Not signed in (Sign In)

Discussion Tag Cloud


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

    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2017 edited
    Did a 20-minute sketch on how a Maurer AG boomerang might look. Of course it's launched.

    @Kyle Sloane:
    I was trying to figure out where on that GCI the lift was. lol that POV surprised me at first. Around the 14-15 seconds mark there's a bit of a suddenness in transition. Is that intentional to match design style? It isn't anything major, it just seems a bit rough.
    • CommentAuthorrobdcx
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2017
    I guess if I had to choose between the options you've shown, I would go with the plateau. That's just a personal preference though. I'm not an authority on anything lol. While still working on that Skyrush-style drop we talked about, I came up with this shape using quadratic sections. I think it looks pretty good, but obviously it doesn't hold the force at all like you're talking about (ignore the helix):

    I like the look of that a lot. Reminds me of an updated version of the Bullet at Flamingoland.
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2017 edited
    The cool thing with GCI when you want to mimic their shaping in NoLimits, is that their simulations are straight from their designing software (Excel, haha) so it's 100% accurate and you get the FOV and feeling of NL.

    Knight Valley
    Python in Bamboo Forest
    Mystic Timber
    Back Track concept
    Big Fun concept
    @Xazzaphonic yes it was intentional! In fact I purposely made my coaster LESS sudden with its transitions, 3-5 meters instead of instant, since when they actually BUILD the coaster it automatically smooths out most of the transitions that are really harsh in imported exact data.
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2017
    B&M Hyper with a fairly classic feel, not influenced by the more intense hypers (basically Fury or Intamin designs)

    Some of the air hills don't look quite pointy enough, but I'm also taking them at more like 30-35mph than 17.

    (I meant to disable the green lateral force graph for all of the images to reduce clutter. Lats stay at zero the whole time.)

    Valleys sustain 3.8Gs. Transitions to and from zero-G forces are 1.5 seconds (6FlagsManiac's suggestion, I think). Floater hills have a little extra pop to -0.2 with a symmetric quadratic transition.

    When I imported into NL2, I noticed something that I've noticed on a number of these L-shaped hypers/gigas I've made. The "out" section tends to turn a bit in the valleys (like the jog-left-jog-right that I get from the M-looking roll transition), but on the "back" section, it's a straight shot. I've also noticed that when I have a hard turn in the first drop pullout (which I often do), my turnaround is in the opposite direction. I think I should try doing something with a bit less of a turn in the first drop pullout but then have the turnaround in the same direction.

    I can't make a hammerhead turn in FVD++ yet, so I didn't put any work into the turnaround (it's an unbanked curved section). My interest was elsewhere for this one: something like Behemoth with floater hill after floater hill without anything fancy like Fury's low turns or even Nitro's sorta-Stengel Dive (though I have an element like that in the final picture, leading to a helix around the first drop).
    • CommentAuthorMr. E
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2017
    I've been working on a skyrush type drop using the picture from the last page.

    ^that looks just about perfect! Nice job :)
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2017

    I'd like an opinion from the community. Obviously I'm going for a crazy ejector hill. In addition to strong negative force, I want the transition to the negative force to be sudden. This presents an apparent problem, because, if I want symmetry in the hill, the transition to positive forces also will be sudden. I've tried to get around that by playing with the timewarping. My goal is to have a gentle transition to and from zero-G (so you don't get your butt slammed down into the seat) but then a quick transition between zero and -1.25Gs.

    When you zoom in on the jerk graph, the spikes are at around 12G/s, which I believe is, desirably, towards the high end of the safe range, so I'm good there. My question, though, is if it looks like I've done the timewarping right to get the transition I want. It looks like the jerk gets highest at a little bit stronger than zero-G, which is fine on the way up, but would result in slamming butts into seats on the way down.

    The other idea I had for this was to do consecutive cubic transitions, assuring that I get the exact timing of forces that I've described, but that results in two jerk spikes rather than one, which seems less comfortable.


    (You may notice that the track style is B&M. I find that to be the easiest to see in FVD++, though my coaster is to be an Intamin with the double-spine track.)
    I'd timewarp, or just use, a bump transition. it'll help add peak-shaping to the element, too and be smooth by nature.
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2017
    A bump transition? You mean like I have in the middle? Do you mean to shape my whole air hill as a symmetric quadratic transition (with timewarping, naturally)?
    Yeah exactly. I don't know if my transitions are perfect, but I like the way they look. I do a lead up from whatever 3.7~g to 0- -.5g transition over about .75 seconds, then I shape the entire top of the hill with a bump transition, adding an extra -.2ish g for the bump. For my b&m hyper I'm working on, the forces are a bit more relaxed, but that'd give you the same desired effect I believe. Not on comp so no pics. Also I use newton2. I doubt that changes anything, but I'm not familiar with all the different tools/abilities of fvd+
    Quadratic blend in and out with a linear section in the middle might help you achieve your desired result
    I made the grossest looking element yet.

    Trying to make a descending roll for a wing coaster without crazy lats. Looking like its not gunna happen lol
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2017
    I think you're right that you won't be able to do it without considerable lats, but that makes sense. You're slowly turning riders on their sides. You're going to subject them to a moment of 1G laterally, just due to gravity. The rotation will add to the lats, though FVD++ won't account for that. (Rotation will add to the lats for one side and decrease lats for the other. Physics problem: can you figure out which?)

    Posted By: XazzaphonicYeah exactly. I don't know if my transitions are perfect, but I like the way they look. I do a lead up from whatever 3.7~g to 0- -.5g transition over about .75 seconds, then I shape the entire top of the hill with a bump transition, adding an extra -.2ish g for the bump. For my b&m hyper I'm working on, the forces are a bit more relaxed, but that'd give you the same desired effect I believe. Not on comp so no pics. Also I use newton2. I doubt that changes anything, but I'm not familiar with all the different tools/abilities of fvd+
    Can you post a pic of your hill and graphs? I'd like to see track symmetry and your normal force and normal force change graphs.
    ^^Yeah I'd say that's just a LITTLE BIT tight.
    Yeah its not gunna happen. Tried three more times already while changing the length of the roll, changed the timewarping of it, forcing lats, -gs. Not gunna happen. I'll think of something else creative though.

    Not sure what graphs I can produce in newton. Pictured is the top of the first air hill with I believe the normal force before and after the one highlighted.
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2017
    It's not a limitation of your skill with the program. Bolliger and Mabillard themselves do not accomplish it.

    I can't really read what's going on in your pic. Thanks, anyway. Would you be able to zoom in on the graphs? I do suggest, however, working in FVD++ rather than Newton 2. The big advantage to FVD++ is that it uses roll speed rather than roll itself. This is harder at first, but it really is better. For instance, if you want to have a zero-G roll that starts out with slow rotation and then accelerates, FVD++ allows for a smooth transition from slow roll directly into fast roll. Newton would have you roll slow and complete that roll before going into the faster roll.

    Rotational motion is harder to make sense of than linear motion. Let me make an analogy. You're a marathon runner with your long-distance pace for most of the race. The finish line is close, so it's time for your finishing sprint. FVD++ would allow you to accelerate from your slow pace. Newton would have you stop before sprinting.

    Consider these two pictures I've taken. The first uses a smooth transition (solid line) from banking one way to the other, and the M-looking roll acceleration graph indeed looks roughly smooth to me.

    But now consider if you have to slow your roll speed to get back to zero roll speed (regardless of angle).

    Instead of a nice curve, what was the M-shaped curve now has a goofy sharp point. Even if you can make that less pointy, you end up with that weird double-dip-looking graph rather than a smooth-looking drop like in the first.

    (I'll confess that I cheated a bit in the first one and did some timewarping to make the M look smoother, but no matter what you do with the second one, you're not going to end up with something like the first.)
    • CommentAuthorXazzaphonic
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2017 edited
    Ok, I see there's a different function to it, but I'm not sure I entirely follow. I feel like I can accomplish this in newton2 using multi-zoning by making smoother, longer roll transitions that timewarp to have the roll appear more suddenly. Is the graph representing a 0g roll? I wish I could present more data. Here's a 0G roll with whatever roll graph I can produce off of a sitdown:

    Here's the data the roll transitions produces, the left part of the graph represents the track not highlighted red, center current transition, here is the 0g roll itself:

    This is 0g transition | entry to dive turn | exit dive turn:

    entry to dive turn | exit dive turn | following blue track:

    The blue graph is the Transition check box, the 1st Derivative red, the green 2nd derivative. Are you talking about the 3rd? Sorry if i just over explained stuff you already know, idk if you've newtoned much previously

    Also, here's the working rolling drop geometrically designed. It rides pretty fun and I like the overall look and feel, so I think I'ma gunna play with a layout for this:
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2017
    I like the rolling drop. I thought you were going more for what GateKeeper has, but the rolling drop like on Storm Chaser has not been done on a wing coaster (I think) and would give a distinct sensation.

    Take another look at your roll graphs. The shape of your green graph is in my second picture.
    Made a death roll. Also, am learning FVD++ for the first time. I hate how slow I am with the UI and keep wishing newton2 would support roll speed so I don't need to relearn where to click/how many times to Tab, where menus are. Do like the options tho.

    Anyway, done complaining, happy to be here, will learn and be able to post cool-guy graphs along with all-ya.

    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeApr 10th 2017
    I know that's a joke element, so you're not obsessing over details, but immediately there is an example of what FVD++ can do that Newton cannot. The quartic transition that is highlighted goes into another quartic transition to roll to the other direction. This is what would happen in Newton if you set roll to 75 and then wanted to roll back to 55. In FVD++, you can use a cubic to transition from that minimum up to the maximum so that your roll speed never decreases to zero.
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2017 edited
    Let's get this thread back to life. I've got a question about dive coaster drops.

    At 10:24, you can see that the drop is shaped about right, but at the 9:20 mark to which I linked, there is an inflection point in the force graph. The upside to his method is that you get exactly 0g at 89.999 degrees, so I like what he does in that sense, but that inflection point is driving me crazy. What do the rest of you think about the inflection point? It most certainly does not result in a smooth graph of its derivative (force change), but is that something that should be concerning?

    I do kind of have a way out of this by doing a smooth transition to positive Gs and then tweaking the lengths and forces to get 0G very close to a vertical drop, but it involves playing with the length of the roll speed so I can see what's going on in the middle of a transition, so much more involved.
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2017
    Personally, I would make the drop out of 2 segments, the first being like the one in the video, and the second one being a cubic section centered to the right and some tension modifications. If it's a B&M, your graphs should look as smooth as possible.
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2017 edited
    So after playing with my idea about adjusting the roll graph so I could see what's happening at the steepest moment, I got this drop.

    Those "resulting" graphs look about as good as I really ever get them, and obviously I'm pretty happy about hitting zero-G so close to straight down.

    Here's a profile shot from NL2.

    (BTW, this coaster isn't actually a dive coaster. I just liked the idea of having ejector air transition into zero-G air at 90 degrees, like that video I linked describes, but I've managed to do it without having an inflection point in the transition to positive Gs.)
    how tall is that?
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2017
    I downloaded NL2 to make a coaster that I've had in my head for years. The idea is to be twice a hyper coaster, so instead of 200ft and a mile long (most of them are), this will be 400 feet and about 2 miles long. I've gotten sidetracked with more realistic rides, but now I've gotten enough experience in FVD++ that I think I can do a reasonable job of designing this.

    It would prohibitively expensive for a park to build, but that's why we need the virtual ride!

    Anyway, the height is about 424ft.
    • CommentAuthorTOGO Fan
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2017
    Make it 8 times the height and length of a normal hyper coaster. So it would be 1,600 feet tall and 8 miles long.
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2017 edited
    I could do that, but I want to run it faster than 0.1mph, so it still wouldn't be a TOGOCoaster.

    But can we get back to critiquing the physics and geometry?
    im by no means knowledgeable in fvd, however i would 100% ride that drop, it looks ridiculous.
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2017
    How long would you all say qualifies as sustained airtime? Obviously if I do a quick pop of air with no constant force section between the to-negative-force and to-positive-force sections, it's not sustained, but for when I do have that constant force section, how long is sustained? I've determined that a full second absolutely counts and that 0.5s probably should count, too, but I'm curious what others think.

    (If someone knows how long the sustained ejector moments are on famous airtime coasters like Skyrush and El Toro, please post that information!!! I remember someone mentioning bringing an accelerometer on El Toro.)

    And thank you to Element115 up there.
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2017
    I would estimate El Toro's main hills to hold for about 2-3 seconds each, and Skyrush holds for 1-2 seconds with probably a bit more force.
    I say any segment with intended low G design counts. The way I tend to design my air hills is using a segment to begin the shaping of a crest from a valley by transitioning from your high posi g's to, usually for me, somewhere around 0g. I generally timewarp this normal G transition to be on the side of holding the normal g's for 60% of the transitional period, allowing for a slightly steeper incline, and a snappier entry to 0g/crest of hill. For the actual top of the hill, I generally run a plateau transition (sinusoidal) of an extra -.5+g's to supply a nice out of seat peeling. So, I suppose, in this scenario, you technically would count the time from the moment less than 1g to returning to 1g. You might need to do some maths if you use timewarping transitions. Even if you're making transitions that go 0 or negative then return on the next transition, or are only a plateau transition that goes from positive to negative, I'd still count the time spent below positive as air time.
    I disagree on your definition of airtime. A 45* lift hill is .707G right, so Millennium Force has airtime already for 22 seconds going up the lift? Doesn't make sense, and you sure don't feel any sensation of coming out of your seat. IIRC Busch/B&M counted Apollo's air at .25 or less, but I would personally for statistics count it right at that 0G mark, at least during the design phase.
    • CommentAuthorTheBeatles
    • CommentTimeAug 17th 2017
    There's also the faux airtime, where, say, the train goes from 3.5G to 0.75G and back to 3G in a short span of time.
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeAug 18th 2017
    I haven't decided what I think of what Xazz wrote, and while "what is airtime?" is an interesting discussion after Cedar Point's claim of a record airtime amount on Steel Vengeance, that wasn't the question. How long is SUSTAINED airtime? It's pretty important to a coaster design of mine to get many sustained ejector air moments like on El Toro, Skyrush, or a couple of other coasters I've ridden.

    After being at Great Adventure a few days ago, I have a really hard time believing that the big hills on El Toro have more than two seconds of air, and it probably isn't even two. The trains fly over those hills.
    I do see how my thoughts are a bit flawed. I obviously don't mean a lift hill, as that is not 'intended' low gs. it's technical low gs are the result of a lift hill. I, nor a real designer/engineer, would design slanted vertical straight segments of track just to claim airtime. What I'm really trying to get at is how exactly CP, RMC and their marketing department are declaring airtime. It might not be true airtime to your and my butts, but I think this is how they're claiming it to be.
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeAug 18th 2017
    One place where designed low gravity should not be considered airtime, though, is hanging upside down. Yes, it's pretty strong air at -1G, but hanging upside down just isn't the same for me and probably a lot of others. RMC's inversions, at least in Wicked Cyclone, feel like B&M floater hills with a different view of the world, so I would count inverted floater air towards breaking the airtime record the Voyage currently holds.
    • CommentTimeAug 18th 2017 edited
    To me, this is the difference between a pop of air and sustained airtime, with arbitrary values:

    For instance you can see there the sustained air:

    Pop, sustain, pop, sustain, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, near 0g, pop.

    As for the values themselves, I'd say over second feels sustained. Based on Youtube science©, the airime on the first hills of El Toro last about 2 seconds.
    • CommentAuthorMr. E
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2017 edited

    Thought this was kinda cool, it's a top hat inspired by the recent Vekoma ones.
    ^I love that looks like a mix between S&S and Vekoma.
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2017 edited
    The curves to that are amazing, looks like it would ride really nicely.
    that looks really interesting
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2017
    May I have some thoughts on this? All seats hit 0.1-0 gs but in the back for example the 8th car I'm hitting -0.3 as it goes over the lift which I'm unsure if it should be doing that, I feel though as if this is right but could be wrong from all my rides on Diamondback.
    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2017
    Diamondback had stronger air than than I’d call regular floater. I’ve heard someone call it flo-jector. I think it’s fine to have -0.3 in the back.

    There are a few YouTube videos about B&M drops that you might want to check out. The first is in this list, though I don’t remember which covers the B&M floater air style.

    (That’s our 6FlagsManiac.)

    There’s also a detailed video about the Shambhala drop:
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2017
    flo-jector seems about right, especially when going over the peak of the camelbacks. Anyways I think I may have found my one problem with my shape after rewatching that video and that is I have the wrong change it pitch.
    • CommentAuthorEmonadeo
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2017
    I used to put perfect 0 Gs on my drops and airtime hills but I figured around -0.1 - -0.2g feels more realistic
    • CommentAuthorMr. E
    • CommentTime7 days ago
    Just finished up a layout for a Mack Launch

    • CommentAuthorBigbad
    • CommentTime6 days ago
    A launch up the hill like Maverick?