing a schwarzkopf spiral lift coaster.