All Comments

^ Tornado, settle down.

Let the man work, and it'll be ready when he's done. Posting multiple messages won't make it finish any sooner. Ok?

tornado posted on May 19th, 2022

how do i get in it

To quote Ride_Op's post on the first page of this thread:

Ride_Op

We search for a number of terms like NoLimits 2, No Limits Coaster, and NL2. As long as your video shows up under one of those searches with the previous week filter in place we will find it and view it in consideration for the Roundup.

-Ride_Op

And that's how you get in.

how do i get in it

should you be done by today

about how long should it be

I will let u know

tell me when they work

FrankLeeMadere posted on May 15th, 2022

Here’s the fixed zero g roll, I matched the perspective and FOV close to what I can do. I did not use warping nor perspective tool in photoshop when I merged them together.

Video

https://i.imgur.com/fFCbJze.mp4

I theorized earlier that the zero g roll could be created using a geometric section method, and it worked beautifully.

Lateral mode

Geometric Graph readout Version

Force Graph readout Version

You know, maybe graphs don’t have to look pretty if the results is fantastic, the graphs looks quite organic-ish though too.

Just because a project or multiple projects’ is posted on an ‘open-to-all’ thread that presents itself to be quite visually advanced — and at an intermediate level of work — we shouldn’t have that simplistic assumption upon the creator being egotistical nor bragging to show off. “Hey! Look at me! I’m better at designing roller coasters than you.” To me sounds like projection. I shared something different that happened to become a challengeable debate, but I’ve explained my methods into a thread where it should be opened to diversity of knowledge.

Don’t take somebody’s applaudable work shared on here as an egotistical flex, instead be knowledgeable and be open; like what you told me, be open. You disagree and misunderstood the integrity of my posts and suggest I should have my own thread is a pitiful suggestion and a morsel amount of interest in hearing other distinctive approaches, and more so interested in hearing the techniques you’re mostly familiarize with, only.

I rest my case!

upstopwheels posted on May 18th, 2022

Hello. I am completely new to FVD++. I am trying to make a launch coaster, but I cannot figure out how to add launch tracks. The closest thing to adding a launch track I could do was to add a straight section with a fixed speed, but that fails to simulate the actual "acceleration" of the track, instead the speed just jumps from 5m/s to 30m/s. Is this the best thing to do to add launch track in FVD++?

Yes, there’s no way to show it ‘accelerating’.

Ok

Hello. I am completely new to FVD++. I am trying to make a launch coaster, but I cannot figure out how to add launch tracks. The closest thing to adding a launch track I could do was to add a straight section with a fixed speed, but that fails to simulate the actual "acceleration" of the track, instead the speed just jumps from 5m/s to 30m/s. Is this the best thing to do to add launch track in FVD++?

I'll give you candy, give you diamonds, give you pills
Give you anything you want, hundred dollar bills
I'll even let you watch the shows you want to see
Just marry me, marry me, marry me

Roundup 432

You create it, you share it, we feature it!

-Ride_Op

Its now 6:30 am i downloaded your PKG and its a mess the directory structure is a mess all the files in the wrong place, the scripts are not in same directory as the object.
Some objects don't have a script (WRONG), thats why the errors.

I'm gonna look further into it and fix that mess today.

Latest update: I've turned this thread into the main landing page for the contest. Please help us share the word!

Also if you plan to live stream your effort, please share the link to your live stream channel.

-Ride_Op

kamikaze6900 posted on May 17th, 2022

Little lats like 0.6 g's is tolerable. But not if you use like 3g's instead

Here’s your Jo-Jo roll no lats

For the record, the Jo-Jo Roll laterals is 1.0Gs. And you want to know what? Even though lats are present, it’s technically not a purposeful manipulation of lats into the graph. You’re literally going 10 mph. 1.0Gs is the regular weight our bodies and trains right? My graph below is the Jo-Jo roll that was made using a geometric section, but we’re viewing it if it was converted into a force section.

If we were straight, no roll, just straight, we’d always stay at 1.0Gs. As you see below, look at the relationship of the lateral graph with the normal graph. The start we’re at 0Gs for laterals and normal graph is 1.0Gs, the middle where the lateral graph goes back to 0Gs, we see that normal graph is at -1.0Gs because we’re upside down. Then at the end of the graph lateral is back merely at 0Gs and normal is at 1.0Gs again.

Top lateral Gs on the helixes on Batman is 0.6Gs by the way.

ThatFlyerGuy1 posted on [May 17th, 2022]

A couple things to consider - those Google models are extremely low resolution, and can't be trusted as valid references - because they're most likely just vague approximations, any errors made in those models, coupled with the near-impossible chance of recreating the layout faithfully in NL2 - it all compounds.

You don’t think I kept that in mind? You don’t think I don’t think the Google models are low resolution? There may not be very detailed polys in the meshes, but it is scaled properly.

There is some mesh flaws that I did noticed already and eventually I will come across more inaccuracies in the model. I believe I already addressed that above.

I'm not liking this attitude. "3/4th" of your claims are just POV videos from a camera which may have a less-than-accurate FOV. None of this is actual, palpable evidence to support your claims, and I'm getting a lot of "I'm right because it looks right to me." Well I can say that about a recreation I could easily make in 5 minutes and not give a damn about.

If I’m so absolutely wrong, and you’re so absolutely right, and if my evidence is faulty, what do you have to backup your stance? I would also love to see your work so we have mutual understanding of each other’s background.

I'm pretty sure you have the ability to create threads if you wanna showcase recreations the way you're showing off here. Let's keep this as an FVD discussion, not an RC1234 discussion.

I’m sharing my discoveries? What is your point about a thread then? My examples and experiment’s focus was NOT about the recreation itself when I presented them in FVD — if that’s what you got out of it — the main focus of my demonstrations were about the technicalities of the graph’s aftermath from different manipulation methods. The aftermath and comparisons of the lateral and non lateral experiments were not close to being subtle differences, they were significant differences from each other.

Most of this evidence is secondary. No force readouts, no roll rates, nothing like that - it's just a matter of "seems legit, that checks out." When are we getting believable evidence? I don't understand.

I don’t understand how you can say there’s no graph readouts when I included them, a lot.

You know what I find astonishing? I have addressed the criticisms and I don’t think you nor Frank have yet formed specific responses to that. The response I got after addressing the criticism was ‘they’re two different programs’ and not addressing what’s in front of you, but then came to realize you don’t think me showing actual photos and screenshots and my results is hardly worth as evidence to support me because they’re skewed by a fraction.

An example that FrankLeeMadere has criticized is that the helix entry is drawn out and in his words, “needs to be much snappier, yours if much more drawn out.” If you (Frank and Flyer) going to base on your saying of ‘just because it looks the same doesn’t mean it’s right’ — which I don’t think fits for this discussion and debate specifically — then my graphs don’t lie; like I have been including in my posts.

That is the helix entry graph, that is one full second of the graph you’re seeing. The duration from +1.4Gs to +4.6Gs is 0.8 seconds (+3.2Gs) Don’t tell me adding more than 3 times your body weight in 0.8 seconds is a gradual and subtle impact nor gradually drawn out when we have the graph readout right there.

RollerCoaster1234 posted on May 17th, 2022

So you tell me, is it accurate? I’m more on about the turnover after the Jo-Jo roll, it’s safe to agree that Jo-Jo was designed using a geometric orientation for its transition. Would you agree?

A lot of what I'm getting is "I'm entitled to be zealous because I use laterals."

RollerCoaster1234 posted on May 17th, 2022

Yeah we’re not gonna be perfect, but this isn’t a satellite, it’s an actual model, and the images and other kinds of medias’ are helping me with what it should look like further. The perspective is a bit different in NL2 and the FOV is very weird than what we’re used to seeing in real life photos and videos. Yes photos and videos are also distorted or skewed in its own way too, but I don’t have that problem for having a model to reference by. But the thing is whether the photo or video was skewed, what we see is what we see.

A couple things to consider - those Google models are extremely low resolution, and can't be trusted as valid references - because they're most likely just vague approximations, any errors made in those models, coupled with the near-impossible chance of recreating the layout faithfully in NL2 - it all compounds.

RollerCoaster1234 posted on May 17th, 2022

I admire the discussion we’re having and I don’t think it should be negatively reflected upon because we’re both learning something together. But anyways, I have backed up at most 3/4th of my claims with resources, I don’t think saying ‘it’s not the same program’ is a suitable answer to go by.

I'm not liking this attitude. "3/4th" of your claims are just POV videos from a camera which may have a less-than-accurate FOV. None of this is actual, palpable evidence to support your claims, and I'm getting a lot of "I'm right because it looks right to me." Well I can say that about a recreation I could easily make in 5 minutes and not give a damn about.

Most of this evidence is secondary. No force readouts, no roll rates, nothing like that - it's just a matter of "seems legit, that checks out." When are we getting believable evidence? I don't understand.

RollerCoaster1234 posted on May 17th, 2022

If we don’t want to talk about Batman, how about Hydra then?

I'm pretty sure you have the ability to create threads if you wanna showcase recreations the way you're showing off here. Let's keep this as an FVD discussion, not an RC1234 discussion.

what time on Wednesday

i hope these trains work then ill have the slc vest trains

Little lats like 0.6 g's is tolerable. But not if you use like 3g's instead