Auto Supports for wooden coasters

Ok, this is being brought up based on a rating on a recent coaster uploaded.

First, let me say, to mark down for use of auto supports is quite possibly the most rediculous thing Ive ever heard of. I only know of one coaster EVER, thats totally wooden, that was done by hand and it took the guy around 3-4 months. Its not without its share of errors, but, it is testament to patience. He though, did that some 2 years ago I believe.


Now, a certain member claimed to have gone into the track and used the "Clear Auto Supports" button, which then deletes all auto supports, revealing any extra supports.

There is one HUGE hitch that debunks this method.


Lets say that I design a wooden coaster, its small, and I want to add lateral bracing, but make up my own type. So, I dont do any wide supports, I just use auto supports to make the basic structure beneath all of the track.

I then go to the corners I want to add auto supports too and I tediously replicate a style and attach it to the existing structure, because you wouldnt just want the timber floating in the air. So Ive made all of my lateral bracing, and of course, connected it too the main structure.


Now say Im the rater, I want to check what he did. I open it up, clear auto supports and bam, all disappears but alot less lateral bracing than was done, and some footers. What happened?

Well, the "Clear Auto Supports" button does NOT recognize beams that were made by hand. As long as its connected to a NODE that as made by the auto supporter, anything connected to it, once that node is gone, is also gone. Theoretically I could do lateral bracing, like that on Colossos at Heide Park (just single beams coming down at an angle straight to the ground) and as long as they are connected to a node that was created with the auto supporter, when you clear those autos, itll delete that beam too, because the node that it was connected to is now gone.


Basically, if you use this method, any leftover supports, you have to multiply by 2 or 3 times. I find an easier method would be to delete all the supports, save as another file. then, create the supports again using the similar structure and wide supports (where needed) and THEN compare.



Just a word to the wise, a bit of caution for rating. I do alot of my own lateral work and so do others. It is frustrating to see people using archaic methods of checking which dont work.

[coolbeans326]

I have to agree with you, I don't know anyone who would actually take the time and create everything by themselves. I find it annoying and tedious just doing the lateral bracing, and not everyone wants to take the time to create custom supports. IMO, I believe custom supports should not affect the ride's Techy rate to much, but should be in there in order for the track to deserve a perfect score of 10. But, you should not take off to much for not having any custom supports, you should only add. And, I was typing some other stuff in this spot, but I went off on a tangion, and forgot what I was saying, so I'm ending this comment.

Thanks for putting this Real, on a couple of my woodies I have added some meticulous lateral bracing only to be told that when auto supports were cleared there was very little custom supporting, when there was actually a lot of lateral bracing. So yea, those who rate by custom supportwork should read this.

[Brtnboarder495]

Or couldn't you just make another free node by hand in the node that you wish to connect to? That way deleting it the node created by the auto-supporter would not be affected.

No because then the board may not line up correctly.

See, for whatever reason, in order to get the boards to line up at 90 degree angles, they must be connected to one another I believe. Tia designed it so when you do that, the boards actually "weld" together and give clean joints.

Ive tried to do what you suggested Boarder, and it makes the boards rotate at weird angles, giving a rather unpleasant look.

i dont think it's that big of a deal to rate on. Usually when woodies are first released (like in NL) they have rarly any bracing, but as the years go by they add on bracing because of the weaker wood. If you clearly state this is a old coaster, then i would expect great amounts of bracing, but if it's new, there isn't alot i'd look for, except in helix's and stuff like that.

Huh? No, older wood doesnt add lateral bracing. It only adds bracing to the immediate area.

Lateral bracing is determined from the beginning, by the coasters forces. Or, purely by height. It also gives it a nice astetic beauty as well. Check out Shivering Timbers, if it wasnt the wide structures, it wouldnt look nearly as cool and Im sure the supports are there to strengthen the structure.

OK look fellas ... anyone that is clearing auto supports and basing ratings on that is a complete bafoon (hint hint). Period.

(Allow me to ellaborate and get on the soap box here:)

When someone does this it shows me that they have no, LET ME REPEAT THIS AND BE PERFECTLY CLEAR ...... it shows that they have NO style of their own and are looking for moronic reasons to rate down - and because of this they need to take something wide and long (like a vertical support for a lift) and sit on it. And if you are wondering if I am talking to you and you do this, then yes, I am speaking directly at you.

Rating down ALSO because you do not understand how the editor works means you need to shut up and ask questions before clicking the marks. Furthermore, if you do not know how to rate then ask someone who does - because your logic for rating coasters blows.

Real, I appreciate you making the comment above and it is what many of us have felt for quite a while -- but to all those that would rate down for using auto supports I say shame on you - and after that, I say to you, "Make one without using some part of the auto supports and let me rate it for you. I base my rates on the ability to create a rideable ride and not a red-G death machine like the ones I have seen lately."

OK, I'm done now. Where the heck is that aspirin and my inhaler ...

I never knew peeps started taking off for auto supports these days. Gosh, the standards are getting high. But if the auto supports leaves something floating in the air, that's a different story, one I understand. (It's happened to me and I would've though I was stupid if I didn't do anything about it. This problem seems common on the helixes.)

[Brtnboarder495]

I do not take off for using only autosupports, however if the auto-supports did not seem to cover all of the areas that need to be supported, and if they were not braced or custom made supports, then I would take off points.

people that take off for autosupporting, you go put those 1 MILLION PLUS Nodes in prefect order, and call me when you do.

No, the most rediculous rating is rating down because the train doesnt line up with the gates. I've seen that kind of rating before on one of my coasters (which are always horrible[sillyme]).

How about rating supports based on whether or not they'll hold up the coaster?

Does it really matter where they come from? Their purpose is to keep the thing from falling over, not show the makers affinity for endless node twiddling.

Would you knock Intamin for using stock supports on a brake run rather than casting each one separately? Don't you think they'll reuse schematics and already cut dies whenever they can?

On a recreation, rate if they more or less match up to the original, even if the original looks like the standard NL supports. (They did model them off of real life coaster supports after all).

Just my 2 cents.

[coolbeans326]

^ the man speaks truth.

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS!!!!!!!!! you should rate supports based on if they work- not if they are all custom.

[Brtnboarder495]

Yea and what I typed a few posts up....

I agree with Zazu Yen to a certain extent, and i agree with Real too. I have been marked down a couple of times for not doing custom supports! I agree with the fact that if they hold up the coaster, then they are good supports, BUT that penalises people who spend time to build very detailed supports, like ones for hyper coasters. I totally agree with Real when he said you should only add FOR custom supports, not take away for NO custom supports. Hopefully you get what i mean. lol

Originally posted by jpecool

I totally agree with Real when he said you should only add FOR custom supports, not take away for NO custom supports. Hopefully you get what i mean. lol

I get it completely ... matter of fact, unless a designer has collisions and/or the supports are absolute crap (like overdoing it with a support every three feet - ), I NEVER take off for either having or not having them.

If the supports are functional, then who cares. But for the hypers, that means that you must have some sort of custom supports in there.