Why newton is better then fvd's

Newton 2 is (if you already didn't know) a program Entropy made to help you build a rollercoaster in nolimits without the use of multiple tools. What multiple tools you ask, well there's ahg, elementary, purgatorium, fvd's, and more. Here?????????s an example what you would have to do to make a simple 0 g roll (which from here on out will be 'element') with the multiple tools; then in newton 2. With multiple tools you would open up Elementary and browse for your fvd file, you would then go through many days to find the user inputs (speed, friction, slope, beginning roll, beginning g forces...ect) then you would add the input the other g forces in the formula part and make up timezones that seem reasonable in your head but really aren't. Then go through days of trial and error until you get the element you were aiming for. After creating the element you would load it into your track and ride...you would then record the speed at the exit of your element and most likely pull up a calculator and convert kmph/mph to m/s. You would finally add coloring to you element and run it through the ahg with the correct user inputs. Last but not least you would load that up into your track and have yourself a nice lookin' element. But was it worth it? The hours of trial and error, the constant plotting and crying (what?). Now with newton 2...well you don't have to input anything seeing you have track before this, so all you have to do is make the 0 g roll and with instant 'feedback' newton makes trial and error a thing of the past.

Nice little stream of consciousness post you got there lol...next time it might help to take a breath at some point. But yeah, while I agree with the conclusion, your reasoning is highly biased. Pretty much the opposite of a scientific comparison.

Ah, I see you finally came to your senses. A more difficult process in making a ride versus an easier path to making the same ride does not make the end result better.

Hypocrite, lol. I mean since you insisted on using FVDs more than Newton.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Depends on the person's individual strengths/weaknesses.

Pointless argument is pointless.

tl;dr on OP.

But seriously, was it ever even under debate whether Newton 2 is better than fvds?

In the days of Newton 1, you could say FVDs were better because they allowed overlapping zones, but now Newton also has this feature. Newton also has the extremely versatile "timewarping" transitions, and the ability to make lateral force zones, neither of which can be done with FVDs as far as I know.

Unlike in handbuilding vs. tools, this is not a question of the designer. The fact is, Newton does everything fvds do, but is far more versatile and easier to use.

[gouldy]

Why does no one know the difference between "then" and "than" anymore?

Also, tl;dr.

Try some sentence structure and paragraphing and I might try and read it!

While I do agree that Newton is easier, in my opinion, FVD can (if one knows how to use it) make for some really incredible tracks that Newton cannot make. This is because FVD allows you to input your own transition functions rather than use a few built-in functions like Newton does. Granted, you can adjust them using timewarping, but that *still* doesn't offer the same flexibility as custom functions. If Newton allowed users to input their own transition functions, I would be in heaven, and so would a lot of other people. I say that until then, FVD is more capable than Newton, and thus bettter. To be honest, I don't see why this feature isn't yet included. It seems trivial to me, unless the built-in functions are implemented in some weird way that only makes sense in the context of the rest of the program.

Originally posted by disaster249

Ah, I see you finally came to your senses. A more difficult process in making a ride versus an easier path to making the same ride does not make the end result better.

no im still using fvd's, but thats for my big project. although ive started a side project in newton2.

Originally posted by A113

Hypocrite, lol. I mean since you insisted on using FVDs more than Newton.

I know, but most people on this site are.

I do agree that Newton 2 is easier, but you make FVD's sound way too difficult. Seriously, "many days to find the user inputs?" It takes me about 3 minutes tops with a scientific calculator. All it takes is some very basic trigonometry.

And "days of trial and error?" Again, I say bah. I see Newton as about equal in this department. They both take trial and error, and re-adjusting time zones, and you still have to guess about duration either way. Plus because Newton is graphical while FVD is mathematical, FVD is actually faster to just type in a number, rather than dragging a colored bar out, so it makes up for the time it takes to render the track in Elementary with making it faster to adjust the forces and the lengths of the time zones.

From my experience with both, the length of time that it takes for both is almost completely equal. FVD has a steeper learning curve, and Newton is indeed easier for doing simple shaping, but if you're putting the kind of time and effort you need to in order to make the elements exactly how you planned them, all of that extra time spent adjusting bars versus plugging in numbers does eventually add up to make them about equal. However, with that said, the one thing that Newton definitely has that FVD doesn't is the ability to add lateral g's. And this is the main reason why I believe Newton is superior.

I would have definitely campaigned for FVD's being superior back in the days before Newton 2's multiple time zones came along, though. That was a glaring flaw in the program that made truly accurate shaping on the original Newton nigh-impossible.

^^^ehh, this was actually for a article (intro) and i wanted to make fvd's sound very complicated (added () for a reference)...so i guess i did good then?

and...dont forget you can also input numbers into newton instead of dragging them. and for for anybody who gives a poop. i would use fvd's for intamin+ahg, newton for anything b&m, and handbuilding for woodies. also, dont compare newton 's lateral features with fvd's non-lateral features! buster intended for there to be no 'lateral timezone' in the fvd formula, he clearly states...

'With the existing geometry based eformulas, you might build some sort of pullup, a leadover to a parabola and then a leadover to the pullout. In the next step you'd specify the banking by hand and/or run that one through the AHG. Result??? A 'good looking' element. But looks can be deceiving. However, once you actually ride it, you'll notice that (lateral) forces are all but zero/on target, if not even totally gone bonkers. How come? Well, there are only few degrees of freedom...'

so if you want laterals then use newton...i personally dont like laterals on any of my steel rides.

First of all, you should compare Newton to elementary, not to FVDs. FVDs are formulas you put into the Elementary.
Secondly, Elementary is WAY more flexible than newton, allowing not only the most accurate Force based formulas, but also an infinite number of other formulas, if you know how to write them.

Newton is a lot easier tho, and I thin the building process is faster, but withe there being almost nothing challenging, IMO the fun of designing was decreased. With FVDs you had to actually think, building coasters was way more of a challenge than it is now... Newton is too simple.