Newton 2 : any tip for the smoothness?

Hi there,

I'd like to know some tips you guys use when testing a roller coaster made with Newton 2. Sometimes, Newton 2 says that the element is smooth but in No Limits there are some times that the forces go in the red (while Newton 2 says otherwise). Are there any trick to prevent this?

Also, I'd like to have some tips on how to test the elements from Newton 2. Right now, the best way I found is that each time I want to test, I save the whole coaster in one element, put the station segment and the lift segment, then click on complete the circuit. Then when I want to modify something, I have to delete the whole coaster do the modifications in Newton 2 then do the above again to test the coaster. Any tip to go faster?

[mkingy]

To partially answer your first question:

Newton calculates the forces as if it was a 1 car long train. Therefore when you design your elements you need to take into account the effect of the cars behind the first one. Generally this makes G's more intense and can give out laterals even if you didn't add laterals in Newton 2.

As for the second question I personally save the track with the lift hill as a seperate file, then insert the elements from the lift hill onwards and save as a new file. Whenever I want to retest I load up the lift hill and insert the new elements and resave as a different file. If that makes any sense

Newton doesn't tell you if the normal forces will be yellow/red or not. Just make sure your forces are reasonable, and your heartline is correct. Also, newton allows you to save by sections. So just save the station, lift, then add it to the coaster. Save the ride from where the lift ends so you don't have to keep adding the station and lift.

That, and / or your friction settings may be wrong.

I've never really understood the friction setting. I know that it's a measurement of the friction that occurs between the track and the train, but what is an alternative to the default setting?

Frict = 9.81 * 0.017 ;; for wooden coasters
Frict = 9.81 * 0.0295 ;; for steel coasters
Frict = 9.81 * 0.033 ;; for Vekoma Flying coasters

Anything a tad higher works too.

Originally posted by RideWarriorNation

Frict = 9.81 * 0.017 ;; for wooden coasters
Frict = 9.81 * 0.0295 ;; for steel coasters
Frict = 9.81 * 0.033 ;; for Vekoma Flying coasters

Anything a tad higher works too.

Wrong [;)].

Frict = 9.81 * G * [friction coeff],

where G is the number of G-forces read by NL (or Newton, for that matter) and [friction coeff] is the friction coefficient that you set when you make your element in Newton. Basically, what all of this means is that wooden coasters have a lower friction coefficient than steel coasters. This is because steel coasters' wheels hug the track and are made of plastic (and thus are smoother), and thus induce more friction. Conversely, because wooden coasters' wheels are flat, steel-on-steel (at least, old woodies - I think the new trains like Timberliners have plastic wheels?), and don't hug the track as tightly, wooden coasters are bumpier and have less friction. Does this make sense?

Of course, the exception to this rule (I believe) are Intamin prefabs. If I'm not mistaken, those are plastic wheels, and they hug the track just as tight as steel coasters. Therefore, they probably (at least IRL) have a friction coefficient somewhere in between wooden and steel coasters, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by boneplaya

Originally posted by RideWarriorNation

Frict = 9.81 * 0.017 ;; for wooden coasters
Frict = 9.81 * 0.0295 ;; for steel coasters
Frict = 9.81 * 0.033 ;; for Vekoma Flying coasters

Anything a tad higher works too.

Wrong [;)].

Frict = 9.81 * G * [friction coeff],

where G is the number of G-forces read by NL (or Newton, for that matter) and [friction coeff] is the friction coefficient that you set when you make your element in Newton. Basically, what all of this means is that wooden coasters have a lower friction coefficient than steel coasters. This is because steel coasters' wheels hug the track and are made of plastic (and thus are smoother), and thus induce more friction. Conversely, because wooden coasters' wheels are flat, steel-on-steel (at least, old woodies - I think the new trains like Timberliners have plastic wheels?), and don't hug the track as tightly, wooden coasters are bumpier and have less friction. Does this make sense?

Of course, the exception to this rule (I believe) are Intamin prefabs. If I'm not mistaken, those are plastic wheels, and they hug the track just as tight as steel coasters. Therefore, they probably (at least IRL) have a friction coefficient somewhere in between wooden and steel coasters, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.

So how is my post wrong? It looks like you just put an explanation on why wooden coasters have a lower Friction-Coefficient than steel coasters. Maybe I should've just c/p'd the whole thing???

^Please stop with the comic sans ms.

^ What if RWN says no.

TROLOLOLOLOLO

Originally posted by RideWarriorNation

So how is my post wrong? It looks like you just put an explanation on why wooden coasters have a lower Friction-Coefficient than steel coasters. Maybe I should've just c/p'd the whole thing???

You forgot the G multiplier in your equations. The "wrong" was meant in jest, hence the wink face after it. It's a subtle, but important difference for anyone actually trying to understand the concept of friction.

I guess I'll take mkingy's method as it seems to be the easiest.

About the friction discussion, I'm quite sure that Vekoma rails have a lower friction coefficient than B&M rails because all the rides I've ridden by B&M are a lot smoother than the ones made by Vekoma. Am I correct?

Also, I'm quite curious of what is the approximate mass of coaster trains. I've done many programs in C++ and I'd like to try to simulate roller coaster physics.

I make my entire layouts in Newton, so I just make a few elements, plug them into the NL editor, then add some more elements onto my Newton file, then delete what I have in the editor and add the new, longer element.

As for the G's, make sure you have accurate starting speed(s), and the correct heartlining. The heartline values can be found in the Newton 2 "Conversion Panel", the button looks like <||>. And don't go too far with the forces, I'd say keep the negatives below -0.8 or -0.9, and keep the positives below 4.3 to 4.5ish. They'll spike higher in the simulator when riding in the front and back seats.

And as for the "smoothness" as the topic title states, when I save my newton files as elements, I've always gotten great results with Track Smoothing: 2, and Taper at Endpoints: 2.

Originally posted by tiepilot35

And as for the "smoothness" as the topic title states, when I save my newton files as elements, I've always gotten great results with Track Smoothing: 2, and Taper at Endpoints: 2.

Shouldn't Taper be higher than Smoothing for better results? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Entropy himself said that ^

Originally posted by AmatsuNL

Originally posted by tiepilot35

And as for the "smoothness" as the topic title states, when I save my newton files as elements, I've always gotten great results with Track Smoothing: 2, and Taper at Endpoints: 2.

Shouldn't Taper be higher than Smoothing for better results? Correct me if I'm wrong.

No, why would the smooth have a higher setting than taper?

That may be correct, I honestly have no clue, I just know that 2 and 2 has always given me good results.