(Archive) Place-To-Release-Your-Parks Land / Ignition

Well, i talked with Kumba more about this. the design was alot better this time, but scenry lacked. i agree. I'm taking a break right now to finish school, but I'll be back. thanks though. This invert will take you 62 MPh and a journey of 5,000ft.





http://www.yourfilel....php?fid=318978

i think it was very nicely done.

That's a very nice design you have there, vekoma9. I am a huge fan of good theming, so I definately understand why it didn't get Design, though.

But still, that is something to be proud of.

Thanks guys. I appreciate them. I'm probably going to work on my buildings and look at some stuff, before I start again.

It was a pretty good design and overall I enjoyed it. There are a few things I didn't like. The layout for the most part worked, and with a few exceptions of some things I didn't like. I really didn't like the heartline roll and I wish you would have instead made a zero-g roll in the course somewhere. For the most part it looks like you are attempting for realism, and the layout reflects that, but I think you need to pay a bit more attention to real life coaster details to pull it off better next time. For example, your immelmann twists the wrong way, if it is what you were going for, on a real B&M coaster, the immelmann always exits the roll on the opposite side of track it drops over.

I liked what you were going for and I'm happy to see you've added terrain to the design instead of leaving it all flat. The supports for the most part were decent, a bit sloppy imo, but I am a perfectionist when it comes to them.

Another thing that bothered me was the transfer track, while I'm happy you added it I felt that you should have put more thought into how it would operate, because in this case it couldn't work. I'm also happy you attempted to put nice looking catwalks into the ride, but in game, it just didn't work good. You need to mess around with map object manipulation to get this working without glitch. It is very tedious and annoying, but if you're really motivated to get better you could learn it easy and improve in that area.

The archy from what I looked at seemed pretty good, and if you keep working at it you will always improve.

This honestly falls just short of design imo and I think on your next attempt if you just put a bit more thought and work into it you will nail it.

Good luck.

Solid archy, solid landscaping, very nice support work, and one of the worst layouts Ive ever seen.

Ouch. Can I get you a Band-Aid, sir?

eman, you care to say why? I thought it was good, but it is good to see some one else explain why not. thanks for the comment though.

geewhzz- thanks man, I see what you mean. I appreciate your comment.

Of course I can say why. I already vented to geewhzz about it actually.

The layout suffers from a LOT of weaknesses. One big issue is the pacing. Some inversions were taken WAY too fast. (Namely the barrel roll, which is taken at 40) Another major issue for me was how much flat track was used. Generally flat track should be avoided unless it really serves a purpose. Here you have some massive areas of flat where it looks like you just misplanned and had to fill in extra area to make things work so you threw in flat. The flat before the Immelman is totally unnecessary and looks bad, and having all the flat turns and such before and after the barrel roll is very awkward as well. Also consider that Beemer inverts essentially constantly change elevation...you'll be hardpressed to find a flat area on an invert aside from the brake run and MCBR. The ending was also VERY weak. It was as though you finished the corkscrew, decided you wanted it to end there, and then just threw together some plain turns to make up for the fact that it was far away from the station at that point. If you'd like you can hit me up on aim for more info/feedback. Im always happy to help.

Yeah i'm totally with eman on the layout issue. I think it's good to see someone try something original, but i just don't think it worked, mainly it looked forced. I can see why it didn't get design, but it's good to check out a new coaster now and then.

Keep going man.

I have to agree with everyone else on the layout. It had potential, but the ending kinda sucked, and seemed like you just wanted some inversions, then threw in some turns to make it end. I hated the barrel roll. Besides that, it had some pretty cool elements. The corkscrew into diving turn and cave thing was pretty nice. Your getting there at archy, but I think your best was in that hyper design. You've got some really good stuff going for you, but you just need to work on the execution. You WILL get it eventually. Whether it's a design or not, if you keep going at it, then it will get really good. Your past designs have all been very decent, but just needed those couple extra things to nab it. Good luck on your next project.

Except that RCT doesn't have the kind of detail necessary to give the feel for what he was going for. The majority of the flat track that you speak of is implied to be a continuation of the track peices before and after it, most notably, the turn pictured above. The turn needed to be bigger than the track peices that were available, so the flat track implied a large, smooth turn.

I'm sorry that it's not your style, but im pretty sure he "gets it." (even though it's you who doesn't get it)

The turn in the first screen was fine. Though it did have an extra unnecessary straight part before the final shallow radius turn leading to the MCBR that was a result of poor planning and placement. Its things like the unnecessary excessive straight before the immelman, the flat nature of everything beyond the corkscrew, and the whole barrel roll to corkscrew part that makes it a poor layout IMO.

^I agree with everything you have said except.... http://rcdb.com/ig468.htm?picture=10

The GB @ HP contains a flat area. And it is basiclly the same style V9 decided to attempt. So its basiclly just an element he saw from GB.
-JDP