(Archive) Advertising District / Why we all love Toon...

I actually didn't think it was directed at me because I didn't read it, you just have a habit of saying the same exact thing in a longer post after somebody has just said it. Reading your most recent post, I am inclined to believe that you read my second-most-recent-post as much as I read yours.

These fourms are for anyone who wants to speak their mind. So what, me and geewhzz decide to speak our minds about the screen we saw. I dont find it a big deal for the fact we are two people out of a lot of people that belong to the site. I find these supports so realistic and think they would be great for realistic coasters and parks. How ever for example if some one makes a coaster and then i said it dont look like a B&M design, then all they have to say is "it is not a B&M stlye roller coaster" or just plain, "its not a B&M"... not that hard. But if you making a realistic park, then it should be a realistic B&M design. You all get my drift but like I said, i dont find it a big Deal.

Well anyway, thanks toon i cant wait to get my rct2 fixed soon to use these.
-JDP

talk about ' unrealistic' supports: http://www.rcdb.com/...8.htm?picture=8

Haha those supports are the shit! Custom made for HP's terrain.

-Ryan

Yea, I like the foot-chopper feeling.

I loved Great Bear. No lines, either.

Unsurprisingly, I side with Phatage.

LMAO at the random wacky Great Bear support. I've never seen that one before.

So, maybe this is a stupid question, but can somebody tell me why they couldn't just extend that Great Bear support straight down into the water? Soft ground or something?

Edited by ride_exchanger, 03 May 2006 - 07:51 PM.

^footchopper

Planning ordinance. Takes a good bit of time and money and extra effort to get permission to put supports in the water (that's already being used for the paddle boats, I believe). It was much more cost efficient to build under and around rather then obtain the incredible difficult planning permission to go into the water.

I thought it was because they couldnt build on the river??

Edited by sfgadv02, 03 May 2006 - 08:39 PM.

That's essentially what he said, only he explained why in detail.

tyandor, you get the random comment of the day award, lol.

I imagine they could have built the support over the track, rather than under and around... It looks like superdooperlooper is too close though, anybody know how close the 2 coasters are at that point??

They did it again, here.

tyandor, you get the random comment of the day award, lol.

What's random about it? A lot of people complain about unrealistic use of support in rct. If I would have made support like that in RCT I would have been declared nuts don't you think? Just trying to say that 'realistic' is relative.

I imagine they could have built the support over the track, rather than under and around... It looks like superdooperlooper is too close though, anybody know how close the 2 coasters are at that point??

They did it again, here.

i think in the pic that tyandor showed, they're both a fair distance away. i'm not too sure though, it's been like three years since i've been there.

How are supports unrealistic when they've bloody built the things in real life? :' />

What's random about it? A lot of people complain about unrealistic use of support in rct. If I would have made support like that in RCT I would have been declared nuts don't you think? Just trying to say that 'realistic' is relative.

True, but still found the picture random though... I got your point.

Bottom line: judge "realism" by how it would logically function in real life (physics, etc...), not on whether or not you've seen it done before, because new conditions will always pop up requiring new support situations... plus there's probably always some park in Asia or Europe with something funky.