Park / Dueling Dragons: Lustria
-
28-June 07
- Views 902,347
- Downloads 798
- Fans 0
- Comments 1,093
-
No fans of this park
-
Download Park
798
-
Tags
![park_4712 [NEDC5 - 05/10] Fireball](https://www.nedesigns.com/uploads/parks/4712/aerialt4594.png)
nedesigns
- Copyright © 2002-2024 New Element Designs
-
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
I could have sworn that Gerstlauer did something with an immelmann that curved out the opposite direction. A dive loop that came up from the opposite side is weirder to think about, but Schwarzkopf's Euro Star did the first half (the important half) of that with a zero-g roll.
This is kind of demonstrating my point about following real-life coaster standards too obsessively, though.
The fact that I enjoy looking at and building NE-style parks further illegitimizes my posts.
Edited by gir, 14 June 2007 - 04:21 PM.
gir, you're my new favorite person on this site.
Mystery Mine at Dollywood. That is an Immelman in the background. Instead of the barrel roll in the foreground they could just as easily have made a banked turn off towards the right of the picture, which is exactly what Peeee's element is like. The barrel roll comes off to the left, true, but the overall element goes off to the right.
Sure, it's Gerstlauer, but it proves it's possible. And sure, it wouldn't be as pretty as a straight immelman off to the right, but its RCT2 simulation (e.g. Peeee) looks way better than a true immelman, which looks like crap. It just depends what your priorities are.
All I'm saying is that yes, it's good to stay true to real-life standards as a guide so that you don't wind up doing physically impossible or painful things in RCT, but there are some elements that are completely feasible and harmless that simply haven't been done yet explicitly in real life. It doesn't mean they should be illegal in RCT or something (particularly when they're aesthetically preferable in the game to their have-been-done counterparts).
I mean, if someone thinks they are making an immelmann when they do that, then yes, they are in error. But you were incorrect when you said that this one was obviously built to be an immelmann; Peeee said he consciously switched it up because he preferred it. If someone intentionally plays around with the element to produce a result they like more and which is perfectly possible in real life, should we frown upon them?
I say Nay!
Peeee's Immelman turned the right "RCT way", im not sayin its the same way they do it in real life, but I am sayin its the way it should be done in RCT. If you do it the other way, you get a very ugly "bump" in the track, that is both unsightly and unnecessary. Screw RL in this case, the nature of the game demands other considerations.
Peeee's inversion choices after the MCBR might have been a tad on the conservative side, but they were perfectly practicable alternatives.
About the location of the MCBR, it doesnt have to be in the middle. Heres how I usually make coasters, first I build my "large" inversions, then I build my MCBR, then I build my "small" inversions, or something along those lines. Its not set in stone, its wide open to interpretation. If you want alot of "large" inversions and only a few "small" ones, than obviously the MCBR will be more toward the end of the layout, and vice versa, if you want more "small" than "llarge" inversions, and theres nothing wrong either way.
deanosrs, I agree that the exact amount of "completeness" of your entry is up for debate, but what did you smoke before you said you "finished" far more of a map than any of the other entries actually did? Did you finish more than Peeee did? No. Did you finish more than Levis? No. You didn't complete more of your entry than any of the other entrants. Yours may have been 80-90% complete (almost complete), but theirs were all 100% complete, so what was that statement all about?
gir - "Don't build something because it looks good though"
Me - WTF?
Gir, you're crazy, dude! You would give up beauty for the sake of realism? Thats insane! And not only that, theres no need to do it, either, you can have both easily in RCT, so I guess its a moot point, so n/m
Panic, you are dead on about Daemonen's immelman continuing "past the point of being level into a bank that goes the opposite direction", way to cite precedent (and give creedence to the "turn the other way" supporters).
I guess I'm just a really confusing person, but I mean for things to have a purpose when you build them, not "oh that's looks fantastic, i think i'll put a random tree in the middle of the path." No--put a tree in the path to provide shade for tired guests and improve the atmosphere of the area. But still, I would sacrifice "beauty" for realism because a killer atmosphere beats purposeless beauty any day. I never disputed that you couldn't have both, either.
Edited by ride_exchanger, 14 June 2007 - 08:41 PM.
I have one more piece of evidence to post and then I promise I will shut up. This is the other coaster I mentioned earlier, Euro Star.
Note the first half (the left half) of the zero-g roll in the foreground. It's subtle, but there is a bit of extra rotation and it begins on the left side of the inversion's axis before curving up completely naturally into a rightward barrel roll. If you think about it, the left side is the "wrong side" for a rightward-twisting roll in this debate. It crosses over the axis of the roll and then proceeds into the roll instead of keeping to one side. If you took off the second half (the right half) of the zero-g roll and replaced it with a half loop - by no means a dangerous or ill-advised action - you would have a small "wrong way" dive loop. It's that easy. It would only be the "wrong way" by a few degrees in this case, but we are talking about a 40-something-foot inversion here. The curve could easily be extended to 90 degrees, a la Peeee's inversion under question, if the entire element were taller.
And also, personally I wouldn't give a shit about the immelman turning the wrong way. But then I don't know about roller coasters. Gir is obviously of an opinion exactly opposite to this. Therefore, it seems a pretty good idea to just accept that everyone plays rct for different reasons.
Edited by deanosrs, 15 June 2007 - 03:30 AM.
what other types of you laugh I can use?
[[]]
Thanks !!!!