Hyper X

[hyyyper]

^A funny remark on what you said about capacity. It seems very Intamin-y to use short trains, as it seems that Intamin keeps reducing and reducing their train lenghts (notably on their launched rides) and the capacity for those rides are really low.

What happened to the trains that could seat 36 people instead of 12?

Well their rides with short trains usually also have relatively short track lengths. Almost all of their hypers have reasonable to good capacity (anywhere between 30 and 36 riders per train), as do their woodies. Their launched rides are usually pretty short, as the price for a launch itself is already high. Longer trains would also make the launch more expensive as it needs to be more powerful, so it works out.

All who are making comments similar to:

"Waaahhhh waahhhh you should be able to make rides how YOU want, it's YOUR ride, NOT Intamin's, ALL HAIL CURRRAZY ORIGINALYTI."

Stop. No one is inferring in any way that you cannot make rides that do not specifically and only hug the guidelines utilized by real manufacturers, but you're really getting carried away here. There's a difference between making a ride original and making a ride well.

Originally posted by CKidd

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

Are you kidding


*That being said, CJD I do actually not have any problems with the layout. The turnaround looks fun I just think some parts could be put together a little more soundly.

Why should elements even be shaped perfectly? From my experience, non-"properly" shaped elements are more fun.... I mean, we're talking out-of-control roller coasters, not gentile monorail rides, right? I mean, look at stuff like the entrance to an arrow corkscrew, Demon's mis-shapen second loop, the trick-track on Shivering Timbers, the outward bankings on Hades and Voyage, the "WAY too steep" drop on Cyclops...... These all would've been rated down if they were tracks on here.

So you're saying an Arrow corkscrew entrance is pulled off well? People bang their heads at that spot all the time and then don't ride again because they have a headache. Maybe they were ok back then, but that's before other companies started to make rides that are more exciting and comfortable.

Your logic is there, but your reasoning consistently needs a lot of work. It's like I was saying about coaster design...if you don't back up your work with good presentation (aka if you don't back up your statements with good examples) then you likely won't get great feedback.

BTW, pretty sure I was one of the first people to integrate an outward banked hill/turn into a coaster, and though it did come out around 6 months after Hades, the implimentation was completely different and I was met with very good feedback.

hmm, I see you point there, but sometimes the purpose should just be implied; shouldn't have to be explained or justified with examples.

Also, we all need to start judging on manufacturing constrains and structural integrity, not necessarily by how much it looks like a real coaster.

all I meant was that I thought it was symetrical, maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way

You know, I should try a custom ride style. Will probably fail at it, but oh wells.

Originally posted by AJClarke0912

You know, I should try a custom ride style. Will probably fail at it, but oh wells.

*cough* floorless that you are already working on *cough*

Well, this has certainly been an interesting debate.

It put me practically into coaster depression last night out of sheer frustration, to the point that I was ready to just quit again. Then through writing the post earlier today, I had a huge epiphany:

What made me lose my inspiration in the first place is all of this emphasis on accuracy. Back in my more active coaster-building days, I just built whatever I felt like, whatever ideas popped into my head, and would explore any angle. Then over time, as the site became more about accuracy and realism, I followed suit and tried to make more company-appropriate coasters for the sake of getting better technical scores. And before I knew it, I had completely shut off all of my old creative inputs by restricting myself to the way that a real company would shape elements. THAT is why my creative well ran dry and coaster-building stopped being fun for me. (And perhaps why others' inspiration has been lacking of late as well too?)

The question no longer became "what can I do?" with no restrictions, but rather "I want to build a B&M coaster. Here is a list containing their typical elements and shaping. Pick from that and make anything new fit the style," an extremely restrictive filter that only allows certain kinds of new elements and certain kinds of forces. And within such a limited range, it's no wonder that I ran out of ideas and just felt uninspired, like I wasn't doing something fun anymore but rather a chore.

The same can be said for when I started using FVD and Newton. Those in themselves are restrictive also, because they always create certain kinds of shaping and certain predictable progressions of g-forces. You can usually tell exactly what is going to happen before it even happens because it shapes every element using perfect, logical, predictable math. It's the same thing as the real-life B&Ms. You know exactly what's coming. There's no surprises.

Realizing this, I now know exactly where I can find my inspiration again, and exactly what I will be doing starting now:
1. If I get an idea, I'm going with it, regardless of expectations.
2. I am now officially abandoning Newton and becoming a hand-builder again. There's just such energy and life and spontaneity in a good hand-built track that isn't in a Newton/FVD/Elementary track because of those little human imperfections, adding to that feeling of never knowing what's coming next. Looking back over my hand-built tracks versus my tooled tracks really helped me realize that.

You know what, I agree %100. I'm afraid to release any big woodies after the negative coments on wildfire..... even though it was an extremely kickass ride. Everyone seemed to hate me for not shaping correctly or under-supporting

Jonny, as someone who has judged your tracks in contests twice before, I can say that you've still got a lot of work to do in the smoothness department before you start really worrying about this company-specific shaping argument. Your GG ride had red g's all over the place, and also had bumping and pumping everywhere. And the inadequate supports weren't a matter of "Gravity Group usually uses more supports," it's a matter of "This coaster lacks basic structural integrity." These things have nothing to do with advanced company-styled shaping, they're just basic NL shaping. When basic safety and rider comfort are at stake, points deserve to be taken off in technical regardless of whether it matches company style or not.

My argument for this coaster is more in the realm of "there are no bumps or pumps at all, my g forces are 100% within comfortable limits, and the element shaping is really exciting to ride, so why are you docking me for it being mis-shapen?"

And you're going to achieve this excellent trackwork with...4 vertices per hill? You're saying these things about having good quality work that's not within a company style, but what you've shown both in pictures and in writing is the opposite of that. Do what you want as far as ride design; I support your need to do your own thing. Just don't try to pass off a ride done using dated techniques as one of good quality.

BTW, it doesn't help that your design follows most of the guidelines that distinguish an Intamin hyper. People do that sooo much...they try to pass their ride off as original, but they really copied most everything from Intamin. If you want me to believe your work cjd, pull off something really new, and do it well. Otherwise, do it for your own fun, hopefully minus the complaining I see from so many others.

I get that cjd, but my point is it makes me feel constricted to smaller coasters instead of trying to make more things LIKE Wildfire....

Originally posted by dcs221

And you're going to achieve this excellent trackwork with...4 vertices per hill?

Okay, we can actually test this... because the very last original coaster I released before now, 5 years ago, did use 4-vertex hills. So Dcs, would you consider the big hills on this coaster to be mis-shapen? (Minus the vertical g's, which I know are too high for a GG, and the turns which definitely do have pumps that I wasn't skilled enough to smooth out at the time.)

Granted, on Hyper X I have moved the big hills' vertexes a little farther apart, so the transition from positive g's to airtime is a bit quicker, but I'm still curious what you think.

[hyyyper]

I'm more of a 8-vertex-hill kind of guys, but you can also make some neat hills with just 4 nodes. Keeps the ride simple instead of overcomplicating things.

Originally posted by dcs221

So you're saying an Arrow corkscrew entrance is pulled off well? People bang their heads at that spot all the time and then don't ride again because they have a headache. Maybe they were ok back then, but that's before other companies started to make rides that are more exciting and comfortable.

I actually think the entrance to arrow corkscrews are extremely fun. Expecially on rides like Anaconda at kings dominion that were trimmed alot. Because there are so many lats, and then hang time at the top of the corkscrew. Always fun, but never have they been very rough.

cjd, the trackwork on that ride was not so much misshapen as it was simple. 4 vertices means you don't have enough control to kill the sine wave feeling you got there. Everything's drawn out in your ride. Then there are twitches here and there along with little pumps. It's kinda like some of the old rides I did...pretty good for the given technique. They're all outdated though since we can do so much better now.

Kyle, doesn't really matter what either of us thinks about Arrow transitions. The fact is rides are built for the majority, not a small group of coaster enthusiasts. While you may still like those transitions, you can see how the lines have shrunk to almost nothing on a lot of Arrow rides, and it's not just because people have ridden them so much. Hence the reason why it's a bad example.

Not ALL rides are built for the majority..... just look at Voyage. They INTENTIONALLY included an element almost exactly like the arrow corkscrew transition. In fact, Voyage has SO MANY elements that wouldn't be neccisary to please the majority.

And what about El Toro? would the majority notice if it didn't have all that airtime?

What about Superman / la Atracci?????????n de Acero? The floorless coasters WITHOUT airtime are just as popular.

Jonny,

You're not making any sense at all.

That is all,

-DC

...Anyway, CJD, I was wondering what your thoughts were on our/my comments about the hill. Although it may surprise you to see the thread possibly go back to your subject...

Are you just going to keep that trackwork or would you be interested in making that first airhill symmetrical? This is just an inquisitional comment, not insistent at all =D

[Coasterkidmwm]

Image Insert:

452.06 KB

Here is a transition between a straight section and a crest on my wooden ride. I use the same vertex cluster on everything I make when transitioning between a crest and a trough, straight and a trough, etc. These clusters help to smoothen things out by hand. Make the vertex cluster by getting it "good enough" by hand first with less, then divide and fine tune from there. I know this isn't quite your situation but it should help.

Also you can have an asymmetrical first hill. The first hill on Titan (Liberal Conspiracy World, not Fatty Land) is very asymmetrical.

Originally posted by Jonny Richey

Not ALL rides are built for the majority..... just look at Voyage. They INTENTIONALLY included an element almost exactly like the arrow corkscrew transition.

If you are referring to the transition into the first 90 degree bank turn, I remember hearing in a documentary that Gravity group had to change the design of that area of the track because of problems with the soil in the area.

The rest of your comment made absolutely no sense and even the beginning seemed irrelevant to the debate.

GerstlCrazy, I actually did re-adjust the shaping to be more symmetrical already. It's still not perfect, mind you, but I actually kind of like having the drop be a bit steeper than the crest because it generates some extra floater air on the way down. (And again, I could make it perfectly symmetrical if I really wanted to, but I think I've reached a happy medium where it's close enough to symmetrical to fool the human eye into seeing it that way, but still just non-symmetrical enough to generate the air coming down.)

Coasterkid, the split-up-then-tinker method is pretty much exactly what I plan to do.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Then why didn't you do it right the first time?