Why is junior dragon and junior wendigo coaster seperated?

[sirchick]

They are identical minus the car type from what i can tell?

Why can't we just choose the car design in the settings rather than having an extra coaster icon in the coasters list? Was this to make it look like we got more coasters than we actually have, i see no difference between these two coasters besides the car type, completely unnecessary to separate them here seems like it was just to fill it up more.

The same goes for Powered Track Rides, no difference between Luna Autos and Magic Katz except car type. Yet they are completely separate rides categories.

If i see a new ride design on steam i am forced to use the car type it was with - why can't we change them on the ride itself so the rides are not defined to a theme and remain that way on steam?

To me this is a step backwards compared to RCT which let us swap car design easily.

 

[FinalMantasyX]

The same goes for the two generic track rides.

Completely separate rides for a cosmetic difference. Baffling design decision that sneezes right in the face of established precedent of the past 20 years. I do not understand why they did this at all.

My guess is that only one verison of everything existed. Then they decided "Let's make others", and they didn't want to be bothered to design a UI to switch between them, so they just made them separate.

 

[sirchick]

But the Alpha had track car design switching! They seemed to have removed it when it worked perfectly fine. It is a pain i found a nice track ride on steam couldn't change the car type though so it didn't fit the area at all.

I swear i feel like we are still in BETA some times not the real release =/

 

[Replica]

No one knows.

Frontier never explained why they ditched the ability to change cars/trains on the fly for coasters like it was originally in Alpha 1.

 

[Stream]

Same with the two Euro Fighter varieties. It's pretty weird that they decided to do it that way. It just creates clutter in my opinion.

 

[sirchick]

When you factor in duplicate rides you actually find the total rides in the game is even less that what most people assume there is =/

 

[Thysios]

RCT 2 did this a lot and it was soo annoying. Look at all our new rides!! same as another ride with a new car type...

 

[Shaun_DoesStuff]

Loony Turns isn't a variant of the Euro Fighter, It's a S&S El Loco.

 

[kythlyn]

More coaster types on back of the box, perhaps?

 

[Curlyriff]

Sam has stated they are looking into it but it is more complex. They have stated every coaster car has it's own friction/wind resistant calculation so switching car is more than cosmetic because a coaster that works with car 'X' may not work with car 'Y' which is their current stumbling block from what I was reading from Sam.

In that regards I suggested that it would cost to switch coaster car if the ride already open, you have to re-test and then make any adjustments as needed either way.

If you have not opened it, you of course just select it from the drop down and design away. It can make the UI cleaner, it would allow management options on updating a coaster 2 years from when you first built it at a cost and to see an influx of new guests because of the coaster remodel.

 

[FinalMantasyX]

If it uses the exact same track, it's a bit silly they can't tie the decision of what physics model to use based on the toggle.

having to rebuild an entire ride just to use a different car is an absurd way of going about it. Surely they can tie the differences to that toggle? If X is selected, use X physics, if Y is selected, use Y physics. More complex than that, sure, but simple solution regardless, right?

Sounds like a "grandfathered in" design problem, like the terrain paints, that stems from not looking ahead enough during development at how things might turn out.

 

[Curlyriff]

If it uses the exact same track, it's a bit silly they can't tie the decision of what physics model to use based on the toggle.

having to rebuild an entire ride just to use a different car is an absurd way of going about it. Surely they can tie the differences to that toggle? If X is selected, use X physics, if Y is selected, use Y physics. More complex than that, sure, but simple solution regardless, right?

Sounds like a "grandfathered in" design problem, like the terrain paints, that stems from not looking ahead enough during development at how things might turn out.

Aye that is what I am suggesting. They need to test and balance how best to introduce this. That is why I have suggested how to mean that a change in coaster car would require a new test to confirm it still works and that you may have to edit your track. Further to that it costs money in scenario/challenge mode. It would also mean that instead of having to completely rebuild it to get new guests and increase your figures you get a good increase from the re-theme of said coaster car.

It all plays in together again.

 

[jip241]

IIRC regarding the junior coasters in particular, the dragon version doesn't have batch gates in the station (which is therefore one square narrower). My guess is the devs decided (quite sensibly) that batch gates (or whatever the individual-row on-platform barriers are called) were a little OTT for a junior ride, but realised that removing them from the existing junior coaster design would cause issues with any pre-made designs from the alpha/beta.

 

[Curlyriff]

IIRC regarding the junior coasters in particular, the dragon version doesn't have batch gates in the station (which is therefore one square narrower). My guess is the devs decided (quite sensibly) that batch gates (or whatever the individual-row on-platform barriers are called) were a little OTT for a junior ride, but realised that removing them from the existing junior coaster design would cause issues with any pre-made designs from the alpha/beta.

Seems odd to think so as they changed so much that cause issues with all the things from Alpha/Beta that it seems minor really. It does seem that also an ability to select different station type with said option would be handy under the one coaster too.

 

[Ghosrath]

Sam has stated they are looking into it but it is more complex. They have stated every coaster car has it's own friction/wind resistant calculation so switching car is more than cosmetic because a coaster that works with car 'X' may not work with car 'Y' which is their current stumbling block from what I was reading from Sam.

In that regards I suggested that it would cost to switch coaster car if the ride already open, you have to re-test and then make any adjustments as needed either way.

If you have not opened it, you of course just select it from the drop down and design away. It can make the UI cleaner, it would allow management options on updating a coaster 2 years from when you first built it at a cost and to see an influx of new guests because of the coaster remodel.

This would make sense if you didn't have to test the coaster after each change, since they require you to do that this could easily be changed.

 

[Curlyriff]

Yeah that was my thought. Really there is no reason not to do it. Just the balance of cost to the player on what it would be to change the car and how far apart the coaster cars are with wind resistance will determine how much you have to change the track to suit.

In real coaster design when they change cars I would suspect they design the car to actually work as close to the existing as possible. This would be by making sure that weight of the car, the friction and the wind resistance would equate to the car moving at the same speed. This is very difficult mind and often mean adjustments to the launch , breaks or even adding trim breaks in as a car that weighs more to overcome drag may mean that it resolves the first bunny hill for instance but then is going too fast for the loop next due to the momentum it now carries.

 

[cerealfruitcakes]

I hope they can get this worked out otherwise our coasters and tracked rides menu is going to get really, really cluttered in the long run.

 

[sirchick]

So conclusion, Frontier over complicated their coaster implementations

Whilst i understand the wind resistance of coaster design, thats a nice simulation, albeit a bit over kill if you ask me. This doesn't explain the two track rides separated by car type, the track is the same as far as i can tell and they are electronically different so doubt they have different physics in that situation.

If this is how they plan to do it we will never see a large variety of themed coaster cars, just too many physics models to implement and the list of coasters would be confusing to see multiple of the same ride for the average player. I don't see it scaling well unless they change this setup. Definitely over complicated it, i admire their ambition for realism though.

 

[BigDragon]

The problem with the roller coasters and the cars running on them has always been that these things are created for marketing purposes. Having separate types of coasters helps parks market their new rides, and it helps developers pad out their ride count. It's honestly rather frustrating especially when coasters of different types run on the exact same track with just a change to the cars or to the features present in the circuit.

I would much rather see Frontier give us a choice of track. Let me pick between Intamin-steel, B&M-steel, full wooden, and others. Then let me pick my choice of car. Finally, judge the actual type of the coaster based on what track elements are used, the car used, and, if it matches multiple types, let the user choose a matching type.

Imagine that someone comes out with a wooden coaster that has a LIM launch on it a year or two from now. Do you want Frontier to add another coaster type that's called "Foxglove" and just replaces the chain option with the LIM option? Or, would you prefer, as I would, that the LIMs simply be added to the existing wooden coaster?

Coaster types are just marketing. There shouldn't be separation between Wendigo and Dragon nor Flying and Inverted.

 

[gregorburns]

The problem with the roller coasters and the cars running on them has always been that these things are created for marketing purposes. Having separate types of coasters helps parks market their new rides, and it helps developers pad out their ride count. It's honestly rather frustrating especially when coasters of different types run on the exact same track with just a change to the cars or to the features present in the circuit.

I would much rather see Frontier give us a choice of track. Let me pick between Intamin-steel, B&M-steel, full wooden, and others. Then let me pick my choice of car. Finally, judge the actual type of the coaster based on what track elements are used, the car used, and, if it matches multiple types, let the user choose a matching type.

Imagine that someone comes out with a wooden coaster that has a LIM launch on it a year or two from now. Do you want Frontier to add another coaster type that's called "Foxglove" and just replaces the chain option with the LIM option? Or, would you prefer, as I would, that the LIMs simply be added to the existing wooden coaster?

Coaster types are just marketing. There shouldn't be separation between Wendigo and Dragon nor Flying and Inverted.

I like this idea! [up]