Not signed in (Sign In)

Discussion Tag Cloud

Categories

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

  1.  
    Inspired by an idea that came up in the WDYJDNL thread, I figured I might as well do the honors of officially starting this thread.

    Just to keep things on track, this thread is NOT meant for questions about the technical aspects of FVD++, Newton2 or the in-game FVD editor, or generic Q&A. For those questions, please use the FVD++ Help and Tutorial Thread. Instead, this thread is for showcasing your curent projects in FVD++, which can include pictures of the graphs or rendering of your projects, both in FVD++ and NoLimits 2. Questions related to what is shown, or asking of advice is totally okay and encouraged. People who use Newton2 or the in-game FVD editor are welcome to showcase their stuff too. The more the merrier!

    I'll get things started. Recently I've been trying to make a Raptor-esque B&M invert, with all of it's quirks. It's proved to be quite a challenge, but what I really tried to focus on is the snap roll. This is what I've got so far:

    https://gyazo.com/11574b16c1309cda8bbbd65b4d7b1998


    Compared to the real thing:
    https://gyazo.com/31901b533204ab4b2e1d67fbc309dd3e


    I think I'm just about there, and I'll post a POV of that section soon if people are interested. Any advice?
    •  
      CommentAuthorZergei
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2017
     
    I think the most general difference between FVD and Batman is that it is stretched out just a little wider. Other than that, the roll looks spot on. I'd love to see a POV too!
    •  
      CommentAuthorMorganFan
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2017 edited
     
    This works I guess. I was going to start a topic for this purpose but also to include Newton2 and other design programs like Kyle's Blender app. I just never had the time to do it the way I wanted.

    The roll on the top of the flat spin doesn't look as snappy as B&M's do. I think the transition should be more like this:


    The approach has a slight bank to get to 90 degrees(ish), then to get the famous B&M 'snap' there should be a sudden, quick roll in the same direction. You have the same idea, but I don't think it should be that smooth.

    Edit: I see that you have your roll section centered a bit to the right (correct me if I'm wrong) to line up with the crest of the flat spin. As as general rule, I hardly touch the center value except for alignment purposes like brake runs, lifts, or launches. I'm kind of anal about roll sections. I also usually don't do anything with the tension value either but that's more of a style choice. To each their own.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKingRCT3
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2017
     
    I'd take the supports on the real Batman as a reference point, since it's the part where the track is banked at 90°. And we see that the slope is more shallow than yours Jetstream, and maybe more than yours as well MorganFan. That makes the roll (of the track at least) almost flat!
  2.  
    The effect you are trying to achieve is much more complicated then what you are currently doing. The track on those snappy b&m wingovers has some lateral force due to he fact that b&m designs had quite a bit of geometric influence in them back in the era of the "classic" invert.

    •  
      CommentAuthordapalm
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2017 edited
     
    Not sure if using a geometric section is the most appropiate way to do it, but it produces some cool results (plus you can see how the lateral force acts)

    https://gyazo.com/69b8dcea8b8a00813a6de6135d8c5dc4

    https://gyazo.com/e7908beca4e7d7855ade471d981326f4
  3.  
    Really love the discussion that's going on so far guys... I've already update my wingover and will post more pictures (and a pov tonight).

    @MorganFan. That's good to know about what you had in mind for this thread. I'll update it accordingly.

    @gigacoasterfan thanks for the tip. I have noticed through studying the various implementations of B&M's wingovers, that there are A LOT of variations. There is a noticeable shaping difference between those on Raptor, the Batman Clones, and say Flight Deck at CGA. I'm trying to shoot for a nice middle ground.

    @Dalpalm. I'm not crazy sure I want to dive into using geometric segments for something that complicated, tbh. I'll start with manually adding lats in a force section, and if that still doesn't work, then maybe I'll take a stab at geometric shaping.
  4.  
    To be honest learning to use geometric sections would be a boon to your ride design if you are attempting to be as realistic as possible. Manufacturers often use geometric shaping because it is easy to shape steel into geometries based off of circles and well defined curves (parabolas, etc) then an arbitrary shape based off of forces.
    • CommentAuthorKyle Sloane
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2017 edited
     
    Just because B&M designed them geometrically does not mean that you should use geometric sections to shape them.. In reality the closest way to get them would be with perfect helix shapes, or a perfect sin from the top and the side. The shape of the track comes from automatically banking in a way that has ZERO lats (like AHG :D), but because of the wide trains you still feel them :P

    NL1 Elementary and AHG are still the most realistic ways to the public for centerlines that look like stengel :P
  5.  
    ^You know more than me about ride design, that's for sure. However, I assumed that B&M would bank their rides in a way that minimizes laterals, but to me when I rode inverts, it felt as if the ride had more than just rotational laterals through the wingovers.

    Posted By: Kyle SloaneTo the public


    I'm intrigued, haha.
    • CommentAuthorTheBeatles
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2017
     
    ^Manufacturers and design firms typically have their own software for designing layouts, which are clearly not available to the public.
    • CommentAuthorrobdcx
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017
     
    What would be the best way to recreate the sensation of Skyrush's first drop? From my understanding, the radius of the curve decreases after the crest which results in the huge launch of air you get after you're already well out of your seat. I've tried to recreate it several times with decent results, buy I'd be interested to see how someone else might achieve the effect.
  6.  
    ^Here's how I would do it...

    According to this reference picture, it looks like Skyrush has a perfectly constant radius right up until about that red arrow. At that point, I'd switch from using a geometric segment to a force-based segment. I'd then smoothly transition from that geometric segment to about -1G's by the time you get to about the blue arrow. But that may be too strong of air. You kinda just have to mess with it hahaha.

    https://gyazo.com/4309daf258e05a3e6df7df4b66de1b0a




    Anyways, back to the B&M wingover discussion for a moment...

    I completely reworked the element with advice taken from all of your posts, and this is what I come up with:
    https://gyazo.com/a6092e974d6ebbae4c5a70cb1cee4b5b

    The radius comb is nice and smooth in the editor:
    https://gyazo.com/bebfaea541221e3974ec8e60f9346117

    And despite my best efforts, I still couldn't get it to look exactly like the ones on the Batman clones, and I figure its because the coaster is going much faster at this point than it is in the Batman clones. But who knows. Still, with prefabs in place, it doesn't look half bad:
    https://gyazo.com/3b8b985eecd4bf50fe6fd5afb008f93b


    Here's how it looks in-game:
    https://gyazo.com/6bf7a8c6eb58994833964586e5211fb6

    In comparison to Montu:
    https://gyazo.com/51847d090e144df04a981ac88e130645

    So overall I'm pretty happy with it. Still definitely willing to tweak it though. And this ends probably the longest single thread on the B&M wingover hahaha.
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017 edited
     
    I'm also a huge fan of the Skyrush drop and try to recreate the airtime on my tracks. I've taken a couple of approaches. One is to use a geometric section while looking at the resulting force graph. I roughly follow the tutorial about the Shambhala drop, but I tighten the curvature to get more ejector air. Another is to use a force zone, starting by holding somewhere between -0.25 to -0.5. Then I put in a quick transition to -1 or so before beginning the pullout.

    If anyone has any insight into the forces on the Skyrush drop, though, I'd like to know.

    Edit: I started writing before the post above this had been posted. I took his advice and created the following.



    I think it's kind of good, but there does appear to be a kink in the drop. Does anyone else agree? Or is the shaping on point? (I don't believe so.)
  7.  
    ^it looks to me like your geometric section is a bit too long. I'd suggest shortening that section and making the force segemtn only go to -.5 Gs? But other than that it looks like a pretty good start :)
  8.  
    @Gigacoasterfan

    Those lats are a combination of the heartline position being relatively high, and the trains being wide, if you sit in the middle seats there are far less lats
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017
     


    The red is my force zone. The apex is two geometric zones: first with respect to distance (constant speed of 22mph) and then with respect to time (variable speed).

    (I often have trouble posting pictures on here, and I would be more active if I could do it consistently. For this post, I quoted my previous post and changed the URL to the new Imgur URL, yet it won't display. Unbelievable...)
    •  
      CommentAuthorTijjer
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017
     
    How should one go about making snappy rolls on GCIs using force/geometric sections?
  9.  
    ^^Not sure what you're problem is with the picture there because I'm not a mod, but Gyazo makes life way easier when it comes to sharing photos.

    ^As for GCI's, that's a tricky one. If you look closely at their rides, the roll rates are never very fast, actually quite slow. If I had to guess they rarely go beyond 80 or 90 degrees/second. That being the case, they are primarily characterized by long, constant roll rates that start and end very quickly. In FVD++, this would mean that your roll rate graph would look like a wide plateau.
  10.  
    ^GCI could be done entirely in geometric, and the rolls would just be smooth not plateau.. I could do an entire tutorial on how to do accurate gci :P
    • CommentAuthorrobdcx
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017
     
    I rarely use geometric sections, but I decided to give it a try based on Jet Stream and BigBad's feedback. Two geometric segments with the second ending at about -.7 g's and then a quick .35 second transition to -1 before the pullout. (Basically what BigBad did.) Rides like Skyrush's drop with that quick kick up but looks a little weird to me.



    JetStream, your wingover looks and rides great to me, but if you're going for an accurate Batman recreation it seems off. I'm no expert on shaping, but the Batman wingover looks flatter at the apex to me.
    • CommentAuthorMr. E
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017
     
    ^^A GCI FVD tutorial would be awesome.
    •  
      CommentAuthordapalm
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017 edited
     
    Nevermind, posted the wrong link lol.
  11.  
    @kyle

    That's interesting. So the heartline of the ride isn't at the heartline of the riders? Is this consistent throughout the entire ride? If so I'd assume you could set your heartline value in FVD to somewhere along the lines of -0.5 and get a realistic effect.
  12.  
    ^Yeah the heart-line is about -.65 not sure exactly where. Its about head height..
    •  
      CommentAuthorTijjer
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017
     
    @dapalm Clicking on the link says it couldn't locate the page

    @Kyle A tutorial on GCIs would be wonderful!
    •  
      CommentAuthorKingRCT3
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017
     
    Dapalm, you read my mind as I was going to post this one more time, haha!

    Here is the link, click on Download the Project Soar Report.
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017 edited
     
    Count me as another vote in favor of a GCI tutorial.

    What's this about the heartline values, though? Would you say to use the head-line value of -0.65m for a B&M invert? What about for hypers? I use http://www.themeparkreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36593, which I've found matches what NL2 does, at least with the styles that I've tried (which never has been inverted).
    •  
      CommentAuthorOlmisery
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017 edited
     
    GCI is actually really easy, hand building included, when you get the hang of the forces and transitions.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMorganFan
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017 edited
     
    I'm just gonna drop these in here











    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017
     
    That heartline chart is what I've seen and use, but that chart (what NL2 uses) has the invert heartline at -1.1m while the claim earlier is that B&M does -0.65m. I'm curious about the discrepancy.

    The force thresholds (yes, thresholds, not targets, despite what some of my videos show with ejector airtime) definitely are good to have here, though.
    •  
      CommentAuthordapalm
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017
     
    I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean the heartline is .65, I think he meant they use (or used, not sure if they've changed it in their new designs) an offsetted heartline to design their tracks.

    In other words, they use headline no heartline.
    • CommentAuthorJAKool
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017
     
    That's because NL2 uses an actual heartline as opposed to the one B&M actually uses. The default one is good enough for most uses unless you want extra shaping detail.
  13.  
    I've noticed that old school B&M inverts had a tendency to use this "headline" technique. Take a look at Flight Deck's zero-G roll, it is DEFINITELY not rolling around the heart line.

    But on newer designs, like Silver Bullet, Patriot, or Phaethon, the heart line looks more normal. Not sure if it's the claimed -1.1m, but closer than it used to be
    • CommentAuthorXazzaphonic
    • CommentTimeJan 27th 2017 edited
     
    Hey everyone. New to the discussion board. I'm a long time newton/newton 2 user. First off, thanks a ton for that heartline chart. I've used the integrated heartline chart in newton2 and guessed for other ride types, but that's big help. Secondly, on the intawings, and for most hypers to be honest, I use geometry at the top of the lift hill to the point of the drop as displayed in that image with the radius planted on it (if any others were debating on that still). Also, I myself have tried long and hard to get the flat spin right. I think you all have put more effort and thought into it than I have, though. Using Raptor as example, I can see the use of headline and heartline simulatenously. I think during review of g-force and seconds sustained, headline v. heartline is utilized to determine shaping. I think there's ways you can closely emulate it, and only an anal crowd would notice the difference.
    Looking back on the B&M Invert I sunk some time into, I managed to emulate some proper B&M snapiness to it, but I'm not sure the shaping was developed properly (in refernce to the flat spin). I wasn't trying to recreate an old style of their's in my defense, but I'm still not sure I managed a proper B&M shaping:

    On top of that, mine has an intentional downward pitch to it leading into a tunnel. I do have a [WIP] video if any of you want to simulate that area (not looking for feedback here as this would be probably the wrong place for it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hgxbEBp5QQ Flat spin happens just after 1:21.

    I'm constantly working on stuff in Newton2, I've currently completed a RMC launch lift track design that I'm trying to find inspiration to properly support in NL2.



    Shown is the top of my launched-lifted RMC. I think it is a unique approach to what Alan Shilke/RMC have currently used on their rides with a nice spin on it.
  14.  
    Here's a proper FVD GCII:

    https://gyazo.com/e60051d759ce434484226271475397c8
    https://gyazo.com/fd5d4122b151ca4790135d8e6a90e9e6


    Tips:
    - design with geometric distance based
    - Only 3 transitions you should ever have for yaw and pitch: quadratic, flat line, and instant (cubic transitions less than 5 meters). Sidenote: the sloped section of quadratic sections always must touch the zero axis.

    https://gyazo.com/83641f76cd25dc918d46576acb70c93f

    - ONLY cubic transitions for roll graph, as smooth as possible after it starts curving. Anything that looks like a spline curve will do..

    https://gyazo.com/534be42acbdae3b2df522ad9c55a84c4

    - Minimize lats with banking in some places, and allow them in others, if you allow lats, underbank rather than overbank.
    - Never perfectly align sections of the graphs for roll, yaw, or pitch. (i.e. dont start pitching down the exact place you start turning) Always offset by at least a meter or too..
    - Maximum negative g-force of around -.1 or -.2 when designing, if it runs faster than that by a bit then its fine.. ;)
  15.  
    ^that looks really, really awesome. Will have to try it out this weekend. Could we see a POV to see what those graphs look like in real time?

    Also, what do you use for the heart line value?
    • CommentAuthorMilBee
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2017
     
    So I have been working on a strata coaster like TTD or Kingda Ka, and I think I have the shaping almost there but it is not 100% accurate. Can someone give me some tips on how to shape the top hat to get it perfect?



    • CommentAuthorrobdcx
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2017 edited
     
    ^^^ Interesting. I've recently started playing around with quadratic sections and noticed that they can sometimes produce a more realistic effect. Based on the graphs you've shown, I guess I was overly concerned with the force ending abruptly (i.e. having the force change suddenly stopping versus the smoother stop you get with a quartic graph).
    • CommentAuthorMr. E
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2017
     
    I've been working on a GCI, and with the help from above, I think the drop is looking pretty good.

    Side view of the drop

    Top view with the graphs shown

    I'd like to know what you guys think, and how to improve, because I don't think it is 100% there yet.
  16.  
    ^Banking shpuld be smooth :p
  17.  
    Mr. E: As long as your drop is one change in roll throughout, it looks very smooth. If, in the first screen shot, the ted track and the green track are two separate roll changes, you should then go back and make the whole drop one roll change.

    MilBee: the roll change (going up and down the top hat) should be just slightly more stretched out, and should be slightly closer to the tophat element itself. Also, when you look at TTD from an aerial view, the launch section and brake zone are not parallel. Near the station they're closer, then they're spread apart for the top hat:
    • CommentAuthorKyle Sloane
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2017 edited
     
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2017
     
    In my never-ending quest to build the perfect hyper/giga/bigger, I've come across an issue. I don't want to maintain constant force throughout the big valleys like after the first drop. I didn't put a lot of effort into these three designs, but the graphs and approximate shapes of the valleys should be informative.





    I think the first photo shows a wrong way to go about this. Making a point to lower the force while increasing the speed seems wrong. Between the second and third, which do you think is the preferable way to do this: second to get geometric symmetry and maximum force at maximum speed, or third to have an extra kick of forces before transitioning into airtime, or would the first be best? Any other suggestions?
  18.  
    Go to "Graph List" > Resulting graphs > Geometric > Check both "Pitch Change" and "Yaw Change"
    This will give you graphs for the pitch and yaw which are very nice when it comes to trying to make a pullout that resembles that of a B&M. It also helps when making Intamin rides while using a force segment in FVD++.

    Another way to do it is to use a geometry based segment for the entire drop and the valley, I prefer using a distance based segment but if you prefer time I'm not one to judge. When using geometry I like to activate the Normal Force and Lateral Force boxes in the graphs tab mentioned above in order to visualize the forces at play and adjust the transitions accordingly.
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2017
     
    I don't pay enough attention to the resulting geometry graphs, but I'm not after any manufacturer's shape right now. It's my own style, and I am torn about how I should handle my increase in positive force.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTijjer
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2017
     
    @Kyle

    When building a GCI would it be alright to use time instead of distance?
  19.  
    ^You could, but it would be less accurate, since all the shapes are made of perfect circles and such.. Time based cant ensure that
    • CommentAuthorrobdcx
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2017
     
    ^^^Have you considered using a quartic section for the entire valley that increases/decreases by .5 g's or so (i.e., the pullout hits say 3.5 g's, then you have a 1-2 second solid force in the valley before the next transition into airtime - try using a quartic change in the solid force section to increase the force a bit).
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2017
     
    ^That's essentially what the plateau section in pic #2 does. I kind of like the idea of sustaining the full 4.75-5 Gs for a quarter- or half-second, rather than spiking at that value and then decreasing. Do you mean to say that holding the force is excessive?

    I guess your vote between the three pics, though, would be to spike at the very bottom of the drop before decreasing a little and sustaining before decreasing a lot for the airtime hill, right?