99 replies to this topic

[Wolfman]

So when it 'got stuck', it just stopped on the rollbacks, and didn't need a reset? There was no actual stalling during the corkscrews or anywhere else outside the blocks? That's a relief.

No. It managed to limp along and finish out pretty well on it's own.

I was thinking it couldn't be that bad a design. Maybe It'll meet rcthelp's expectations for a block brake system...for the time being. Good news that there were no fireball accidents either.

By the way, what do you think about the newer 5-train operation on my latest version?

Hadn't looked at it just yet. I was busy plopping track files & images on the ride DLs.

All five trains have a parking spot on level track, as do yours. But is it worth the fifth train? You could easily run it with four: the reason I didn't is because the extra few seconds for the train to come out of the offload platform and navigate the turn into the onload wastes precious time when guests could be boarding, and thus potentially lowering throughput and profit. However I've only just been able to get most trains to operate at full capacity (and that on the moneyless Extreme Heights) so it's hard for me to judge. For some reason it takes ages for guests to form a queue, even if the queue only holds 30 peeps.

As long as you always have an empty train poised to roll into the loading station, then you're at maximum efficiency.

Let's agree that while this topic continues, that all the versions are in the Ridex. Then maybe at the end, we can edit the Ridex to include only the last version, but include the iterations as a 'bundle' in the downloads section and put a link to the bundle in this topic.

Do you actually think, that after all this time, that people would be interested in the failed tweeks done to Shockwave 2 up until now?

Anyway, I got a full topic submission from the post before the edit. Woodpecker asked about if I thought it was worth while to extend the layout and remove the dip after the station.

Yeah... I do think it was worth it. If it got that last train off the chain block before the inline twist, and put it on the block brake shuttle, (where it really belongs,) so I would have to say yes. And keep in mind that I have not yet DLed the revised version you just uploaded to the index.

As far as a train actually being stopped on the chain block before the corkscrews, I don't think thats going to happen, unless the train before it does not clear the block section. As it is, the trains run through the corkscrews fairly fast enough, and after that, their burning up the track until the chain block before the S-Bend.

After that, it's a drop into a tight curved drop, and around a banked S-Bend, then up another chainlift. All going at a pretty healthy clip, clearing that chain block in a matter of seconds.

After that, it's just a small helix, and a shallow climb and another chain block, so there are quite a few smaller block sections that all seem to allow the trains to pass through at a speed that shows no sign of slowing to make me think that they could possibly stall out on you. So theres like at least two block sections between the corkscrew block and the final brake run.

The ONLY place where I'm just a tad bit worried is the corkscrews. The trains pass through them a bit slower than the remainder of the circuit. Still, the trains move through the corkscrews pretty smoothly, with the slowest speeds of 18 MPH during the inversions. If the trains had slowed to like 12 or even 10 MPH. I would have serious doubts about it's ability to complete the circuit.

Keep in mind that once the added weight of peeps are thrown in, the ability of the traind to keep going is increased. So this 18 MPH through the corkscrews is probably going to be increased to about 20 MPH or more. With that in mind, I don't see how a train is going to stall out in the corkscrews.

The added momentum that the peeps provide, is going to come into play with the virtical loops. Considering that effect, it was a good thing to have raised those loops a level, to 5 ft. and thusly trim back on the 5.0+ Gs that the trains pulled while empty. Wonder what the Gs could of been if the virtical loop configuration was left alone? Probably quite a bit higher, and that would of raised the nausea a bit.

[Wolfman]

BTW: I DLed the file. But it's corrupt. (I tried to DL it twice.)The in-game image it displayed in the coaster menu is not your coaster. (it actually displays some of the other coaster images in my track library. Go figure.) I think you'll need to upload it again.

Let's agree that while this topic continues, that all the versions are in the Ridex. Then maybe at the end, we can edit the Ridex to include only the last version, but include the iterations as a 'bundle' in the downloads section and put a link to the bundle in this topic.

You can make attatchents of ride files on my forum. Then just link to the post here. Then when we're done, I can delete them.

Edited by Wolfman, 28 April 2009 - 11:43 PM.

[rcthelp]

I've downloaded it too. When I tried to import it with the Track Design Manager, RCT2 crashed. But when I restarted RCT2 it was available in the menus and I have it happily soak testing now, in a park with THE VINE and others.

[Woodpecker]

Maybe it is a fault with the Track Design Manager. I always do it manually:

Hard disk -> Program files -> Infogrames -> RCT2 -> Tracks

and then drag and drop the new file in, sort the items by name, and boot up rct2. I've never had a problem.

Do you actually think, that after all this time, that people would be interested in the failed tweeks done to Shockwave 2 up until now?

Yes. If rcthelp decided to save this topic, then it would be worth having all the different versions of the coaster available for people to compare. Also, none of the tweaks are failures. All of them are improvements on the previous design in some way or other, or different ways of solving the same problem. For example, your idea and my idea for placing the double station is different, but both solve the problem of locating 4 trains on a shuttle section.

There are quite a few smaller block sections that all seem to allow the trains to pass through at a speed that shows no sign of slowing to make me think that they could possibly stall out on you. So theres like at least two block sections between the corkscrew block and the final brake run.

That's true enough.

The ONLY place where I'm just a tad bit worried is the corkscrews. The trains pass through them a bit slower than the remainder of the circuit. Still, the trains move through the corkscrews pretty smoothly, with the slowest speeds of 18 MPH during the inversions. If the trains had slowed to like 12 or even 10 MPH. I would have serious doubts about it's ability to complete the circuit.

Then we've exposed the difference in our testing methods for this coaster. Try putting the maximum number of trains the game allows on the track and then testing my version. You'll find that one train will be held on the MCBR. Watch this train as it goes through the corkscrews: it reaches 10mph at its slowest with an empty train, or 11mph with a full train. Now try your version, but take off the anti-rollback before the corkscrew. When empty the train should do 9mph (with a slight flicker of 8mph) at its slowest through the corkscrews, and that's without your anti-rollback being activated. Any less than that and there is a serious risk of rollback. With 4 or 5 trains on the system this isn't a problem, as you observed, but I'm aiming for as foolproof a circuit as possible. I'm not really sure which is preferable since there's only 1mph difference, but the lower swoop curve (as you've rendered it) forces a larger footprint by 1 square. Otherwise you get a one-square flat before the drop into the corkscrews, which is visually a bit unsatisfactory.

The added momentum that the peeps provide, is going to come into play with the vertical loops. Considering that effect, it was a good thing to have raised those loops a level, to 5 ft. and thusly trim back on the 5.0+ Gs that the trains pulled while empty. Wonder what the Gs could of been if the virtical loop configuration was left alone? Probably quite a bit higher, and that would of raised the nausea a bit.

I've tested it. The results on the graphs and on the speedometer are exactly the same with a full train as with an empty one. It makes no difference.

P.S. I downloaded your file with your modified version next to mine, but I can't open it because of a missing file (Info hut). I rebuilt the yellow section and barrel roll as best I could for testing purposes. I like your solution to the first drop with the loops at 5ft. It makes a negligible difference to the excitement while knocking off 0.1 off the intensity, and it looks a lot prettier. Very nice, I'll keep that!

Edited by Woodpecker, 29 April 2009 - 12:33 PM.

[Woodpecker]

I repeated rcthelp's overnight test (8 hours) and then left it a further 4 hours with no inspections scheduled at all. There have been no crashes, it is 12 years old, and has carried a massive 41,506 peeps. And it's still got a throughput of 3,192 an hour!

For the sake of interest I calculated the approximate net total profit for this ride, had I been testing it on a pay-per-ride scenario. It comes to £265,535.70 which isn't bad at all, considering it would have cost £23,755 (including paths, benches, bins and a toilet) to build.

I've done a little test and the new first drop shape of Wolfman's knocks 1 second off the ride time of my double-station version. It doesn't matter if you lower the inline twist or not - the twist only impacts on the speed through the corkscrews, and I'm starting to be won over by a lower inline as long as the loss of speed isn't enough to stall the ride.

Edited by Woodpecker, 29 April 2009 - 04:22 PM.

[Woodpecker]

Sorry for the triple post, but the forum wouldn't let me put the following text in my previous one!

Two more points:

Fossil is wrong that a chain incline safety block will not stop a train travelling at over 12mph. This one, just before the final helix, stopped a full train at over 30mph:



The ride as it stands can carry over 6,000 peeps per hour with a 140-person queue. It stayed like this for about 10-15 seconds before falling back to 5,800 but even so, it is definitely possible:

Edited by Woodpecker, 29 April 2009 - 05:38 PM.

[Luketh]

Wow! 6000 peeps an hour!

Nice job, Woody Woodpecker!

[Wolfman]

That's a good turnover. Congratulations!

[Woodpecker]

Thanks, but I must share the credit with Wolfman and rcthelp since their comments helped me to improve the blocking system and install the double station. I will add that with Wolfman's improved first drop, capacity hit 6,154 an hour but the trouble is maintaining such a huge throughput. Guests tend to stop to sip their drinks and check their watches, which disrupts the otherwise steady stream of peeps and slows down loading times. It'll be interesting to see what rcthelp's stress test reveals in terms of profit and turnover, as well as general reliability.

Edited by Woodpecker, 29 April 2009 - 11:12 PM.

[Woodpecker]

Wolfman: any luck with downloading the double-station ride? I noticed you said it opened with a different picture. Perhaps you could build the ride in the coaster designer and then resave it? If that doesn't work and you're still having trouble I'll upload it again tonight. It's bizarre that you and rcthelp had a problem as I transferred the track to my other computer and it worked fine. Perhaps this is a recap of the ridex downloader bug rcthelp recently fixed?

Edited by Woodpecker, 30 April 2009 - 07:26 AM.