My thoughts on the coaster restrictions.

[Krux1]

the fact of the matter is, real coasters only have restrictions based on the imagination of the creator, and whats physically possible in the laws of physics. there are tons of coasters that prove this, real coaster creation DOES NOT have the restrictions the game likes to believe they do, just because a certain coaster type doesnt invert, doesnt mean it cant be designed to, just because a certain coaster doesnt yet have brakes on a slope, doesnt mean it cant be designed to, the only restrictions coasters should have, are restrictions based on the laws of physics, or at least a punishment for not obeying them (derailing).

Example: the forumla Rossa coaster in Abu Dhabi does not invert, nor does the game allow the particular coaster type to, but i promise you if ferrari world went to intamin (the people who manufactured the coaster) and said they wanted a loop on Formula Rossa and were willing to pay to do so, Intamin would put a loop on Formula Rossa, as there is nothing stopping the design from having one.
that is my complaint about the coaster restrictions in Planet Coaster. the real track types in real life, dont actually have these restrictions at all.

So what is the real point of adding the coaster restrictions? this is a game after all, so why limit peoples creativity....and the fact of it is, if they are so worried about realism with coasters, they would remove these restrictions, not keep them, as they are not actually realistic restrictions at all.

another example, i have never in my life seen a crescent moon shaped computer case, and it may or may not exist (probably does but lets say it doesnt for this example) Planet coaster is saying since nobody has ever made one, its impossible to do so.....though we all can say for certain, that it is entirely possible to make a crescent moon shaped computer case.

these restrictions limit creativity in a game we want to have fun in, forcing "realistic" restrictions that are not actually realistic restrictions at all. in a game with floating islands....

im all for removing most the restrictions that the game presents on coasters. let the creators imagination become reality, just as you do with the rest of this game.

 

[mr.sugar]

I also agree with this. I wish there were physics based restrictions only and if we obey them, then people will not ride the coaster, as it´s too intensive or uncomfortable, or in extreem cases the train can derail.

 

[breezerHOG1]

creativity > simulation [up]

 

[danlightbulb]

Maybe the reason for these restrictions is due to not knowing how it would be done in real life, if it were done.

So for example no one knows what the loop supports would look like on the Ferrari coaster because they don't exist. This would require the artists to second guess what they might look like?

 

[Skett]

I would imagine that its also a case of making sure they get the coaster physics right. Its probably easier, for now at least, to only allow brakes on flat surfaces than it is to calculate how they will work at various angles everywhere. Hopefully its something they will figure out for the final release.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

They already eased up and allow brakes and launches on slopes, and removed height restrictions. [yesnod]

The larger issue now is things like only allowed 30degree slopes on the Junior Coaster.
This isn't a physics issue, and it's not a "what would the supports look like" issue.
It's that they decided the typical junior coaster is a "gentle" ride and should not have
vertical track or LIM launches, or loops. The restraint design isn't appropriate for inversions, and
would require a new train design. So there is a point where, if you want a looping coaster,
build an Arrow, not the Wendigo. If you want to to go up 200feet, build the Giga. If you want a 2000 foot
long track, there are better choices than the Junior coaster.

I think THAT is where Frontier is coming from.

Not that I agree completely with it. But I get it. They've been hammered with calls for realism
all over the place. But when the Junior coaster follows real world typical design parameters... Pitchforks!

 

[colray]

I agree whole heartedly with Bitter Jeweler. This is first and foremost a game. I for one do not want to build replica coasters or parks. The beauty of this game is that players can use their imagination and create new and exciting ideas. These restrictions should be removed and anyone who wants to follow the realism path can build as such while others can allow their imaginations to soar.

P.S. I personally do find the restrictions on the coasters extremely frustrating.

 

[Marnit]

They already eased up and allow brakes and launches on slopes, and removed height restrictions. [yesnod]

The larger issue now is things like only allowed 30degree slopes on the Junior Coaster.
This isn't a physics issue, and it's not a "what would the supports look like" issue.
It's that they decided the typical junior coaster is a "gentle" ride and should not have
vertical track or LIM launches, or loops. The restraint design isn't appropriate for inversions, and
would require a new train design. So there is a point where, if you want a looping coaster,
build an Arrow, not the Wendigo. If you want to to go up 200feet, build the Giga. If you want a 2000 foot
long track, there are better choices than the Junior coaster.

I think THAT is where Frontier is coming from.

Not that I agree completely with it. But I get it. They've been hammered with calls for realism
all over the place. But when the Junior coaster follows real world typical design parameters... Pitchforks!

However inversions for the wendigo fall into the not physically possible realm.
As it's just not possible with that train...

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

It is totally physically possible for the track though. And that was my point when I said "The restraint design isn't appropriate for inversions, and would require a new train design." [wink]

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

P.S. I personally do find the restrictions on the coasters extremely frustrating.

Yeah.

I'm more frustrated that I don't know which track has which options available. If they are going to have all these "specializations" (restrictions), I need to be able to sort them by ability. Like "inversions", "vertical", "Launch". But then you could still pull up a launch coaster that doesn't go vertical or invert, or a coaster that does loops, but doesn't launch. At least have a bubble that pops up that has these keywords in it. [ugh]

 

[Skett]

It is totally physically possible for the track though. And that was my point when I said "The restraint design isn't appropriate for inversions, and would require a new train design." [wink]

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



Yeah.

I'm more frustrated that I don't know which track has which options available. If they are going to have all these "specializations" (restrictions), I need to be able to sort them by ability. Like "inversions", "vertical", "Launch". But then you could still pull up a launch coaster that doesn't go vertical or invert, or a coaster that does loops, but doesn't launch. At least have a bubble that pops up that has these keywords in it. [ugh]

I like the idea of the bubble icon that tells you what the capabilities of the track are

 

[Flutey]

Restrictions are pointless IMO, because even with them, the very nature of it being a coaster builder guarantees you will be able to make impossible or deadly designs. Most Planet Coaster players aren't going to understand or care about the intricacies of coaster engineering, so they'll be making rides that pull 50 G's anyways. Just look at all of the big YouTubers playing this game - they're a good depiction of the "average" PC player because they're just playing it as another simulation/fun game, and they're all making coasters with jarring twists and unfeasible layouts that would kill people. (Nothing against these YouTubers, I'm just using it as an example)

Point is, if they're going to put in these restrictions to make the game realistic, it doesn't make any sense unless they're going to make it impossible for players to make players make deadly coasters, which is probably impossible to do and will frustrate all but the most experienced coaster fanatics (I'm talking people who use NoLimits.) But Planet Coaster is a game, not a rollercoaster simulation engine, and even then NoLimits, which is, has none of these restrictions.

 

[rdrunr7]

Bitter Jeweler brought up a point that I find a bit frustrating too... not knowing what coaster has what restrictions or features. I think if it is not made obvious in the game (once Frontier have completed the basic game), I'm going to make a chart so when I'm planning a coaster design I can decide on which coaster fits the bill before I start building.

 

[Replica]

Restrictions IRL are based on monetary issues, total space, maintenance concerns and the type of train/coaster.

Not "it's physically impossible to build a set of brakes or a launch track that curve 10 degrees" or "curved chainlifts are devil magic".

 

[Abletudu]

You know, what is funny? In that other wreck of a game made by A**** people were complaining that they couldn't get a straight lift hill, and in Planet Coaster people complain that they can't have a curved lift hill. [big grin]

 

[Angelis1]

You know, what is funny? In that other wreck of a game made by A**** people were complaining that they couldn't get a straight lift hill, and in Planet Coaster people complain that they can't have a curved lift hill. [big grin]

[haha][haha][haha]

 

[Flutey]

You know, what is funny? In that other wreck of a game made by A**** people were complaining that they couldn't get a straight lift hill, and in Planet Coaster people complain that they can't have a curved lift hill. [big grin]

Also funny, there actually was a real coaster with a curved lift hill

 

[rdrunr7]

Oooooo... what is that curvy coaster goodness called & where is/was it?