Ratings observation

I have noticed lately that some people will downrate the technical score of some woodies for too much banking, first drop too steep, things like that. I don't have a problem with that, but some of the coasters were uploaded as fantasy coasters. We shouldn't downrate for that stuff on a fantasy coaster, should we? I mean, isn't that what a fantasy coaster is all about--ignoring laws of physics and structural limitations to see what a woody would look like 300 feet tall, with a 90-degree drop, 90-degree banking, etc. I'm not advocating ignoring of g-forces, track collisions, etc. (I think g-forces should still be in a reasonable range on fantasies), I just think that we shouldn't look for total realism if the person has indicated that it isn't totally realistic by uploading it as a fantasy. Anyone else have any thoughts about this?

I agree with you, that's why I always put my coasters as Fantasy, just in case it doesn't seen like a real coaster to other people. Plus it's a lot harder to create a real coaster on RCT2 (the only game I use). I have read a lot of reviews that people downrate because of a 90????????? turn. Example: (I don't have the link right now) a wild mouse coaster had a 90????????? turn in a tunnal and someone took off 2 or 3 point just because of that and I think he even put it as a fantasy coaster too.

putting a coaster as a fantasy coaster is really the easy way out. Now excluding rct rides, it is posible to make realistic coasters. But alot ofpeople don't want to take the time, and don't want to fix the g's, so they just put their coasters as fantasy coasters, and everything is peachy. A fantasy coaster i more a coaster that just isn't fesable, ither by cost or hight. But that doesn't mean that some basic stuff doesn't apply.

I don't care if it's fantasy or not, I'm still going to rate it as a realistic coaster, because if it was a fantasy coaster, talking rct2, they would need to use those stupid soccer ball supended roller coaster cars or something...