Hyper X

The original hypercoaster was based off the idea of taking a traditional out-and-back wood coaster to its absolute extreme in terms of speed, height, and sheer airtime on the hills. It has now been 22 years since then, and the wood coaster has changed an awful lot since Magnum was built in 1989. CCI and GG have popped on the scene since then, so now the wood coaster has become just as new and extreme as the big steel coasters. Well, now I'm going to attempt to update the hypercoaster concept to the new century, by taking a GG-style wood coaster to its absolute extreme in terms of speed, intensity, and sheer insanity. Ladies and gentlemen, I proudly present Hyper X!



The new hypercoaster includes a vertical first drop, insane big hills that are nearly vertical also, and wicked transitions not possible on wood coasters, all while also throwing in a splash of GG-style lateral g's in a few unpredictable places. Through the ride, it will only get more and more intense. The ending sequence of turns will be almost too much, mixing Voyage-style lateral-g transitions with insane Maverick-style transitions, then some classic insane Intamin airtime to finish it off.

Also, this track was started as a hand-built coaster back in the winter of 2006, (this was originally intended to be my follow-up coaster to Hydro Thunder,) so I intend to finish it as a hand-built coaster. Wherever possible, (with the possible exception of the Maverick-style transitions,) I will be using my good old-fashioned 4-vertex shaping method.

Here is a picture of the eventual layout that I have planned: (the darker blue is the track that is built already, the light blue is what I plan to build.) The coaster will be divided into 5 definitive sections, which should hopefully help to keep it from turning into a giant jumbled mess of turns and hills like some coasters of this type can tend to be. Those sections are: 1. Big Hills, 2. Big Turnaround, 3. Out-of-control section, 4. Maverick section, 5. Final air hills.




All suggestions are welcomed, as since this isn't a Newton track, I can pretty much modify whatever I need to at this point.


CURRENT PROGRESS:
Trackwork: 65%
Supports: 2%
3ds/Scenery: 0%

AWESOME!!!! This is my kind of coaster!!!!

Looks cool.Not sure about the hills,could be neat.

Originally posted by Live on earths ass

Looks cool.Not sure about the hills,could be neat.

Not sure? Are you kidding? Their way to steep.

Everything looks awful. You could try shaping the ride like an Intamin Hyper... if you're not for that, you could at least make it look pretty lol.

Too steep? There's no such thing. Shaping looks fine, just make the second hill more parabolic.

Are you kidding me? There is indeed too steep. I'm not saying these are (they do look it, though...), but "too steep" is the point where there's a noticeable hanging in the front car because the crest is too tight. Notice that this "too steep" depends on the strength of the airtime; the stronger the airtime, obviously the steeper it can be. That's my opinion on the matter, anyway.

Anyway, CJD, this looks like a really, really cool ride.

The lift/drop profile looks off. The curve leading to the crest begins too low, and moves over too much horizontal space.

I honestly don't want to do normal parabolic hills. (And trust me, I could if I wanted to.) EVERYONE does parabolic hills. And the whole point of this coaster is taking GG shaping (in this case, the big hills at the beginning of The Voyage, which is actually the primary inspiration for this coaster moreso than Intamin,) and pushing it to the next level of insanity. To me, the extremely steep hill shaping screams insanity, while a parabolic hill would make it just another hypercoaster. And it's not like the steepness is a detriment to the pacing either... it whips over the top with airtime all the way over, including two shots of ejector air, one on each side. IMO, that would be extremely fun in real life in addition to looking downright insane.

So maybe you disagree with me on this one, but I'd really rather that the steep hills stay. I really feel like they are a signature element on this coaster.


The lift-top shaping advice, I'll take. That was something I forgot to consider when re-opening this project after 5 years of sitting idle.

How long is your train? A long train would either pace slowly or have excessive forces on a hill with unusually steep slopes like that one.

So this is an Intamin with justification for shitty shaping basically?

Originally posted by Freddie

So this is an Intamin with justification for shitty shaping basically?

You see, this is why I stopped making coasters in the first place...

Dude seriously, if you like doing it then make the roller coaster, upload it, and enjoy it for what it is and disregard all commentary. But it's not that we're even bashing on your ''creation'' or technique, or from whichever origin this roller coaster came into mind, but it looks noobish. It's as simple as that.

*Sorry, I know my opinion comes off strongly. The only reason I think the ride does not look entirely good, in my opinion, is because the first drop and the hills do not look very well made, in my opinion. Too steep, not symmetrical, and it just doesn't look like the control nodes on them were used too well.

You're just riding a fine line. GG shaping is extremely close to Intamin's thus any problem spots/awkward transitions/poor banking with hard laterals could be told off as "that was my GG woodie shaping". There isn't all that much that GG does different than Intamin to make a GG inspired Intamin all that original, thus the GG part can easily be used as an excuse.

Am I the only one that thinks uber-steep hills would be totally cool?

I think it looks pretty fun, Intamin or not. Keep going.

(extremely long ranting post about how I'm sick of the new technical standards deleted, because I just don't feel like fighting this battle anymore. I give up. Someone get me a time machine and send me back to 2003 where I belong, where the only things that mattered were smoothness and ride experience.)

[hyyyper]

I hear you cjd. I too think everybody should be able the rides how they want, irregardless of how real manufacturs build them. You make the ride, so you control the shaping, the layout and wether or not you decide to copy or not copy intamin style.

I love the kind of rides that we used to see on the exchange. They were very original, trying out some great ideas and something over-the-top elements and shaping, while still not crossing the line where the ride would become unrealistic.

Please continue this ride cjd, you have at least one person looking forward to it.

Seriously, the ride looks cool to me. It's like Morgan with the 2 hills then helix stuff, then the turns on the rest of the layout look really cool since you seem to be putting in some interesting lats. And the steep hills look fun (just remember to make them safe lol).

So it's kinda like a blend of all of the styles, but also your own ride. I dunno. I like it, but I guess I'm the only one here lol.

I fail to see how that hill is not symetrical in the first place, just because its steep doesn't make it not symetrical.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Try doubling the amount of nodes you're using while handsmoothing.

This is FAR from " noobish".

cjd, build this track however the hell you want. It's not intamin's track, it's YOUR track.

I'm getting sick of how bad these shaping standards are getting.......

So you'd rather return to the old days when tracks weren't nearly at the quality they are now? I can see how the process may be annoying to you, but I'm personally all about getting trackwork as realistic as possible and I think it works to my advantage. All the little details people mention and incorporate into their rides are infinitely more interesting than someone's track that's simply smooth. Anyone can do smooth. Lets step it up.

It's more annoying to me when people complain about those who critique trackwork and accuracy to a style. Some of those people don't phrase their comments in a very respectful way and I agree with that, but the general direction of the community is one of progress. If you don't care about making a track that's more than just a smooth ride, then tell people that from the start (as cjd has, in fairness to him) and do it because you enjoy doing it. Other than that, either learn to be more competitive or stop complaining. For the most part, everyone has the same tools and resources, so make it happen, no excuses.

[hyyyper]

^There is some truth in that, but you have to understand that you cannot group every NL-user like that.

There are some of us who dedicate a lot of time into trying to perfectly mimic a certain style of a manufacturer or builder. I think is great and it is also some kind of gesture of respect towards the real builders and designers of those companies.

But there is a much larger group that is not taking such an approach. Some have played NL a while but do not know much about real coasters and the constraints that real companies inflict on themselves. Other do not have much experience in NL or do not have the time or dedication to really work hard and attain that extra skill.

There are also people who can build a decent ride but decide they want to build rides the way they want to. Who says something has to be build in a certain way? If this person finds or uses a technique that lets him create spectacular rides, why hold him back or criticize him just because it has not been done before, or not usually done in that way.

I do not want to point fingers to specific members, but some people can really be harsh with comments and rating when somebody is going outside the box, claiming that the ride is a piece of crap because it wasn't built how Intamin or B&M would built it.

To me, I welcome such original rides. Of course, the ride has to be smooth and safe, with the G's within the limits. I think it is in everyone's best interest to comment and rate coaster with the designer's goal in mind.

cjd, sorry for hijacking this thread of you. If the discussion goes on much longer, I will have a separate thread for it created.

As I said, dcs, that kind of tedious realism just doesn't interest me.

Like, suppose that someone wanted to do a loop that is almost all airtime over the top, or maintains high vertical g's longer than normal. Nowadays people would criticize such a person for not shaping their loop "correctly."

When someone says "it's too steep," or "it's too tight," my attitude toward such a response is "who says so?" The g's are still in range, the element is still smooth and rides well, so who says someone can't create a loop that looks/rides a bit different from a normal one? If anything, it's more interesting because the feel of the loop will be completely unique. And I feel like it's almost a conformity pressure, saying that for a certain kind of coaster only one type of element shaping is acceptable. I have a word for that: boring.

Is it more realistic? Of course. But there's a reason why I hate generic B&M's so much. They are all the same! All the elements are the same shape, all the banking transitions have the same perfect g's, etc. I freaking hate that!

Same goes with this one. EVERY Intamin hill is parabolic with ejector airtime at the peak. And the whole point of this coaster is to try doing something different than the same old hypercoaster we've all seen a million times. So that's just why I just get so frustrated over these new standards. It's like you're not allowed to even try new element shaping without it being shunned as being lazy.

Fully agree about respecting the designer intention. In fact, I wrote up a big rant about that not too long ago, maybe a few months back. I'd say most people call a ride an Intamin, for example, then do what they want without respect to the designer. If you're going to do what you want, don't call it an Intamin with no further detail and expect everyone to know you intended to do your own thing. Call it an original design that simply uses a certain kind of train because that's what NL has to offer that's most similar to what you want. However, if you do that, unless you specifically state what you're doing, you won't get a great rating from me if you call it your own and then don't distinguish your design from the style of the company whose trains you're using. It's just hard for me to believe what you say if I see that.

It's all about presentation, and making someone believe in your work. It's the designer's job to do that, not the rider/rater's. If your quality is there beyond simply having a smooth track, it's much easier for someone to see and appreciate what you're trying to accomplish. To tie that in a bit with this thread and some of the comments without being a jerk like people very often can be...if you use dated build techniques (4 vertices per hill, for example) then I don't think you should expect great feedback based on the aforementioned reasoning.

For those who haven't been building for long and don't know the different build styles and what can be accomplished in a coaster...that's a legitimate excuse too. It's part of the learning process, and everyone including myself had/has to go through that. I don't think the ratings should be at all adjusted for those people though, as it's not fair to those who release rides of higher quality. The new guys will get there anyways if they care enough to put the time and effort in to develop their skills. Not everyone has the capacity to be amazing, but most should be able to learn enough to release something they can be proud of, and something others can appreciate at the same time.

On the topic of original designs...I'm all for it. However, again you have to take steps to make it believable. GCI developed their rides to have high banking, straight hill transitions between turns, quick onsets of relatively low forces, and generally fast pacing. Gerstlauer designed their Eurofighters with a novel lift and drop system and shape, high forces and rounded elements, barrel rolls with varying rotation angles, and tight helices. Intamin designed their new woodies to have extremely steep but rounded drops, quick onsets to very high negative forces, smooth banking with dynamic lateral forces, and sometimes slow horseshoe curves and a focus on strong straight hills in between. All those details distinguish those rides styles. If I'm seeing (and this time I'm not referring to cjd's design) a sloppy copy of an Intamin drop, hills with a curved pullout in between, and overbanks with nearly constant forces, I'm calling shenanigans on that being an "original" design and I'd say it's fair to rate lower. IMO, completely original designs are much more difficult than those in ride styles, so if I see one that stands out as being original I would definitely give the person qualitative and likely quantitative props for that.

With all that said, I think we're on the same page hyyyper, just presenting our ideas in slightly different ways.

cjd, I wrote this before you replied. In response to what you said, and inline with the rest of my post, I say: make me believe it. There are so many sloppily done rides out that presentation really matters. Sometimes there are real reasons why a certain element might be called too tight or too steep. Maybe the train wouldn't fit through easily because of the small radius, or maybe the slope means that pacing has to slow drastically for the forces to be reasonable. I like your steep hill, though I have reservations on that length of ride because of the train length necessary to make capacity not suck.

And btw, every not every Intamin hill is parabolic with ejector air at the top. Most I've been on have a noticeably different feel. I think you're not looking deep enough into what can be changed to modify the feel of an element, and as such you feel like you have to make something so completely different. That might be ok if you really took the time to pull it off, but if you quickly go through and use a few vertices then people will get on your case, and rightfully so IMO. Again, with your hill, I like the idea, but I don't like the quality. You don't seem to mind and that's fine, but other people don't put in the time to achieve good quality (whether it's original or in line with a real company) then they whine that people don't like original rides. That's sometimes true to a degree, but what people really don't like IMO is low quality work.