Questionable Rate

http://coastercrazy.com/track_exchange/de ... p?tid=7161

I'm not sure quite sure what the heck Javixxx is saying on my ride.
Given the difference between his rate and the other scores I have received, plus from what little I can understand from it, he says for instance the lift is not straight, when it most certainly is. I have also verified there are NO tunnel test fails on this. In one place two tunnels place slightly through each other, but since there is no intersection of physical objects there, and it is only a single block ride, a collision could never occur. There are also a few places where supports are visible through the tunnel, but that is because they are attached to the track the train is currently traveling over and in all cases are below the plane made by the car, so neither rides nor the car itself could collide with them. He should either A: Post the rate in ENGLISH and correct these errors, or B: Remove it.

The translation I get is:

T: Has some failures, for example the lift not this straight one as should be. The track in if not this badly, but does not have just convinced me: Too Much rapido, has muchisimos bumps (it but normal al to be reduced so small), algun q another pumping. There are some backups that are not too good neither realistic, and al to carry out the tunel test gives various failures with the backups. The layout is quite interesting, but I believe that needs some ascent and lowering but and less turns

To: just as I mentioned, this coaster is excellent in thrilling, but in intensity is not great thing, so alone turns and but turns. Some hills and airtimes vendrian that neither sung. Aside, some turns go too much rapidos, what is enough I disturb at the moment of to mount you

Or: there is not he doubts that is an ambitious project, but something lacks him, quizas reescalarlo mejoraria the sensacion of thrilling, and quizas to improve some backups not vendria badly. Some points extra not vendrian badly neither, and the terraformer podria to be somewhat better. Little but that to add

Im really getting annoyed with you, and most other people too. For god sake! Accept a low rate!

Why should I accept a low rate that is A: Largely incomprehensible to me, B: Makes provably false claims?

Erm, its true. The track is very rapid. Like when going from element to element. Very snappy. Quite afew Big Jerks. The supports are highly unrealistic.

Show me where there are tunnel test violations and a non-straight lift. That's what I'm referring too. I don't see what's so unrealistic about the supports.

http://cg2.org/force10-6.jpg

That image. Check the support on the top of the lift! How unrealistic can you get!

It's a simple A-frame support. Is it wide? Yes, but it HAD to be due to the contraints imposed by the layout.

It's really not much wider or higher, than, say, http://rcdb.com/ig557.htm?picture=21

Look dude, I've had classes in structural engineering. That support is perflectly safe, stable, and sufficient for the load applied.

Matt, please read this thread.

And just to clear it up, Nitro has some odd supports like that, so they aren't totally unrealistic. Though I'm not an engineer, so I can't really say deffinetly what is and what isn't.
http://rcdb.com/ig1106.htm?picture=7

Looks like we have new hot couple on the block! Woot woo!

Anyway the rate seems to me justified and since the two rates above it are even lower i dont see much of a problem...maybe Javixxxxx was just being critical

Or that, problem solved [lol]

First of all, i must say you was right on the lift, i probably pressed cut and not straight key, so sorry for that, the rate was fixed on that case

But, on the other hand, i see a new error... jjust flangers bad built, not center. Here are evidence of flanger and support crashing whit tuneL:

Image Insert:

28.4 KB


Image Insert:

29.62 KB

Image Insert:

38.51 KB

BTW, i see on your coaster:

Technical: 4 Adrenaline: 8 Originality/Acc.: 8 Average: 6.67

What are you waiting to complain for this "LOW"rate too?

Der dum