Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Thunderbolt (UC)

Xpress said:
Xpress said:
Error said:
Remove all your tools and hand build it. It's MUCH more satisfaing.
Click to expand...

To YOU maybee, but I find tool building JUST AS satisfying as handbuilding. Remember, everyone has their own ways of doing things, and not one way is the ONLY way to do it ;)

But yes, I know I was lazy with supports. After a while, I lose interest in a ride, no matter what. I need fuel for it, so usually after a visit to a theme park, I start back up on a track or two. And my Zyclone project gave me nightmares about supporting, so I really didn't want to go through it all again. A buddy of mine wants to have a go at a GCI, since he's only supported CCI/GG's before, so I'll see how that goes. If all is well, then it'll be a team project.

Oh, and Bob, I was just playing around with HSAK, and got something I thought was worthy of showing.
Click to expand...

One more thing: Which hills had the pumps in them? I know the one after the turnaround does, but which others?
Click to expand...
Were you supposed to quote me?

In that case, all of them.
 
Oh, and Bob, I was just playing around with HSAK, and got something I thought was worthy of showing.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that at all. But I think you should put all your experimental projects in one thread, then have a new thread when you want to release a major project. If you're going to release "look what I can do" coasters just put them all in one place.

And I have no problems with the use of tools. And I don't think anyone should be attacking anyone who uses them, it's not a lazy option. People should be concentrating on rating rides on creativity, pacing, presentation, originality, smoothness (tools =/= smooth) etc. Not how how the creator went about doing it. As loefet said, everyone does it differently.
 
I'm at a standstill here:

thunderboltsupports.png


Which looks more like GCI? I've gone with pic 3 because it looks realistic, but am wanting more opinions.
 
A new update. Some eye candy, at least for some of us. As usual, I've only used auto supports to create a single column structure, which is then modded. All the bracing supports are 100% custom :)

thunderbolt3.png


Idk about the color of the wood. Maybee a bit darker?
 
First off, I've yet to see a 5 ton train put a few gs worth of force...on a single pole. In a real-life situation, it would snap/shatter. It should be more supported on the outside rather then the inside.

Also, how many overbanked turns like that are there? 90 degrees, yes, but nothing more because it's not structurally smart. Building with wood requires creative thinking for it being EXTREMELY limited.
 
Wood isn't as weak as you might assume. The structures are created to be more then enough to brace the trains force traveling at speed. I added steel to the overbank bracing, so it should "theoretically" be enough ;)
 
^Find us a wooden coaster with an overbank that is supported like that. Oh yeah, there isn't one.

Why not just make it a 90° and make it more realistic?
 
Xpress said:
Wood isn't as weak as you might assume. The structures are created to be more then enough to brace the trains force traveling at speed. I added steel to the overbank bracing, so it should "theoretically" be enough ;)
Click to expand...

Its why the Gravity Group have built all their 90 degree turns with Steel support...
 
Didn't remember to reply and apparently didn't have to.

Wood itself isn't strong. A stick is going to buckle at the high force of a train. It you note in most wood bridges and generally all buildings that take higher loads, they use a bunch of triangles, all over-done to ensure it stays put, but manages to bend and sway to even out loads.
 
As many people have said.

The supports really won't hold.

At all...

Are you even paying attention to where the force is going. It going and an upward angle. not out or down towards the ground.

The only way you'll get that over bank to work with wooden supports is if you have a really large retarded looking structure.

Face it.

You are wrong.

It won't work.

Plus the overbank looks really weird and out of place as it is.
 
If I want to bank more then 90*, I will do so.

Secondly, GCI (from looking at the bankings compared to other woodies) are more properly banked, and unbanking from 117* to 90* puts the lateral forces up to ~-1.6- not something I want.
 
Xpress said:
If I want to bank more then 90*, I will do so.

Secondly, GCI (from looking at the bankings compared to other woodies) are more properly banked, and unbanking from 117* to 90* puts the lateral forces up to ~-1.6- not something I want.
Click to expand...

Then, listen and do the following:

SHUT THE HELL UP AND RE-SUPPORT IT!

God...

A little (Very little) research shows the breaking strength of timber to be at 938lbs. before a buckle. A standard train, no doubt, weighs MUCH more, without riders.

Resupport. Do it now please.
 
^Oh, and don't forget that the train is also exerting a hell of a lot more force on the track. It's not just sitting there!

Face it Xpress, you're wrong. If I were you I'd look at re-modelling that turnaround, make it larger and, dare I say it, more fun.
 
You are a hypocrite Xpress, You bash other peoples coasters for daring to try a new element that a coaster manufacturer has yet install on one of their coasters, but you cannot take critisism when it comes to elements on your own coaster.

If the 'Its my ride, and I'll build what I want' excuse won't work for us, we are certainly not going to let you use it.

The main difference between our 'fantasy' elements and yours is that ours are actually realistic, Just because it hasn't been built, it doesnt mean its not possible. An overbank on a woodie is going to need a hell of alot more bracing that you have added, making your element far more unrealistic than ours will ever be.

Wood is actually quite strong under tensile and compressive loadings, but it is far weaker in bending, which is why you need all the bracing, especially since you seem to have supported your coaster with the NL equivilent of 2x2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top