Launched coaster

[RJGEvans]

I also hasten to add that I have uploaded a documentary within the same subsection as this discussion. It, around the 40:00 mark, emphasises why Arrow's track design ultimately failed to B&M's, B&M's being smoother and capable of more options than Arrow's. What I wish to bring out by this (although I did not upload the video for this reason) is that different tracks do different things and ultimately have limitations that, in part, are created because of design and history. I think it is a good thing to hold onto some of this within Planet Coaster. It is what makes it stand out from games like RCTW, which evidently don't care about how rides function.

I do care about creativity, hugely. I love making roller coasters in designer, sometimes ones that could never be built due to cost or size limitations. But I think creativity by having real limitations dictated by each coaster type will force players to make excellent coasters within the boundaries that each coaster has. Creativity after all is partly bound by what is possible, and what is not.

It's why I want the 500 to stay as it is, in all of it's current design. It is a beautiful racing launched coaster, which is the gem of Ferrari World within the UAE. The strata coaster will come and then we can have those beautiful top-hat hills that those coasters are designed to handle. I plan to have both coasters within one of my parks, one demonstrating beautiful speed and 90 degrees turns, with the other reaching for the sky. Their strength will be in their difference.

Warm regards,
R.

 

[Sibelius]

An excellent demonstration of how the 500 is a different form, without vertical track. Notice none of the track is true vertical, but instead curves into close vertical? It also brilliantly demonstrates how unsuitable the track is to replicate the impressive boxed strata coasters of Kindra Ka and Top Thrill Dragster (and the smaller variants like Stealth, which are not technically strata because they are under 400ft).

Thank you for the picture.

Bam. Now what were you saying about this track type not being suitable for vertical, etc?

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

So, now, if one wants to argue about realism?....




[haha]

 

[Sibelius]

But you didn't do it, did you? You did a close to vertical hill, followed by another. You did not do a strata vertical hill. There is no restriction by the way, it has not been coded in. There is nothing to restrict.

Also, just for kicks, yes vertical is currently possible, it just takes a lot of effort and they might as well make it as accessible as with the dive coaster.

 

[ManiaMuse]

Bam. Now what were you saying about this track type not being suitable for vertical, etc?

http://www.europeancoasterkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Ferrari-Land-Update-3.jpg
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1QjA9l3N...1600/Screen+shot+2016-05-07+at+9.19.06+PM.png
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/19/09/325A58F900000578-3500007-image-a-1_1458378735192.jpg
http://pac-pictures.pa-community.co...57/th720_71bcf78f43b1d77431c0e3fc6e7060c6.JPG

Lol, yeah Intamin seem to be moving towards round spines in recent years. They seem to be moving away from the quad/tri box track for whatever reason (cost? manufacturing reasons?)

They've used double round spine + square supports on a few coasters recently (Intimidator 305, Skyrush).

Formula Rossa (the other launched coaster at Ferrari World which Planet Coaster has copied the train design for the Sprint 500) has double round spine with round supports on the faster bits and single round spine on the slower bits.

 

[cerealfruitcakes]

I'm wondering if the reason we don't have official vertical track pieces is because they're still working on the supports for them.

 

[RJGEvans]

Bam. Now what were you saying about this track type not being suitable for vertical, etc?

http://www.europeancoasterkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Ferrari-Land-Update-3.jpg
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1QjA9l3N...1600/Screen+shot+2016-05-07+at+9.19.06+PM.png
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/19/09/325A58F900000578-3500007-image-a-1_1458378735192.jpg
http://pac-pictures.pa-community.co...57/th720_71bcf78f43b1d77431c0e3fc6e7060c6.JPG

I happily stand corrected; I had not seen that one, is that another launched system at Ferrari World? If so, how odd. It's almost like they don't know how to diversify. Perhaps the Formula Rossa has proved too popular to keep customer flow at satisfactory rate!

On the whole restrictions thing, it's not a restriction. I think it is down to coding not being there, and the triangular top-hat support will require coding. I hope this threat, now that it has wound to a new argument with new evidence, gets the developers attention for this piece.

Best,
R.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Lol, yeah Intamin seem to be moving towards round spines in recent years. They seem to be moving away from the quad/tri box track for whatever reason (cost? manufacturing reasons?)

They've used double round spine + square supports on a few coasters recently (Intimidator 305, Skyrush).
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NIo3yFGs6OQ/maxresdefault.jpg

Formula Rossa (the other launched coaster at Ferrari World which Planet Coaster has copied the train design for the Sprint 500) has double round spine with round supports on the faster bits and single round spine on the slower bits.
http://www.orangesmile.com/extreme/img/main/formula-rossa_2.jpg

I am guessing it's also strength. The box design is beautifully intricate, but in engineering I have heard that triangular support can be stronger. I don't fully know however as I do not work on these machines.

 

[ManiaMuse]

I happily stand corrected; I had not seen that one, is that another launched system at Ferrari World? If so, how odd. It's almost like they don't know how to diversify. Perhaps the Formula Rossa has proved too popular to keep customer flow at satisfactory rate!

That coaster is for the Ferrari Land under construction at Port Anventura. It's 367 feet so pretty tall, certainly a lot taller than Stealth at Thorpe Park which is the only other real tophat launch coaster in Europe, although not quite as tall as TTD/Kingda Ka.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



I am guessing it's also strength. The box design is beautifully intricate, but in engineering I have heard that triangular support can be stronger. I don't fully know however as I do not work on these machines.

Depends really, quad/tri track is stronger and requires fewer supports but bi-rail track can do the same job with enough supports. If you have the space and don't care about aesthetics then bi-rail with more supports is probably cheaper to manufacture if this Six Flags Intamin example is anything to go by...

 

[Curlyriff]

Steel is sold by the tonnage so it will be whatever works out weight wise to be the cheaper construction. I can't help with details on that because I don't know the steel profiles that are used but if for instance in the above picture it worked out cheaper to have more supports at small centres than larger supports at greater centres that is where cost savings can come from.

What you also have to factor in though is easy of transport of lots of smaller sections compared to 16m long sections for instance and man hours putting together, lifting equipment. Smaller pieces are easier to handle and crane to position but there is more to do.

All that would just affect the cost let alone the design.

In regards to different profiles, forces on coasters act in various directions dependant on what the coaster car is doing, so a round profile will provide a consistence restraint to that force regardless of the angle. The box steel on the other hand will have greater/lesser force resistance depending on the structure design. It would often be that they would up the weight of the box section to increase strength but as this adds cost it has diminishing returns.

I am only going off this as a technician who draws lots of steel structures for work and design connection details etc. I am sure someone who has greater engineering knowledge could explain better and in much more detail but hope the quick overview makes sense.

Regards,

Adam

 

[cerealfruitcakes]

Depends really, quad/tri track is stronger and requires fewer supports but bi-rail track can do the same job with enough supports. If you have the space and don't care about aesthetics then bi-rail with more supports is probably cheaper to manufacture if this Six Flags Intamin example is anything to go by...
http://www.coastergallery.com/sf/SROS07.jpg

It's funny seeing this picture because I can imagine many people throwing a huge fit if they saw Planet Coaster(or any coaster game) have this many supports on their track and causing massive drama over how unrealistic and excessive it is. [haha]

 

[stuk71]

It's funny seeing this picture because I can imagine many people throwing a huge fit if they saw Planet Coaster(or any coaster game) have this many supports on their track and causing massive drama over how unrealistic and excessive it is. [haha]

Ha! too true