Park / Shangri-La: Expedición al Himalaya

Park_2527 Shangri-La: Expedición al Himalaya

49 Comments

  • pierrot%s's Photo
    - sorry.
  • tdub96%s's Photo
    Calm down Fred, its just a game.

    To me, this was good. It just lacked substance. The "cropped out" coaster just made it seem unifinished and lazy, like you were rushing this. I understand that its a design submission, but still. It would've been a nice touch. The Beemer's layout itself wasnt bad, but was rather short and a tad boring. Your architecture is solid, but I feel like there could've been so much more. If you would've added to the surroundings, you're probably looking at at least a 70% on this.

    I agree with a lot of the points pierrot makes as you can see. But I would've voted around a 60% on this. Thats what I feel it deserves. More substance and youre looking at a no-brainer design here. The foundation is there, yet the "stuff" to put this over the edge is not. And thats why you didnt win on this.

    But relax though man. You made a very nice little park here. We're all here to have a good time and build rollercoasters. Its not the end of the world if you dont win an award for one. Just take the criticsm as helpful and move on to the next project. Im sure next time around you'll get it.
  • Goliath123%s's Photo
    Saying this is your version of Shambhala doesnt make sense, sure there are similarities but in rl Shambhala is an amazing concept. this layout is a mediocre mega layout and does not accurately represent B&M megas in general. There are elements in here which B&M have never incorporated into megas, for example the diagonal hill after the splashdown. Every airtime hill (Except maybe Hollywood Dream) goes very low to the ground where as yours stand nearly what i would say about 20 m in the air, its unrealistic, saying you've "done" Shambhala doesn't mean you can claim this layout as an adequate representation.

    Another problem with this is size. Compared to many large scale megas out there, such as Shambahala you will notice the layout isn't just thrown into a cramped area such as yours is. This was my biggest problem, your design lacks and noticeable elements that make a B&M mega what they are, long spread out floater air time hills. Sure you have the first diagonal but the way you designed it in rct looks more like a small airtime hill for ejector not floater, you should of extended some 30* pieces in there to make the hill more drawn out. Look at other megas such as Diamondback, AC and would you believe it Goliath, where my username came from, youll notice long drawn out floaters. Your coaster had none, simple as that.

    To say you deserved design is wrong, size plays a large role and for yours the size was way off. Sure smaller designs have been awarded (See for example Thunderclap) but the coaster is very small as GCI's should be but there is also much more on the map. For a B&M mega this map should have been nearly twice the size. You had a small portion of DK and really nothing else. Dont be afraid to incorporate actual parts of a park into a design, after all a design is a small portion of a park and not just the coaster.

    And don't tell me im wrong on megas, there the best coasters and i know them well.

    Also you should of used the other trains, the jagilt ones i think their called
  • Super G%s's Photo

    I I personally hate the placement of red coaster, it just ruins the big picture and adds unfinishedness.


    Lol, people said when Shambhala was build, it was ruining the looks of Dragon Kahn (the red coaster).
  • ScOtLaNdS_FiNeSt%s's Photo
    I cant help but think if you just connected the two paths and finished khan this would have won. The layout you have there for khan is such a promising start, Yes its a design and its thought of 1 coaster and supporting rides but thats basically what dragon khan is now to shambhala a support ride, So you should have defo finished this. I got the feeling you just wanted this out as fast as possible and you can tell with some of the foliage. I did enjoy it very much. The quality was there just not enough quantity, I would have been on the edge here between 60-65%.

    You will win sooner rather than later FredD.
  • FredD%s's Photo
    I'm sorry if I sounded aggressive. It was disappointment speaking. Maybe I'll use the DK track for something completely new. The reason I didn't finish it, was because it's another theme zone and i wanted to keep it with one theme zone. The critique of the placement of it, I don't care. It is so much said IRL about Shambhala, but when you see it IRL it's so fucking impressive... It gives a wow feeling... but I can understand why it isn't liked.

    That the foliage seemed rushed, is also because I don't like placing foliage. I always do that as quick as possible.
  • Austin55%s's Photo
    I appreciate the passion, Fred. This was still a very memorable peice of work. I think you were right not to have finished DK, two themes would have been a bit awkward. I usually dont like coaster that are only half on maps, but in this case it made sense to me based on the interaction of the real to rides.
  • ScOtLaNdS_FiNeSt%s's Photo
    The two themes are so similar though. tibet/china are very much the same. you could have made the transition. But anyway its done and dusted. I dont know if you should use it in another project even though its not even half a lay-out i think the opportunity has gone simply because it would have just made this design.

    Keep at it bud.
  • Casimir%s's Photo

    The two themes are so similar though. tibet/china are very much the same.



    Dude... just no...
  • ScOtLaNdS_FiNeSt%s's Photo
    pretty much the same. just like archy in parts of germany and austria. Its a mix of chinese and indian leaning more towards chinese so it wouldnt be to hard to translate it together.

    Politically they are polar opposites but we are talking building style here cas.
  • Casimir%s's Photo
    Not talking about politics here, "Scot".
    To speak of 'the' Chinese building style basically is madness.
    I guess you mean the 'cheesy Chinese' and the 'cheesy Tibetan' styles, though. Which would go together brilliantly. Because they're both cheesy
  • Ruben%s's Photo
    I think the thing that brought this down to the point of not winning design was detail. I know I and many others have warned you about this, but it just misses out on some of its potential atmosphere because your work misses eye for detail. The foliage could've been done more extensively and thoughtfull, and one that I réálly disliked (and told you!) is the fact you used the 1k ruins in a very ''sloppy'' , fast way instead of really creating a natural rock, looking at the different types of 1k ruins as ''building blocks'' like you should've. (If you don't know what I mean, just look at what I did in Neverland. I think that shows what I mean quite well)


    Shame it didn't make it, and I myself loved it and might've given this about 70% for on a macro-level this is great, but I can see why this was close to but not a design for many of the panelists based on a more detailed level and possibly lay-out.



    The one thing I dón't get: Pierrot? What is going on man? You've done this on several parks, and I don't see why you're a panelist if your park judgement is só far from that of other panelists time and time again.... I see you as the (by far) lowest voter on a lot of (especially RCT2) works lately, and this makes me wonder whether it's fair to have a devoted LL'er that doesn't care that much for RCT2-ing voting on RCT2 parks (Same the other way around of course). You've voted below average 15 out of 20 times, and had the lowest vote a whopping 11 times. Not to speak of the dreadful vote on Mystique, a well-designed woody that albeit horribly themed deserved a higher vote for the layout alone. (As also shown by all other voters except by Posix) Don't get me wrong, you have the right to have your opinion and express it ánd you're a véry skilled LL'er, but your votes on some recent parks are just só far away from the rest of the panelists time and time again.... I'd almost say you're tóó skilled a player, and in the sense that you're unable to objectively look at lower and middle class parkbuilding. (was this controversial? Hope not. Just really thought this needed to be said as I've noticed this more often lately)



    @Scotlands_finest: No. Just no. Listen to Casimir for this one, as the styles are radically different, especially in detail. It's like saying the Irish countryside and southern Britain have the same archy or something...
  • InnovativeGaming%s's Photo
    Very impressive layouts!
  • pierrot%s's Photo

    The one thing I don't get: Pierrot? What is going on man? You've done this on several parks, and I don't see why you're a panelist if your park judgement is so far from that of other panelists time and time again....

    thats just because I'm a perfectionist, so I have a high standards than other panelist. what's wrong with it? I really can't find a problem with this. because as you said I have a reasonable reason.

    I see you as the (by far) lowest voter on a lot of (especially RCT2) works lately, and this makes me wonder whether it's fair to have a devoted LL'er that doesn't care that much for RCT2-ing voting on RCT2 parks (Same the other way around of course). You've voted below average 15 out of 20 times, and had the lowest vote a whopping 11 times. Not to speak of the dreadful vote on Mystique, a well-designed woody that albeit horribly themed deserved a higher vote for the layout alone.

    well, I've got only 3 LL parks during the panelist (how sad btw..) Mystuqye..I still didn't get why the unfinished design got over the 45% it just didn't make sense for me. I will never give any higher score for unfinished one.

    I'd almost say you're tóó skilled a player, and in the sense that you're unable to objectively look at lower and middle class parkbuilding.

    sorry friend..but it sounds like bullshit. and I'm not only skilled panelist, just see other panelists again.
  • pierrot%s's Photo

    That the foliage seemed rushed, is also because I don't like placing foliage. I always do that as quick as possible.

    No! :( If you want to improve a lot, you really need to know how foliage is important material for parkmaking. foliage is everything. it makes atmosphere, solid theme, aesthetic.
  • Wicksteed%s's Photo

    I'd almost say you're tóó skilled a player, and in the sense that you're unable to objectively look at lower and middle class parkbuilding.


    what the hell? so 'middle class' players are able to look at parks objectively?
    Obviously everyone has subjective ways to see a park. pierrot probably is biased by his own preference for LL and he probably is biased because he is a perfectionist etc. But others are just as biased because they prefer rct2, because they care mostly about coasters, or details, or architecture, etc. etc.
    That why we have a panel of panelists, whose votes together give some sort of objective result.
    Of course panelists can be criticised for their decisions and should have reasons for their votes (which pierrot has), but it really makes no sense to criticise them for not voting objectively - if anyone did that we wouldn't need a panel. [/rant]

    On you design, Fred:
    I just quickly looked through it, and I'd say it's a nice piece of work, but not too memorable for me (hope I'm not offending you here)
    Heres some criticism, that might help you:
    I noticed many sterile places that were mainly due to long straight lines where the path just directly bordered to walls. It feels like in a pedestrian subway or any other spot where you are not supposed to stay but to move on.
    Attached Image: SCR78.png

    Sight lines (not for the peeps but for the actual viewer) are highly underrated by many players, I believe.
    In this screen you have many nice details, but they are hardly visible because of the track going over them.
    Attached Image: SCR79.png

    foliage has already been mentioned: I suggest you use a slightly broader variety of trees, and just take your tame to place them..
    and I also think you should have finished dragon khan. I've said it many times before, cutting things off is atmosphere killer no. 1.
  • Ruben%s's Photo
    You guys are not getting my point. Of course there are a lot of panelists that can judge lower quality work than their own objectively, for what it is so to say. However, Pierrot you just seem to look at everything from his own perspective and with that votes an extreme lot lower than other voters. Thus I believe that in yóúr specific case your skill might get in your way as you seem to have these goggles on that block out the rest of what's out there. That has nothing to do with other skilled builders, but with your skill and your traits combined.


    As you say Pierrot: ''thats just because I'm a perfectionist, so I have a high standards than other panelist. what's wrong with it? I really can't find a problem with this. because as you said I have a reasonable reason.''

    But whát if we'd have beginning players as panelists that would vote everything 90% higher? Guess the society wouldn't like that, as in that case the panelist' opinions does not equally reflect the general view, even though for those beginning players it is a reasonable vote as all just looks good to them.



    What I'm trying to say: Maybe you're voting with the wrong perspective? You can't reflect stuff on your own skill/work/traits like being a perfectionist, but should imho vote on a park for what it is, and I feel like you might not be doing that enough. You're a panelist to vote on a park's quality, not on how much it looks like what you would do. That'd mean Fantasy builders could vote great Realism parks down, Quick builders could vote detailed nitpicky stuff down etc. etc. (Other way around as well) even though that's just personal preference of the builder, and not a show of skill/product quality. I myself am a perfectionist, much like yourself, but I cán see the joy in other styles and don't see why they deserve lower votes just because the builders have another philosophy.

    Don't you find it striking how much your votes keep on standing out from the rest?
  • RCTNW%s's Photo

    You guys are not getting my point. Of course there are a lot of panelists that can judge lower quality work than their own objectively, for what it is so to say. However, Pierrot you just seem to look at everything from his own perspective and with that votes an extreme lot lower than other voters. Thus I believe that in yóúr specific case your skill might get in your way as you seem to have these goggles on that block out the rest of what's out there. That has nothing to do with other skilled builders, but with your skill and your traits combined.


    As you say Pierrot: ''thats just because I'm a perfectionist, so I have a high standards than other panelist. what's wrong with it? I really can't find a problem with this. because as you said I have a reasonable reason.''

    But whát if we'd have beginning players as panelists that would vote everything 90% higher? Guess the society wouldn't like that, as in that case the panelist' opinions does not equally reflect the general view, even though for those beginning players it is a reasonable vote as all just looks good to them.



    What I'm trying to say: Maybe you're voting with the wrong perspective? You can't reflect stuff on your own skill/work/traits like being a perfectionist, but should imho vote on a park for what it is, and I feel like you might not be doing that enough. You're a panelist to vote on a park's quality, not on how much it looks like what you would do. That'd mean Fantasy builders could vote great Realism parks down, Quick builders could vote detailed nitpicky stuff down etc. etc. (Other way around as well) even though that's just personal preference of the builder, and not a show of skill/product quality. I myself am a perfectionist, much like yourself, but I cán see the joy in other styles and don't see why they deserve lower votes just because the builders have another philosophy.

    Don't you find it striking how much your votes keep on standing out from the rest?

    I have to agree and was wondering the same
  • chorkiel%s's Photo

    thats just because I'm a perfectionist, so I have a high standards than other panelist. what's wrong with it? I really can't find a problem with this. because as you said I have a reasonable reason.

    Personally, I have noticed you being the lower vote on a lot of parks. I sometimes wondered why but everytime you've been called out for it, you are able to explain your vote.

    I, myself, think it's good that you're on the panel. You're critic and I like it, I don't think the panel should be too generous and I think you therefore are a good voter.

    It's people like pierrot that keep this site the best of the best.
  • RCTNW%s's Photo
    The problem though is 10 put of 20 times the vote hasn't counted. I would say the same thing about someone who always vote real high.

    IMHO the site has become over critical and I hope its not turning builders off. It did me and is part of my lack of motivation.

    As for the design, I enjoyed it. Thank you for building it