All Comments

yes i can help u

ill release rhem when they work

wait you will fix it for me so it will work?

Send me your PKG file with all the scripts and all the objects to my email
i will look into it Wednesday

The object is to far from the train
The script is not attached to the object.

the trains and whats wrong

i made

im getting not bound to a scene object attach nlvm not working on my vekoma slc vest custom train

when my trains are done ill make a park with them

RMC It posted on May 17th, 2022

You will have to import the trains into Blender, and then remove the lapbars and create a vest inside of Blender. You will likely need to write a script or possibly edit the existing restraint script to have the vest restraints work.

is there a tutorial on how to make a vest

You will have to import the trains into Blender, and then remove the lapbars and create a vest inside of Blender. You will likely need to write a script or possibly edit the existing restraint script to have the vest restraints work.

FrankLeeMadere posted on May 16th, 2022

Maybe a forum post specifically for this coaster would be good, if it doesn't exist. This is really a general FVD thread, and we're getting pretty tied up in the weeds with this one.

At any rate, none of us are Stengel so we can't know for sure, only postulate and speculate, and we don't have the original software used to create these rides, only a (really good) open-source implementation of force vector design techniques, so we should be mindful of our expectations. We're unlikely to get perfection, especially with google satellite imaging or video and picture.

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.

My no lateral experiments showed it was banking too much at the start and it’s not possible to avoid that, whether you want to admit that or not. Considering I looked at many sources, the pictures aren’t playing tricks even if it’s distorted or skewed a bit.

---

But let me get this straightened out, my post is not just for the sake of recreations, but experimenting with coaster designing itself for whoever wants to try it.

---

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

It may not be synced since it seems that the train exits the station at a faster speed in real life than I though it did. But pay attention to both of the track’s orientations, I suggest placing your finger on the screen to have a pinpoint reference for both POVs to find those identical track orientation identities how they warp around the frame. This should be easier to pinpoint where in the layout it changes because I manually place the track flanges to be identical with real life’s Hydra.

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

This is what it looks like with lateral mode in FVD

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?

---

So let me get this straight, because they’re not the same exact software and you claim that ‘that’s’ the reason to be the cause of the difference of outcome is invalid because we don’t have that information to verify really. What we do have is information that is actually present here, and we’re able to actually see how the track’s manipulation behaves. Now of course there may be some differences between the two, I could speculate that, but the identicality or replication of making the track orientation is possible whether we did use their software or FVD++. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to debunk FVD and say it’s not possible (for how good you say FVD is too) or say it’s due to the software’s limitation when our theoretical speculations don’t work, and without stepping out and ruling out our explorations first. There may be some limitations the program cannot generate but it’s not a major disadvantage to what we can do.

It’s like trying to debunk Blender because it’s not exactly like Autodesk’s Maya and for Maya being an industry standard modeling program; kind of scenario.

---

It’s an opening thread for FVD++ users and this is a relevant topic and I’m sharing what I know and discovered, it’s a great thread for discussion and challengeable debates when they do happen as it is with other threads. A third of information I posted is without doubt a good demonstration on how my technique is being executed.

Truth be told though that 1/4th of my claims are not definite and looking into it, so I may be wrong about those claims. My claims about lateral loops is what I am referring to.

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 didn’t just speculated, I demonstrated it for you in those examples and proved that they don’t work as it should from what we were wanting it to be.

---

My main message from the start was to be open to things we don’t expect and experiment with an open mind.

To end on a positive note, I’ve watched you tutorials and tried your own techniques too. Some are actually very useful. I’m in no way seeking to disrespect or discredit you if I sound so. After all, we’re still picking things up, and that would mean hearing others’ and their journey too.

I know this is a tedious read and a tedious topic to engage in, but at least I am able to provide answers for people to see.

Maybe a forum post specifically for this coaster would be good, if it doesn't exist. This is really a general FVD thread, and we're getting pretty tied up in the weeds with this one.

At any rate, none of us are Stengel so we can't know for sure, only postulate and speculate, and we don't have the original software used to create these rides, only a (really good) open-source implementation of force vector design techniques, so we should be mindful of our expectations. We're unlikely to get perfection, especially with google satellite imaging or video and picture.

Proper demonstration for the helix, with laterals vs without. Blue is with lateral in the trackwork, yellow is no lateral.

I’ve experimented with Quaternion and Euler. In the red box is Euler. Note that the roll speed graph is set a Quartic Symmetric Function in Euler mode, but the graphs how they look when you’re viewing a Quaternion mode section looks like as it appears in the red box.

Comparison at same perspective.

I came to realize that the one in blue has been in Quaternion the whole time, and yellow I experimented with Euler which seems to be recommended for working with helixes I hear. Yellow like I said uses no lateral, quite impressed that the roll graph outcome in Euler is similar to Blue’s roll graph.

Lateral Implemented

No Lateral Euler Experiment 1

Screen shot comparison

Lateral implemented

No Lateral Euler Experiment 1

Here’s another roll experiment if it was still in Quaternion, no laterals.

Reference

Quaternion No Lateral Quintic Doublebump (1) Experiment 2 1/2

Quaternion No Lateral Quintic Doublebump (1) Experiment 2 2/2

Here is the third roll experiment if I use Quartic Symmetric Function follow by no manipulation after the Quartic, roll speed 0.

Reference

Quaternion No Lateral Quartic Symmetric Function Experiment 3 1/2

Quaternion No Lateral Quartic Symmetric Function Experiment 3 2/2

Fourth roll experiment, where I used Quartic Opposite Direction with bump to -23° roll speed. It’s quite identical to the roll graph in the version that uses lateral and my first experiment which uses Euler than Quaternion and no lateral. It may look quite close without lateral, but it’s pretty much the same result with the first experiment since they both share identical roll graphs.

Reference

No Lateral Quartic opposite direction first Quaternion Experiment 4 1/2

No Lateral Quartic opposite direction first Quaternion Experiment 4 2/2

It would seem the fourth experiment would or could be ideal. But unfortunately this comparison says otherwise too. Pay close attention to the top right of the real-life screenshot and observe the trackwork.

Reference

Lateral Implemented

No Lateral Experiment 4

And here’s the original trackwork that has lateral compared again to the reference.

Reference

Here’s the lift, drop and loop photo compared with NL. I do admit there is need of some fixing. The fixes are more towards the bottom of the drop and loop but not the suggested criticism for the pre-drop nor the first half of the drop. This is also to address about whether the pre-drop was steep or not. Please note that my Batman recreation’s track spine is purposely thicker earlier than Great America’s Batman’s spine, some clones have a thicker spines earlier in the drop than others, which my coaster was based on.

And here’s that thing I mentioned about when Hydra’s .csv is inverted in FVD

ThatFlyerGuy1 posted on May 16th, 2022

RollerCoaster1234 posted on May 16th, 2022

Implemented lateral forces in layout is definitely a choice whether you want to do so or not, but know that coasters like B&M uses lateral whether we like it or not. And it’s good to try and experiment.

It's all well and good to say that, but what credibility is there to that claim? If you look closely at certain B&Ms, you'll see that the loop support is not actually just a simple wedge tacked on, but rather it has some twist to it, and is actually segmented.

As stated earlier, just because time's put into something, doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate or true-to-form.

That maybe true to some, but specifically for Batman though with the photos I provided. Do you see any twist? Even if it’s 1°, it’s very much aligned.

The loop connectors for Batman specifically I’ll say, is aligned with the tracks orientation meanwhile there would be others with more intense rolls that would have a bit of a twist. If there’s a twist in Batman, which I am in no doubt, it should be about at most 1° by seeing how parallel it is. And I’ll admit I need to rework on the loop’s orientations again.

my dude put a flying snake dive as the last element sheeeesh

so sad :(

I agree with FlyerGuy.

Tornado, i have a strong feeling you've very new to this program. Let me give you some helpful advice.

Don't go rushing to make something to upload here, just for the sake of having something on here. Especially if you still don't know the program very well. Spend some time learning to use the program and getting to know how it works. Watch NL2 tutorial videos on Youtube and learn how to create a layout (i'm sure there's plenty of NL2 tutorials out there). Download other people's rides and look at those in the editor to see what they've done and how they've done it. If you have to, look at images of real coasters to get an idea of how various things look. Like how the lift hill is shaped, etc.

When i first got the original No Limits program, i did all that and more. I couldn't tell you how long i spent playing around and learning the program, cause i honestly can't remember, it was that long ago. It was probably a fair few months of Youtube tutorials, trial & error and learning from my mistakes, if not, more. And it was even longer before i uploaded my first creation. Maybe a year and a bit. Basically, don't upload the very first thing you ever make in NL2, because it won't be very good. People here will take you more seriously as a creator if you know how to use the program and upload something that just has a few minor issues, rather than slapping together a 'My First Coaster' in 1 or 2 hours where half the layout has no supports.
And don't worry about making custom 3d scenery when you're first starting out. Because if you don't have any knowledge with 3d modelling programs, then that's an even bigger iceberg to tackle. You'll have plenty of time to learn, work on and refine your skills with NL2, and become better at it than what you are now. And once you've done that, THEN you can start to work on learning 3d modelling. Trust me.
And i'm sure a lot of people here will agree with everything i've said in this post. You have to learn to crawl before you can learn to walk. And only then, can you learn how to run.

Just start by making a small basic coaster, something simple, nothing fancy. Then do it again. And keep doing that, and adding things to it or changing something each time. And over time, you'll learn what works and what doesn't. I'd offer some tips, but it's been a while now since i've done anything in NL2. So i'm probably a bit rusty.
But i know there's plenty of people on here who are regular users, and i'm sure they will be happy to help if you ask them.

nah they cant

RollerCoaster1234 posted on May 16th, 2022

Implemented lateral forces in layout is definitely a choice whether you want to do so or not, but know that coasters like B&M uses lateral whether we like it or not. And it’s good to try and experiment.

It's all well and good to say that, but what credibility is there to that claim? If you look closely at certain B&Ms, you'll see that the loop support is not actually just a simple wedge tacked on, but rather it has some twist to it, and is actually segmented.

As stated earlier, just because time's put into something, doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate or true-to-form.