Not signed in (Sign In)

Discussion Tag Cloud

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorDBru
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2009 edited
     
    I think a good solution to keeping your track surprises...surprises...would be to include "DO NOT READ RATES BEFORE RIDING" in your ride description. Simple enough, eh?

    Also, if no one has seen this yet in the "Problems with ratings" thread, A113's rating was counted twice on my Mission: Escape coaster. If a moderator could fix that, I'd really appreciate it!
    • CommentAuthorDBru
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2009
     
    Thanks to both of you for the help, haha.
  1.  
    DC High Heat failed to recognize that a track I uploaded here is changed from the version on a different exchange. He copied and pasted the rating and the feedback portion. He failed to notice the supports being entirely different in one area.

    Here's the link to the track:

    http://nolimits-exchange.com/coaster/310/tornado
    •  
      CommentAuthorXpress
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2009 edited
     
    ^And how do you know this?

    He obviously downloaded the ride from this site, because he would be unable to rate it without doing so.


    unless...
    •  
      CommentAuthorDC High Heat
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2009 edited
     
    My mistake...sorry I missed your quick and not well done fixes. Note that your connections still aren't perpendicular to running rails in most places, and the only section that is wrong in my rating here is the part about birail track. Oh, I forgot to note your unrealistic pond, the excessive negatives in the back row on one of the drops, the excess support beam lengths around the 2nd turnaround, the forced headchoppers throughout, among other things. Seriously...don't be that guy.

    Xpress, I downloaded first on CC, and rated there. I checked if it was here at the time, and if it was I would've just rated here since we need to maintain a dl/rate ratio here. Small mistake relative to a ton of information. But hey...not my problem. I'd edit for him if I could, but since I can't Matt is welcome to or it'll have to stand.

    And btw...the superficial changes brtnboarder made introduced another problem that offsets the fixes. Supports connect fine to birail track in NL, in general. However, they don't connect to trirail track correctly without the designer helping that. By changing from birail to trirail and not editing the connections, your undersupporting problem may be better, but your connection problem got equally worse.
  2.  
    Not "well done fixes"? Are you trying to troll or are you one by nature? I called you out because you were wrong, no need to come back in such an unfriendly manner.

    The supports do not have to be perpendicular my friend! Your rides do not feature completely perpendicular connections, and that would be virtually impossible unless the banking was 90 degrees (therefore the track being perpendicular to the ground itself).

    Why is the pond so unrealistic? Most ponds in amusement parks are fabricated and man-made - I'm allowed to make my pond however I want. Also, this is a roller coaster simulator, so I could give a damn because my pond isn't as rounded as yours. I highly doubt you can say that detracts from the ride.

    The excessive G's in the back row may be intense, but are well within the livable limits of -2.0 G's, and they are not sustained (as the hills are short yet powerful, as you said yourself). Supports are not excessive on the second turn around. You can't whine that I needed an extra support here and there but then at one place there were too many, when the G's are nearly the same. Head choppers are not forced, it's not like beams are hanging in thin air. There are head choppers wherever there is track above. Furthermore, who CARES if they are forced? They are still adding a thrill to the ride. By your logic, head choppers are forced on wooden roller coasters and thereby provide no additional thrill. This is not true of any ride. I've never heard of too many head choppers.

    Yes, I'll wait for Matt to fix this.
  3.  
    I edited my rating to reflect the changes and one other thing I noticed after rating before.
    •  
      CommentAuthorXpress
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: brtnboarder495Not "well done fixes"? Are you trying to troll or are you one by nature? I called you out because you were wrong, no need to come back in such an unfriendly manner.

    The supports do not have to be perpendicular my friend! Your rides do not feature completely perpendicular connections, and that would be virtually impossible unless the banking was 90 degrees (therefore the track being perpendicular to the ground itself).

    No my friend, you are absolutely wrong here. Making perpendicular supports is a bit easy, but mainly it's meticulous. DC High Heat, A.K.A. DCs221, the masterful designer of Aiolos, which was included in NLV1.6, and designer of Countach, very well has the abilities to make perpendicular track connections.

    Why is the pond so unrealistic? Most ponds in amusement parks are fabricated and man-made - I'm allowed to make my pond however I want. Also, this is a roller coaster simulator, so I could give a damn because my pond isn't as rounded as yours. I highly doubt you can say that detracts from the ride.

    DC is also an attention-to-detail freak. I myself don't care much about pons, but he does loads. IMO, it looks fine

    The excessive G's in the back row may be intense, but are well within the livable limits of -2.0 G's, and they are not sustained (as the hills are short yet powerful, as you said yourself). Supports are not excessive on the second turn around. You can't whine that I needed an extra support here and there but then at one place there were too many, when the G's are nearly the same. Head choppers are not forced, it's not like beams are hanging in thin air. There are head choppers wherever there is track above. Furthermore, who CARES if they are forced? They are still adding a thrill to the ride. By your logic, head choppers are forced on wooden roller coasters and thereby provide no additional thrill. This is not true of any ride. I've never heard of too many head choppers.

    -2.0G is VERY painful. Anything above -1.6 is very painful. The only ride I know of that actually reaches -1.6 is El Toro at Six Flags Great Adventure, and some even call that TOO painful with the airtime. Most Intamins won't go above -1.2 ;)

    Yes, I'll wait for Matt to fix this.


    You're in a losing battle my friend. DC High Heat is VERY experienced with NoLimits, and has even had one (or more!) of his rides featured in NoLimits ;)

    Also, some people DO take this seriously.
  4.  
    Xpress - I suggest you ride my coaster before making assumptions. There are supports that follow this style throughout the ride;

    [IMG]http://cache.rcdb.com/pictures/picmax/p4566.jpg[/IMG]

    Concerning the pond, that does not detract from the coaster experience.

    -2.0G isn't painful if carefully executed. That said, my ride lingers in the -1.5/-1.6 G range on one hill briefly. The S&S towers that shoot you downwards run in this range of G's. That said, as Xpress mentioned, other coasters DO reach the G's of my ride (El Toro).

    Losing in a battle? So far he mistakingly rated my ride on a different file, claimed my coaster did not have supports like Intamin coasters do (see above), and then goes on to say that my coaster is supported too well in certain locations. I've never heard of detracting for having an extra support or two. Fine, call it "earthquake proof".

    This isn't a matter of being right or wrong anymore, it's a matter of everyone blindly assuming the designer with higher rated rides is automatically correct.

    By the way DC High Heat, I really like how you chose to rate my track on this exchange LOWER than the one on CoasterCrazy, when this version of the coaster has a handful of issues fixed.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDC High Heat
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2009 edited
     
    -The majority of your supports do not connect to the ride in the way shown in your own screen.

    -I never said your ride was oversupported. I said your headchoppers were forced.

    -The score was lower because I noticed between then and now that you have two spots of -1.7 g's in the back. The 'fixes' were offset by the problems introduced, as I noted in my score.

    -Did you make an S&S tower? No? Then why are you referring to it? This is like you saying a B&M hyper is realistic with a 6.7 g pullout because Schwarzkoph did it before. The strongest Intamins are listed at -1.5...I've seen that value in writing for T Express, Colossos, and ISpeed. The Intamin Megalites are listed at -1, and SROS SFNE doesn't exceed around -1.3, as seen in the G graph. Negatives get dangerous very quickly relative to positives, and can cause damage to parts of the human body more easily than positive g's. Also note that I don't know about all S&S towers, but Power Tower at Cedar Point is listed at -1g. I doubt the initial forces are that much stronger on any other S&S tower, as most of the issue people have with larger S&S towers isn't the initial acceleration itself, it's the slower descent after the initial acceleration.

    So whether you want to or not...trust me, I'm right.
    • CommentAuthorDBru
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2009
     
    DC, just wondering...

    What does "the headchoppers were forced" mean?
  5.  
    Myself and others consider headchoppers to be forced when the NL designer obviously went out of their way to have headchoppers where they normally wouldn't be found. This is very rarely seen in real Intamin designs...they often have headchoppers, but they are almost always (actually always from what I've seen) there for purely functional reasons. When a designer clearly sticks a horizontal beam in a spot where it wouldn't be otherwise, it often seems "forced," hence my comment. I've done it in the past, as have many others...but I try to stay away from it on this style coaster especially now. Not a huge deal, just detracts from realism.
    •  
      CommentAuthorXpress
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2009
     
    Posted By: brtnboarder495Xpress - I suggest you ride my coaster before making assumptions. There are supports that follow this style throughout the ride;

    [IMG]http://cache.rcdb.com/pictures/picmax/p4566.jpg[/IMG]

    Concerning the pond, that does not detract from the coaster experience.

    -2.0G isn't painful if carefully executed. That said, my ride lingers in the -1.5/-1.6 G range on one hill briefly. The S&S towers that shoot you downwards run in this range of G's. That said, as Xpress mentioned, other coasters DO reach the G's of my ride (El Toro).


    -2.0G? Dude, at that force and above, the brain can begin to sustain damage, which is why you WON'T see rides exceed -1.6. Why do you think aerobatic pilots enter inverted maneuvers with a VERY gentle slope? It's not because of the way the aircraft is setup.

    And S&S towers, like DC mentioned only reach -1.0.

    I suggest that WE STOP ARGUING HERE, AND TAKE IT TO PRIVATE MESSAGES. THIS IS FOR RATING CONCERNS, NOT TO ARGUE OVER HOW A RIDE IS BUILT.
  6.  
    Show a picture of my supports that do not support the ride adequately. Show a picture of "forced head choppers". This argument is still stupid, but really, the supports were needed in these locations almost always. If not, they provided extra support at a small expense for a greater thrill. It's laughable that you're detracting for something that makes the ride more exciting.

    There is one instance of -1.5 in the rear car, and even then on some runs it flickers into -1.6 for less than a split second, and this is on the fourth hill (counting the first drop)

    Does my ride pull more negative G's than any other KNOWN Intamin ride out there (because we don't have access to data other than SROS @ SFNE, it seems)? Maybe. Do we know for sure? Nope. Does it pull negative G's slightly higher than one known model? Yes.

    Oh, and here are some facts:

    [b]This limit is typically in the −2 to −3 g (−20 m/s² to −30 m/s²) range.[/b]

    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force

    Xpress - I don't think you need to continue commenting on a matter that doesn't concern you.
  7.  
    Running the ride on 25% speed twice, I got -1.6 and -1.8 on the two offending hills one time, and the next time -1.7 and -1.7. My computer is fast. Another person wrote -1.7 in his rating, I believe.

    There are force listings for the other rides I mentioned. T Express and ISpeed are both listed at -1.5. Do you really know enough to exceed that?

    I'm not wasting my time to take pictures for you. Clearly you knew what you were doing when supporting, considering you had about 1/4 of the necessary number of supports (as seen on every Intamin with decently strong forces and bi-rail track), and considering your connections are almost all wrong, and considering your flanges are often in bad spots (like the middle of a connection), and considering you spent a whole week on the trackwork and supporting. That definitely shows me you knew what you were doing when you made these headchoppers that were obviously all necessary, because you say so.

    Arguing anything related to supports only makes the flaws that much more apparent.

    Obviously, you'd rather argue than improve your rides, so they'll just have to stay the same quality. Your loss.
    •  
      CommentAuthorXpress
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2009
     
    Posted By: Mathew Davies

    Cleaned: Please keep it on-topic guys. If you want to battle out your personal issues then please use the whispering system.

    -Mathew



    Posted By: brtnboarder495Xpress - I don't think you need to continue commenting on a matter that doesn't concern you.


    Dude, YOU'RE going to get yourself removed from the forums, not me. I am trying to keep this ontopic, but you simply refuse to accept constructive criticism, and choose to argue out here on the forum. Take it to PM's please.

    Also, I know EXACTLY what g-force is, and what human tolerances are of it. I am currently enrolled in flight training classes so as to gain my private pilots liscence and progress to aerobatic aircraft.
    • CommentAuthorReal
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2009
     
    BrtnBrder...Xpress and I had this conversation and its safe to say, without a G Suit and without EVERYONE riding knowing proper breathing and G-Force technique, going above around -1.6 is just not feasible and dangerous. Im almost done with my EMT and what little I know about blood, circulation, airway and how they interact with the brain and how just a LITTLE increase in the size of the blood vessels (or, in this case, engorged with blood) can and WILL cause headaches, migraines or worse, a vessel bursting - I think -1.6 is the absolute limit. Anything over is venturing into a realm that would most likely cause injury or bodily harm to riders.

    Unless you want to train each person how to breathe and control blood flow properly or fitting everyone with a G Suit. Even with G Suits pilots tend NOT to go over 2. So if a pilot with a suit made to help (which, in negative G's, the suit doesnt do THAT much compared to positives) pulls only -0.5 more than a coaster, Id say even going over -0.1 of -1.6 is a HUGE difference.

    Just some wisdom I know from flying and EMT.
  8.  
    DC, I have ridden from EVERY car at 25% speed on EVERY hill with 60 FPS (this is important as G's will vary unless you ride near or above 60 FPS), and the highest vertical G's is -1.5 that sometimes ventures to -1.6 (for a split second). That said, my ride is within the limits of rides like iSpeed. I see more people complaining about blacking out on helices on Giovanola's hypers than iSpeed. That said, as confirmed by factual sources, and another qualified designer himself (Real), these forces ARE realistic. Can a mod please ride my coaster under the same settings so we can rectify this? This is ridiculous. Not once do the G's wander past -1.6 for more than a split second.

    It's interesting how you went from saying the coaster has sufficient supports throughout the ride (you claimed that the second turn around was a prime example of "too many" supports), to the ride having 1/4 of the necessary supports. Can you at least be consistent with yourself? FYI, the ride isn't under supported, notice how no one else has commented on this? The ride has more supports than other tri-rail Intamins. While we're on the topic, do you realize the entire body of the track is tri-rail? Not sure why you're bringing bi-rail into the equation. Lastly, I still think the forced head choppers argument is laughable. Obviously you're just looking for ridiculous things to justify you're underrate now. I also find it interesting that after questioning your rating that criticizes things that AREN"T present in this coaster, you lower the rating even further to spite me.

    I'm not complaining rather than improving my rides, I'm always improving my designs. However, I won't stand for you wavering back and forth about such critical points (such as there being too few supports, then saying too many supports, then resorting to them not being "realistic" enough), and also about making claims that just aren't true such as the unrealistic airtime moments that just don't exist on my ride.
    • CommentAuthorReal
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2009 edited
     
    Um...if your ride is hitting -1.7 or holding G's over -1.4 for any longer than a moment, then its NOT realistic. I will take a ride here and edit this with my findings. My computer is above-average in speed.

    EDIT - You definitely hit -1.7 in the left back most seat on the hill parallel to the drop. In 50% mode it was obvious, no spiking. It also hit -1.6 about 2 more times which is iffy. My complaint would be you have too many hills too intense. Sure, we all love rides to push the limits but I think Im learning that variety is not only good for the character but also your body. Each hill, especially in the back is over -1.2 it seems (or close to it) and the transitions are so small it actually intensifies those G's more on the body as it tries to cope.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDC High Heat
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2009 edited
     
    It seems the majority who have said anything about forces found -1.7. I again saw -1.6 and -1.8, then -1.7 and -1.7 on the two offending hills, on 25%, with great fps on my excellent computer. You don't have any 3ds that might slow the fps or other heavy scenery that might throw the value off at an inopportune time. You might want to fix that by have a few people test before release. If you ask people to test, depending on who they are and where you are in the process, make sure you show more effort in your design than you did with this release.

    You misunderstood what I was saying about supports. My position on the supports has not changed at all since the 2nd release, but I can see how the misunderstanding may give you that idea. Look at your second turnaround...why are the diagonal beams so long past the vertical support to which they're connecting? Not a huge deal, but I've never seen that on an Intamin, so it looks to me like an unrealistic waste of money stemming from a lack of effort. Some of your moments there may be really high too. Maybe it's not true that you didn't give effort...but you're presenting to me, the rider. What you present to me is what I see, and I (and the others whose opinions I've asked) see an obvious lack of effort on the whole ride. Maybe it was just a Newton2 test track...which I really think it was...but if so, you should note that in your description and not argue every little thing possible. Again, I have nothing against you, and you're the one who's brought my rating into question. This is why I'm justifying what I've said.

    I also noted the problems you initially had with birail track in my last message here because it shows you clearly didn't know what you were talking about because you rushed everything which showed so clearly, but yet you continued to argue about something I know very well and routinely spend tons of time on. I did nothing to spite you...I told you exactly why your changes worked and didn't work, and that I noticed the excessive forces that a few people have commented on.

    And no, that was not close to an underrate. If it was, then that's a slap in the face to myself and everyone else who puts more than a week's worth of effort in a ride.
  9.  
    Sure thing guys, but I have tested this on my PC, my mac, and my friends PC, and again using 25%, there is nothing above -1.6. I did get -1.6 on the hill under the lift on 2/3 runs .. I wasn't aware NL had varying capabilities. Clearly you won't change your mind on this matter though, despite the airtime being within realistic ranges (since they aren't sustained and are experienced for less than a moment)

    That said, the supports HAVE changed. Take a look at the first turn. Compare them if you feel the need to. the supports on the second turn around are shaped the way they are as the station is below. This was the best way to cope with that.
    •  
      CommentAuthorEd Boxer
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2009 edited
     
    Guys, please take this offline or whisper comments to each other.
  10.  
    You get those values, we get others. We're rating...sorry we get different values than you. You can't say we didn't give that a fair chance.

    Your supports have changed, and they're still not nearly strong enough (and I mean that in a quality sense, not necessarily physical). That's the last I'll say on the matter, because I think I spent as much effort talking about your supports as you did making them.
    • CommentAuthorReal
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2009
     
    Brtn, I think it would be wise next time to maybe top your ride out at -1.5. -1.5 is still OMG airtime. I have my color scale set to real life standards so it turns red at -1.7 and really, I am leaning towards anything over -1.5 without proper restraints or the proper shape would be uncomfortable. Taking it right to the max and then hoping everyone else doesnt read any higher is just cuttin it close.

    For your next ride, really spend time on shaping and transitions. It pays off. Sure it means you cant do a ride in a day (depending...lol) but the program has capabilities well beyond!
  11.  
    DC, if that were the case, then my supports would be the best on the exchange. You still haven't mentioned WHY the supports are poor in a quality sense.

    I appreciate your feedback Real - I'll keep all airtime below -1.5 and rate as so from here on out.
  12.  
    I mentioned 3 big reasons, several times for some of them, and will not be repeating myself. I doubt you care, but if you do you can go back through my comments, as they're all very clearly there. My feedback was also not biased, yet you decided to take it as such...your problem, not mine.
  13.  
    I never called it biased.
    • CommentAuthorReal
    • CommentTimeOct 1st 2009
     
    Well, you consider my feedback not biased...but how can you determine that? I think that comment definitely comes off aimed at him. When I read that (before I read the last two...i started from where it left off) it absolutely felt like that was a little stinger at him.
  14.  
    My gosh, okay I'll edit the comment. You cannot prove that was aimed towards DC. Take some of your own advice DC, "it's just a 'computer game'", much like these are just discussion forums.
    • CommentAuthorReal
    • CommentTimeOct 1st 2009
     
    No I cant prove it but even my first inclination was that it was based on this conversation.

    Just sayin...From the outside lookin in, you probably didnt see that.


    Oh and btw, wanting to have the last word - that usually flares things up, as Im sure you are well aware. ;)



    Anyways, back to the show!
  15.  
    squeekzilla, did not provide any feedback for the originality portion of his rating, yet gave me a 3 in that category. The other two sentences of his rating barely makes sense either. Here's the link to the ride:

    http://nolimits-exchange.com/coaster/310/tornado
    •  
      CommentAuthorXpress
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: brtnboarder495"it's just a 'computer game''


    Not really. Yes, it's a game in the fact that it amuses you, but no in the fact that it doesn't have an objective to it, at least not to most.

    [/end]
    •  
      CommentAuthorEd Boxer
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2009
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: brtnboarder495</cite>squeekzilla, did not provide any feedback for the originality portion of his rating, yet gave me a 3 in that category. The other two sentences of his rating barely makes sense either. Here's the link to the ride:

    http://nolimits-exchange.com/coaster/310/tornado</blockquote>

    Huh?? He said: " or: Ive seen a lot of this kind of ride, though, at least it isnt a launch "
    • CommentAuthorReal
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2009
     
    Id say its not enough to explain a 3 though. If that was for a 5 or 6, Id say it would be justifiable. I think in order to rate really high or low you need GOOD evidence and at least a good case for yourself.
    •  
      CommentAuthorEd Boxer
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2009
     
    Real, didn't say I agreed with it, just showing that squeekzilla did, in fact, have text for OR.
    • CommentAuthorReal
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2009
     
    I wasnt saying you were or werent, just showing that I didnt think it was nearly enough information. :)
  16.  
    So he gave below average (5) rating for originality, only because he has seen too many Intamin coasters? Sorry, but that's flawed.
    • CommentAuthorPmLondon
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2009
     
    I have again a rating by robbiesmiffy which dont make sense, he complain about the G's which are within range when he makes a recreation of Desert Race with a stagering 6.8 G and some curved brakes...
    I dont mind to receive some poor ratings when it's coming from a NoLimits expert but coming from such a beginner I hate to imagine how he is going to rate when he will know more...

    http://nolimits-exchange.com/coaster/183/saludes-the-real-place

    Rated by robbiesmiffy
    Technical : 2.50, Adrenaline : 4.50, Originality : 6.00, Average : 4.33

    ok, i think the ride idea was good but the way you executed it wasnt. it was too fast in some parts and too slow in others all the inversions where jerky.

    the supports were good but the g's need to be looked over.

    way to rough to get a good adrenaline rating, this ride would hurt alot.

    pretty original in that a real park would never consider it.
  17.  
    "So he gave below average (5) rating for originality, only because he has seen too many Intamin coasters? Sorry, but that's flawed."

    Brtn, many many people do that. I'm not saying it's right, but it just gives you THAT much more incentive to make your rides as creative as possible.
    • CommentAuthorPmLondon
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2009 edited
     
    I just saw this rating on this entry : http://nolimits-exchange.com/coaster/400/collosse

    I really think that there's some better ways to make a "funny" creation...

    The creator will certainly think it's allright to upload this kind of creations especially as this is his second entry.

    Rated 57 seconds ago by Mogeley
    Technical : 5.00, Adrenaline : 10.00, Originality : 7.00, Average : 7.33

    I have not had this much fun on a ride in a long time! I especially love the 18+ vertical G's. As a real ride this would be suicide, but as a fantasy ride it's very fun! Technically there are a few things wrong like being out of bounds on all the G forces. Some things to improve on. I'd say start with keeping the G-forces in bounds (all green). You may have stumbled upon a new type of coaster to upload. The "Fantasy" ride where they don't have to be realistic but are meant to be a lot of fun and unique.
    •  
      CommentAuthorEd Boxer
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2009
     
    PM - thanks for the head's up. that rating has been removed.
    • CommentAuthorReal
    • CommentTimeOct 22nd 2009
     
    http://nolimits-exchange.com/coaster/293/wicked-twister

    Just got malested by the last rate giving me an 8 simply because it wasnt my ride? Hello...originality doubles as accuracy/themeing recreation.

    Because if thats the mentality, I doubt Ill ever upload any further recreations. And its not just that rate, but several. Along with drilling me because the ride IRL isnt "uber thrilling" even though the recreation is spot on. Pretty lame if you ask me.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBBSpeed26
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009 edited
     
    I'll second that. IMO a needed addition to the Originality category is at the very least "Originality/Accuracy", or a better solution would be just obliterating the originality category altogether when a track is uploaded as a recreation. You can't make people rate intelligently, but the least we can do is prod them in the right direction.
    •  
      CommentAuthorEd Boxer
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     
    Real, that rating has been removed as the rater's logic was flawed.
    • CommentAuthorbader
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     
    A duplicate rating discription made by LiliTaly1313 for Black Hole
    •  
      CommentAuthorEd Boxer
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2009
     
    bader - the duplicate has been removed. Thanks for the head's up.
    • CommentAuthorPmLondon
    • CommentTimeOct 30th 2009
     
    I just went accross this rating on http://nolimits-exchange.com/coaster/426/viper-1990

    The rating for Originality should not be valid here as it is a recreation. The need to change this value with Accuracy was not apprehended here.

    Rated 2 days, 3 hours, 55 minutes and 8 seconds ago by daveandy1
    Technical : 7.00, Adrenaline : 9.00, Originality : 5.00, Average : 7.00

    This was a good recreation. I've ridden Viper many times, but not recently (years). I would have liked to see more scenery, there's far more grass and cactus and things, but for the sake of slower computers, this is okay.

    T: 7, because a) you could have just reworked the default track and b) it's a recreation, not much from your own thoughts going into it.

    A: Viper rocks, and was a numerous record holder for many years!

    O: Again, nothing against your coaster building skills, but it is a recreation, and not your brainchild.

    Nice ride.
    •  
      CommentAuthorXpress
    • CommentTimeOct 30th 2009
     
    ^Wouldn't reworking the original Viper included with the sim be a form of stealing?
    • CommentAuthorPmLondon
    • CommentTimeOct 30th 2009
     
    I was remembering seeing Viper on NL but never found it before rating this new version.

    I wouldn't call this stealing, I feel that this new version is closer to the real ride, using the prefabs bears no comparison with the work done here.

    I would be really cross if I was seeing someone using one of the features I imagineed and claiming he owns it but here it is a recreation and it's interesting to see who comes closer to the real deal.
    •  
      CommentAuthorXpress
    • CommentTimeOct 30th 2009
     
    ^Regardless, there's copyrights on the rides included with the sim, so uploading someone elses work (even re-worked) is a form of stealing, WITHOUT the original owners permission.