Board index Public Relations Contests "Coaster War" Contest - RESULTS pg10

"Coaster War" Contest - RESULTS pg10

Only official CoasterCrazy.com Contests are posted here.

Post September 1st, 2009, 5:18 pm
cjd

Posts: 3370
Points on hand: 4,718.00 Points
Location: New Concord, OH, USA

^I always go in alphabetical order.

It really doesn't matter, though. I always double-check to make sure that my ratings are consistent through the list, and everyone gets them at exactly the same time anyway, so it's kind of just a technicality.

Post September 2nd, 2009, 4:09 pm

Posts: 15
Points on hand: 1,044.00 Points

Post September 2nd, 2009, 10:16 pm
cjd

Posts: 3370
Points on hand: 4,718.00 Points
Location: New Concord, OH, USA

Well, the way it works is that every couple months or so, a staff member will make a contest post (like page one here,) containing a template and rules to follow. Then anyone who wants to enter the contest posts their intent, posts their coaster before the deadline, then the contest host decides the winner.

Usually, there is only one contest going on at a time, and this one just ended, so there will not be another contest until the staff decides to run another one.

More info on official site contests can be found here: http://www.coastercrazy.com/forum/topic ... C_ID=11726

Post September 5th, 2009, 12:44 am
cjd

Posts: 3370
Points on hand: 4,718.00 Points
Location: New Concord, OH, USA

PROGRESS UPDATE:

Still haven't had the time to start the ratings. I'll update again next Tuesday.

Post September 8th, 2009, 7:47 pm
cjd

Posts: 3370
Points on hand: 4,718.00 Points
Location: New Concord, OH, USA

PROGRESS UPDATE, 9/8:

1. Dirk_Ermen - "The Towers"
2. guitarplayer673 - "El Toro"

3. hyyyper - "Nighthawk"
4. Jakizle - "Uproar"
5. Jonny Richey - "Wildfire"
6. Sobek - (un-named)
7. TJM94 - "El Diablo"
8. tracksix - "Orange Laser"
9. Vid_w - "Thunderbird"

Red = Track Has Been Rated
Orange = Rating In Progress
White = Track Not Yet Rated


I got a couple of ratings done on Monday, and it's a start, but the rest of my week is going to be absolutely packed with school work from my first ever 16-credit-hour semester. So, basically, the only other day this week that I'm going to have time to do any ratings is Thursday, and then I'm going away for the weekend again, after which I have two big papers due, so plan on the rating progress to be extremely slow. I can't even offer a target completion date at this point because my schedule is so cramped. So all I can ask at this point is that everyone be patient.

The next progress update will be on Friday, 9/11.

Post September 8th, 2009, 11:10 pm

Posts: 2252
Points on hand: 5,889.00 Points
Location: Illinois (SFGAm), USA
Ha, was the next update date a coincedence or what?
American Eagle Lover

Post September 8th, 2009, 11:38 pm
cjd

Posts: 3370
Points on hand: 4,718.00 Points
Location: New Concord, OH, USA


Post September 15th, 2009, 12:19 pm
cjd

Posts: 3370
Points on hand: 4,718.00 Points
Location: New Concord, OH, USA

PROGRESS UPDATE, 9/15:

1. Dirk_Ermen - "The Towers"
2. guitarplayer673 - "El Toro"

3. hyyyper - "Nighthawk"
4. Jakizle - "Uproar"
5. Jonny Richey - "Wildfire"
6. Sobek - (un-named)
7. TJM94 - "El Diablo"
8. tracksix - "Orange Laser"
9. Vid_w - "Thunderbird"

Red = Track Has Been Rated
Orange = Rating In Progress
White = Track Not Yet Rated


As you can see, I have made no progress whatsoever since last week. And this time, there was absolutely nothing that I could do about it. In the past, it was because of my own procrastination, my poker-playing and video gaming, but not this time. Pure and simple, I am having a work-related meltdown right now, trying to juggle 16 credit hours as well as 2 part-time jobs and out-of-class commitments to the college radio station and the school paper. I'm just not used to this madness, and it's sucking every ounce of free time out of me. Really, I have no idea when I can get these ratings done. I did not anticipate the semester being this difficult, and at bare minimum it will be another week and a half before I have even a chance to rate tracks. So the next progress update will be a long time in coming.

The next progress update will be Tuesday, 9/22, but don't expect much, if any, progress to report on. My apologies for biting off more than I could chew.

Post September 29th, 2009, 10:54 pm
cjd

Posts: 3370
Points on hand: 4,718.00 Points
Location: New Concord, OH, USA

PROGRESS UPDATE, 9/28:

Still no progress, as I still haven't had a moment's peace aside from random half-hour leisure breaks to keep myself from going crazy, but this is finally changing. I just dropped one of my five classes, so I will finally have at least a few hours a week where I can do ratings. I can finally say that I am ready to get some ratings done and get this contest judged. I still won't promise any specific time frame, but I'll update the status on Friday night with however many ratings are completed, and I should be done within the next week and a half unless something unexpected comes up. Thanks for your patience, everyone!

Post October 10th, 2009, 4:41 pm
cjd

Posts: 3370
Points on hand: 4,718.00 Points
Location: New Concord, OH, USA

PROGRESS UPDATE, 10/10:

Good news, everyone! I'm finally picking the ratings back up. For the next 6 hours, I'm free to rate. Expect them to be done within the next 3 or 4 days.

Thanks for your patience, everyone. School has been a real b*&%# this semester.

Post October 10th, 2009, 8:56 pm

Posts: 2252
Points on hand: 5,889.00 Points
Location: Illinois (SFGAm), USA

Post October 10th, 2009, 9:09 pm

Posts: 937
Points on hand: 829.00 Points
Location: Leeuwarden, Netherlands

I know your ratings are worth the waiting, so take your time

Post October 11th, 2009, 3:00 pm
cjd

Posts: 3370
Points on hand: 4,718.00 Points
Location: New Concord, OH, USA


Post October 11th, 2009, 4:54 pm

Posts: 5367
Points on hand: 1,916.00 Points
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA

Yay, so there is a chance these will be done before 2010!

Post October 11th, 2009, 5:04 pm
hyyyper User avatar
True Addicts
True Addicts

Posts: 8705
Points on hand: 9,207.00 Points
Location: The Netherlands

Post October 13th, 2009, 10:31 pm
cjd

Posts: 3370
Points on hand: 4,718.00 Points
Location: New Concord, OH, USA

PROGRESS UPDATE, 10/13:

1. Dirk_Ermen - "The Towers"
2. guitarplayer673 - "El Toro"
3. hyyyper - "Nighthawk"
4. Jakizle - "Uproar"
5. Jonny Richey - "Wildfire"

6. Sobek - (un-named)
7. TJM94 - "El Diablo"
8. tracksix - "Orange Laser"
9. Vid_w - "Thunderbird"

Red = Track Has Been Rated
Orange = Rating In Progress
White = Track Not Yet Rated


Okay, folks, this is it, the very last progress update. Ratings will be posted on Thursday night. See you then!

So far, only 1 track has been disqualified, but the ratings have been very low compared to the contest norm so far. Not a single track has even cracked an 8 yet. Maybe the contest time was too short, but oh well.

See you Thusday, where this thing will finally be put to rest.

Post October 15th, 2009, 10:54 pm
cjd

Posts: 3370
Points on hand: 4,718.00 Points
Location: New Concord, OH, USA

2 tracks to go...

EDIT: As soon as I posted this, an old friend called me, and we just finished talking after 2 hours. So, since it's getting late, and I have class tomorrow morning, I'm going to push the results back until tomorrow night.

Post October 17th, 2009, 12:16 am
cjd

Posts: 3370
Points on hand: 4,718.00 Points
Location: New Concord, OH, USA

UPDATE: 1 rating to go! I'll be posting the results within the next 2 hours.

Post October 17th, 2009, 1:36 am
cjd

Posts: 3370
Points on hand: 4,718.00 Points
Location: New Concord, OH, USA

Image
OFFICIAL CONTEST RESULTS:
(ratings listed alphabetically by username)




Dirk_Ermen - ?????????The Towers?????????

Overall Impression:
This was almost more of a flat ride than a coaster IMO. But since it technically counts, and would be at least somewhat fun to ride, I can't discredit it. But it did have some obvious technical issues.

Records Broken:
-Tallest Vekoma Flying Coaster (350 ft) [Difficulty: 1]
-Fastest Vekoma Flying Coaster (78 mph)
[Bonus Points: 2]

Technical:
There were a few issues with the technical here, all no doubt due to the very quick build time. The base issue was that the transitions at the bottoms of the two drops were extremely abrupt, creating not only a very painful instant transition from no positive g's to 4, but also what would be a rather painful combination of -1.3 vertical g's and 4.5 g's of acceleration on the back tower. The 4.6 g's in themselves are pushing it a bit for a Vekoma flying coaster, so you an imagine that it might be rather painful to have that kind of positive force mixed with critical-limit negative g's. It was only for a second, though, so just a minor issue. The g's on the top of the towers were sound, and it was just on those pullouts that you had problems. Also, on the last pass through the station, the harnesses released before the train stopped. So, a 7/10 in shaping, minus half a point for the questionable g's and a quarter point for the harness issue.

Adrenaline:
I did like the original idea of using a flying coaster frame to make a drop tower with ejector air, but I really didn't like all of the speed control that went with it. It's a 350 ft coaster, but it only went 64 mph through most of it. That was really disappointing, and I think it would have been a lot better if you had made the bottom of the ?????????U????????? wider and went with more of a freeform gravity layout rather than what felt like an S&S air tower with all the controlled speed. It was certainly fun, but again, just didn't feel like a coaster at all because of how controlled it was, and because the negative g's were arranged like a drop tower. I don't even know if it would be counted as a coaster in the real world since there is basically no coasting involved in this one.

Originality:
This was certainly clever, but again the question comes up of whether it even counts as a coaster or not. I'm kind of torn on what to do here since I definitely have to give you credit for being original, but also I feel like I have to take something off for the fact that it's not much of a coaster. I think a 7.5 should be a decent compromise.

Budget:
This was really hard to score since nothing like this has ever been made. It did only use 722 ft of track, but also the track was a whopping 385 ft off the ground, which would mean some serious cranes and a difficult build in general. Plus there were the launch and braking mechanisms, which were very fast and complex. I do think it would be less than X-Flight, but not by much. I'm guessing it would be somewhere around the $15 million range, so only 1 point off.


Technical: 6.25 Adrenaline: 6.5 Originality: 7.5 Bonus: +2 Budget: -1 Total Score: 21.25 / 30
Final Rating: 7.08





guitarplayer673 - ?????????El Toro?????????

Overall Impression:
This coaster was generally decent, but there were some huge problems, almost all in technical. The lack of wide supports is obvious, but also the banking and hill transitions were equally bad. The adrenaline was great, however, and I really liked the layout. If you had ironed out the technical, this could have been the best coaster in the contest.

Records Broken:
-Tallest CCI Wood Coaster (128 ft)
-Fastest CCI Wood Coaster (67 mph)
-Longest CCI Wood Coaster (5723 ft) [Difficulty: 1]
[Bonus Points: 3]

Technical:
I don't know where you got the idea that CCI coasters have hills that all instantaneously switch from top radius to bottom with no transition. I have seen that on maybe 1 or 2 CCI's, and in the POV videos you can clearly hear people saying ?????????ow!????????? going over those. I can personally attest, having been on Shivering Timbers, that the hill where it does that is very painful. And if you look at the acceleration g's on your coaster, almost all of the hills are pulling .7 or .8 acceleration along with 3 or more positive g's. That would be very uncomfortable, jolting riders forward in their seats in addition to the pain of being slammed back down so quickly from airtime to big positives. CCI uses much more the ?????????ramp????????? hill, with a straight section dividing the positives and airtime. This is much more comfortable, and would have been much more realistic. As is, you're going to lose some serious points because of how painful all those hills were. No matter how good a coaster was, I wouldn't even want to ride it knowing that it had so many of those slam-hills. The turns were less problematic, although still a bit rougher around the edges than real CCI coasters. You kind of had the feel right, but the slams into the turns were a bit too much for a CCI. There should be a little jolt, but you overdid it, and made every one a very abrupt slam. There were some minor pumps, but most of the points off are from the hills. I'll give it a 6/10 in shaping. Then of course there were the supports. Not a single wide support on the whole coaster. And with wood coasters, the supports are the most time-consuming part, so it is a gaping flaw in terms of overall effort. And since they were wood rather than steel, the lack of wides was even worse in terms of structural integrity. I have to take three whole points off for that, leaving you with your score of a 3/10 in technical. Don't take it too harshly.

Adrenaline:
This is where most of the good news is. This coaster was very fun, and had really good pacing almost up to the very end. If you would smooth out the hill transitions a bit, this could have been absolutely fantastic! The combination of speeds and g sensations was really fun. There was a near-perfect blend of floater air and ejector, the lateral g's just kept getting stronger and stronger as the ride went on, (a great sequence to have,) and the whole ride was incredibly unpredictable. I never knew what was coming next, and the g sensations were always a surprise. And not only that, but the pacing was great. It started at mid-speed, giving riders a taste, then took a couple moments to take a dramatic pause, and then really kicked into high gear for the ending. That is fantastic stuff, and I loved the whole thing except for the very ending sequence of the slow turn and then the 5 tiny bunny hills, which felt like it was tacked on just to break the length record rather than to add much to the coaster. But everything up to then was absolutely brilliant. The tunnels were used to great effect, with the fog hiding unexpected airtime moments, and again, my only complaints are that there is a dead spot just before the end, and then the last hills are a tad tacky. On a coaster with better technical, I would have given it a 9, but the adrenaline would suffer in real life because of the technical. All of the airtime and surprises came at a price, namely the pain of the transitions into them. Because in this case the technical would so severely inhibit a rider's enjoyment of the coaster, I'm going to have to take a point and a half off.

Originality:
There was some cool stuff going on in this ride... from the floater lateral air hill right after the big drop, to the unexpected bursts of airtime that were hidden by the tunnels, to the unending intense lateral g's that built and built (which very few coasters have.) The variety was great, it stayed interesting almost right until the end, it was unpredictable, the g's were well mixed-up, I pretty much can't find too much to say negative about this coaster in this department. It didn't have the ?????????wow????????? factor to push it into the 9's, but it's still worthy of a score in the mid 8's.

Budget:
Even with the 4 tunnels, the massive elevated turns, the record-breaking length, and using the lower part of the terrain a lot, the fact remains that CCI's are dirt cheap. It would cost over twice as much as the most expensive reference coaster, Shivering Timbers, and yet that still gives it a $2 million cushion under the target budget. No points taken off, leaving you with all 3 bonus points held over from the records.

Technical: 3.0 Adrenaline: 7.5 Originality: 8.5 Bonus: +3 Budget: -0 Total Score: 22 / 30
Final Rating: 7.33





hyyyper - ?????????Nighthawk?????????

Overall Impression:
A solid, mostly plausible B&M with a couple of enjoyable twists. I liked it, but it still needed some technical work, and the pacing was a bit too choppy for top adrenaline scores.

Records Broken:
-Fastest B&M Steel Twister Coaster (69 mph) [Difficulty: 2]
-Longest Drop on a B&M Steel Twister Coaster (165 ft)
[Bonus Points: 3]

Technical:
The positive on this is that on most of the elements you made a good effort to capture the B&M style. It was especially good in the ride's second half, from the loop to the ending double helix. There was one big place where the style was an issue, though: the transitions into and out of the MCBR were completely un-heartlined. Plus the first drop was really un-B&M in its shaping. Watch a POV of Kumba and you'll see that the whole thing, even the slowest parts, are heartlined. You kind of missed it there, but these aren't the big problems. The first real technical issue was that there was quite a bit of pumping. There was a nasty snap coming out of the 0-g roll, the last helix was really pumpy, and most of the shallow low-positive-g transitions into the inversions had at least one bump or pump. The last technical issue was the fact that you had 3 trains, but only 1 brake run at the end of the coaster. Base rule of coasters, for safety reasons you can't have trains just sitting out there on the MCBR. Always have at least one empty block separating a speeding train and a stopped train. If something were to break on the MCBR, you've got a crash on your hands. And since your load times were only 25 seconds at the station, which is ridiculously unrealistic, you'd have stalling in real life. There were also a couple extremely minor tunnel test infractions, but they were borderline so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The blocking is a huge issue, though, since it would take a massive re-design to get the extra block to fit in there. So overall, your score in this department is 7/10 in shaping, minus a full point for the brakes/blocking issue.

Adrenaline:
There were some really good moments on this coaster that would make it worthwhile, but the pacing was a bit choppy, slowing down a bit too much in many places, and never really holding high-speed or high-g sections for more than one element. The first drop was insane, the immelman was great, I loved the pop of air coming out of the tunnel, but then it just got a bit inconsistent. The MCBR transitions were uninteresting, the transition into the loop was too slow, the loop was good, then another drawn-out transition into the corkscrews, then a medium-force helix. All these final elements were good, but it just never recovered the intensity from the first half. One last surprise would have been nice. But aside from that, a solid coaster with some good things in the first half, so still a good score.

Originality:
The drop, as mentioned, was great. Although the top was a bit mis-shapen, the ejector air going down was totally unique for a B&M, and it was really cool how it went into the tunnel under the ferris wheel. The little pop of air coming out of the tunnel after the immelman was great too, and I loved the hangtime on the immelman itself. These were really cool and then the ending was just very standard B&M. Still, again, some cool things going on here. I would have liked to see a bit more than the standard B&M element dispersion, but there was just enough to make it good. Plus you get props for the good custom support work and the extras like the lift mechanisms, the tunnel, and the custom station.

Budget:
Lol, you did the calculation perfectly. Same height and relatively same drop as Wildfire, just a bit longer, but closer to the ground, so when the tunnel is factored in, it comes out to about $.5 million more than it. $17.5 million total, and therefore 3.5 points off. So even though you have the best tech/adren/orig score of the three coasters I have rated so far, coaster type killed you.

Technical: 6.0 Adrenaline: 7.5 Originality: 7.5 Bonus: +3 Budget: -3.5 Total Score: 20.5 / 30
Final Rating: 6.83





Jakizle - ?????????Uproar?????????

Overall Impression:
This was by far the coaster in the contest with the most accurate shaping. If it weren't for the supports, you would have easily run away with the contest. Because the adrenaline was also good, and although the originality could have been better it wouldn't have mattered. But the supports are what, in the end, is likely going to kill you.

Records Broken:
-Steepest Drop on an Intamin Pre-Fab Wood Coaster (78 degrees) [Difficulty: 0]
-World Record for Steepest Drop on a Wood Coaster (78 degrees)
[Bonus Points: 1]

Technical:
Shaping-wise, I have basically no complaints whatsoever. One or two places didn't feel completely Intamin woodie, like some of the hills in the middle and some minorly not-perfect transition shaping, but I can hardly put my finger on why, so I don't feel justified taking any more than half a point off. No pumping at all, and near-perfect Intamin shaping gives you a 9.5 in shaping. And with that out of the way, the only other complaint I had was the lack of wide supports. You knew it was coming, and the wide supports are the hardest part of all wood coasters, so I have to do what I did with guitarplayer673's coaster, and take 3 full points off. Also, I was initially worried about the ride capacity, but it did pass this time, at 1155 riders/hr.

Adrenaline:
Some amazing airtime on this one, as expected with an Intamin woodie, but the middle was surprisingly uninteresting. It meandered too much, and the hills were just strong floater, which made it feel a bit slow. I would have liked the middle to be more intense, because as you can see on El Toro, Intamin woodies can be absolutely insane when they transition quickly like that. But the great first drop, and the insane airtime would put this in the upper league all by themselves. The only thing that I can say is that it wasn't anywhere near as good as Toro. The ending was much better than T Express and Balder since it wasn't so slow, but it just couldn't compare to those insane random turns and constant intense airtime of Toro. It never felt insane, just intense. So a great score, but still could have been a lot better.

Originality:
This is the only of the three main categories where I have a bit of a problem. Pretty much nothing about this coaster is new, and it just kind of goes out and back with only a moderate-intensity series of 180-degree turns in the middle. This just kept it from feeling out-of-control at all. The turns were too predictable and the transitions were never intense enough. And it was very straight-forward, either 0-lat turns or airtime hills, and lacked anything ?????????out there????????? or unique. So I really can't give you much credit here. It was pretty much a standard Intamin woodie. I would have liked to see you do at least something clever with it.

Budget:
Shorter in both height and length than El Toro, so even the elevated mid-section can't make this coaster cost more than $14 million. No points off, and that puts you in the lead at the moment. And the rest of the coasters really aren't that great, so you very well might win this thing despite the mediocre score.

Technical: 6.5 Adrenaline: 8.75 Originality: 6.75 Bonus: +1 Budget: -0 Total Score: 23 / 30
Final Rating: 7.67





Jonny Richey - ?????????Wildfire?????????

Overall Impression:
I'm going to have a really hard time judging this coaster because the g-forces were way too intense on almost every element. It was fast, but it was too fast. It was intense, but it was too intense. I wasn't a fan of the sequencing, and the elements were too indistinct. And while you are going to get some major bonus points for choosing a good coaster type, it's not going to save you from the technical deficiencies. And to cap it off, there were 15 support fundaments sticking outside the contest boundaries, so this coaster is disqualified.

Records Broken:
-Tallest GG Wood Coaster (174 ft)
-Longest Drop on a GG Wood Coaster (195 ft)
-Fastest GG Wood Coaster (74 mph)
-Longest GG Wood Coaster (6536 ft) [Difficulty: 2]
-World Record for Steepest Drop on a Wood Coaster (79 degrees)
[Bonus Points: 6]

Technical:
Major problems here. The coaster as a whole just lacked the flow of a GG. The transitions were really jerky through the entire coaster, and GG is notorious for making wood coasters with very smooth banking transitions that flow well from one to the other. And their hills, although intense and rapid-changing, are not jerky either. So you needed to work some on getting the smoothness down. One of the reasons that I think this happened was because you had different spacing with just about every vertex. Smoothness by hand comes much easier when every vertex is the same distance apart. I recommend either using the AHG with all-black color and a low heartline value to do this, or splitting up the longer segments with the track splitter within the NL editor. It will make smoothing the transitions much easier. And if a certain vertex is especially bumpy, here's a trick: split up the tack on either side of the vertex, then delete the vertex, split the resulting middle segment, then re-delete the vertexes from the split and use the smooth feature. This will dramatically reduce the roughness of troublesome vertexes. Anyway, now that the tips are over, back to the problems. In addition to the slightly off GG styling, there was a ton of bumps and pumping, so your overall score in shaping is a 6.5/10. I recommend you go to youtube and watch a POV video or two of real GG woodies to get a better grasp on the smoothness you're looking for. And now on to the really major problems: first of all, the g forces were completely out of control. I saw at least four instances of RED g-forces, including two -2 verticals, 2.8 lats, and another 2.0 lats near the end. That is unacceptable on any coaster type, let alone on one that only has PTC lap-bars and seatbelts. People would get broken bones from the 2.8 lateral g's, and someone could seriously be thrown from the train at -2. These are major infractions, and you have to be much more careful next time. CCI/GG coasters basically never go above -1 verts, and around 1.5 lats. And those are just the red g's. There were around 5 other instances of yellow g's. 4.5 verts, which is at least 1 more than most GG coasters, lots of -1.5 verts, and a couple 1.7 lats. These g problems all just add up to make this coaster completely unsafe. You lose 2.5 full points for the potentially life-threatening g's. Then you also had tunnel test issues. I counted 9 or 10 minor ones that could be reachable from the train, 2 major ones that could take someone's arm off, and one extremely major one, a concrete tunnel column going straight through the track. Another 2 points off. Then to cap it all off, there were a ton of under-supported sections, with many crossing track segments barely supported at all, held up by only one row of beams, and inadequate wide supports on basically everything, especially the turns. So another point and a half off gives you your final score of a 0.5. Don't take it personally. The shaping really wasn't too bad, just needing some moderate mods, but what completely killed you were that there were a ton of major errors in other departments.

Adrenaline:
This is one case where everything was just taken way too fast, and the coaster was just doing way too much. This actually hindered the track because when the g's are changing every 2 seconds, and every element is taken at excessive speed, you lose the scope of the coaster. What I mean is kind of like the Millennium Force vs. TTD effect. Even though TTD is 110 ft taller, it's really hard to tell how big it is because the train is launched up there so quickly, while MF feels monstrous because it gradually works its way up. This is the same kind of thing that happened with your coaster. As an example, I will use the first big hill after the drop. Even though that second drop is almost 150 ft tall, you completely lose the scope because it whips over the top so fast. Compare it with a comparable second drop into a valley, say the one on ?????????Ravine Flyer II,????????? and it actually feels taller than yours. Why? It is only 80 feet tall, but because it takes the top nice and slowly, it feels monstrous. It is this change in speed that highlights the scale of the drop, because of the contrast. That is how you make a coaster that feels big, and feels extreme, because those extreme moments are so extreme compared to certain parts. Whereas in your coaster, everything was so extreme that nothing felt extreme, if you know what I mean. It wasn't until the very last part, where everything was slowed down a bit, where I finally could keep up with what was happening. Yes, it is still important to have solid speed through most of the coaster, but you have to break up that speed with an occasional slow spot to add contrast. Then once you're past that slow spot, kick it back in to high gear to really surprise people. That is how you can feel like you're really getting extreme. And that is what pacing and sequencing, the two adrenaline factors besides intensity, are really about. You didn't do well in pacing because most of the coaster was way too fast, and then in the end it rapidly got too slow as if you weer just tacking an ending on to beat the length record. Neither did you do well in sequencing, because everything was taken so fast that I never knew what was happening, and there were no 'big' elements. The only thing that you get decent scores on was intensity. But even then, I have to take points off because it was too intense. I hope I have now thoroughly explained why you are only getting a 7 here.

Originality:
Same problem as with sequencing. Everything was taken so fast that I could barely tell what was happening. The only real original thing that I saw was the use of tunneling, which is at least worth something, and that one place near the end with the outside banking. The rest is just too indistinct, and the g's really weren't mixed up well. It was all in the ejector and over-intense range, which again just made it all feel like a giant jumbled mess that was built on the fly rather than having a well-planned layout. And this is exactly why I made most of the length records have such a high point value, because I knew how tough it would be to make anything stand out on a long track within the cramped space.

Budget:
With the immense length, the numerous high sections in the gorge, and the immense work that it would take to make all four of those under-wheel tunnels work, this would eclipse any other GG coaster in terms of cost. Granted, even being 1.5 times more expensive than ?????????The Voyage,????????? that still only makes the cost $13.5 million. No points off.

Technical: 0.5 Adrenaline: 7.0 Originality: 6.75 Bonus: +6 Budget: -0 Total Score: 20.25 / 30
Final Rating: 6.75 (DQ)





Sobek - (un-titled)

Overall Impression:
This was definitely one of the most original and intense coasters in the round, but the fact that it had almost no supports killed any chance it had of winning, which is a shame because it was a really fun ride. The rest of technical was also pretty bad, but it was still a really fun track despite its technical failures.

Records Broken:
-Tallest X-Car Coaster (198 ft) [Difficulty: 1]
-Fastest X-Car Coaster (78 mph)
[Bonus Points: 2]

Technical:
In basic shaping, you definitely tried to get the right heartlined X-car style, but you just didn't have enough vertexes to make it work. There were some extremely nasty pumps, and lots of transitions that just didn't flow right. The non-inverting loop especially was a victim of this. If you look at the shaping on Rip Ride Rockit, you will see that it is turning almost constantly throughout the element, while yours has a big flat-banking part in the middle. This created some really nasty lateral g spikes. Another clear difference from the real X-car was that the drop off the MCBR was too circular, again creating a nasty g-spike in the back. But as a whole, it's not really the shaping that was the problem. You just needed to adjust one or two places, and use more vertexes and maybe AHG to eliminate some of the pumping. A 6.5/10 in shaping. Of course, the biggest problem was the supports. Most of the coaster was completely unsupported, which in accordance with the other unsupported coasters, will cost you 3 full points. The last big thing I have to take points off for is the g-forces. Ouch! I counted yellow g's of -1.5 vertical coming into the MCBR, -1.9 in the back seat coming off, red lateral g's of 2.2 in the front seat coming into the non-inverting loop, and then a potentially life-threatening combination of simultaneous -2.4 vertical and 2.5 lateral g's in the back seat coming down that loop. Not good. Another 2 points off. Next, unfortunately, when I checked to see what your ride capacity is, it was only 691. So to cap off the mistake-ridden technical score, you're disqualified.

Adrenaline:
What was there, wow, it was great! The first drop was great, I especially loved the second element, then both some airtime and a non-inverting loop. The g's were really intense, although often too much, which will take away some points for the 2nd half of the ride, but overall I loved the sequencing and the intensity. The only thing that wasn't great was the pacing. It was a bit short, and never really had a chance to get any sustained speed going since it was just big element after big element. But as a whole, good. I just would have liked a better sensation of speed rather than just a chain of elements.

Originality:
Now that was cool! Almost every element was something new, but still right within the X-car style. I really don't have much to say here. The drop was great, the second element was just totally awesome, the approach and drop off the MCBR were nuts, and if it weren't for the bad g's, this would have been near-perfect. I'm only taking points off because of execution. The ride was great in theory, though.

Budget:
This coaster had three elements taller than Rip Ride Rockit, and although it was shorter in length, everything was really high off the ground, so by my thinking it would cost about the same. $15 million, and 1 point off.

Technical: 1.5 Adrenaline: 7.5 Originality: 9.0 Bonus: +2 Budget: -1 Total Score: 19 / 30
Final Rating: 6.33 (DQ)





TJM94 - ?????????El Diablo?????????

Overall Impression:
This coaster was pretty mediocre in every department. The shaping lacked a B&M feel, the adrenaline never really got going, and it lacked any original elements, only breaking up the layout with one odd turn before the cobra roll. Prepare for lots of constructive criticism...

Records Broken:
Tallest B&M Steel Twister Coaster (175 ft) [Difficulty: 2]
Longest Drop on a B&M Steel Twister Coaster (165 ft)
Fastest B&M Steel Twister Coaster (71 mph)
Tallest Vertical Loop on a B&M Steel Twister Coaster (140 ft)
[Bonus Points: 5]

Technical:
On the one hand, you got about the right sizes for a B&M coaster on all the elements, but there was something major missing: heartlining. If you watch a video of any B&M coaster, you can see that whenever the coasters bank, they 'slip' the banking out a bit. You only really did this on one element, the 0-g roll. All the other ones, there was none of that 'slip'. They were too blocky. I will use the cobra roll as an example. A real B&M would turn to the right a bit while going up, while yours was a perfect 180 degrees. Again, just work some more on matching your shaping with the real company's. The worst segments were the two turns that you had leading into the elements. The one going into the cobra roll had really nasty lateral g's because you didn't heartline it, and the one before the corkscrew was both severely under-banked, and had no heartlining. B&M's by nature have as few lateral g's as possible. Some other style-related nitpicks: the peak of the lift hill was way too pointy, the second loop was really weird, the entrances to both brake runs were also too pointy and abrupt rather than smooth and gradual like real B&M's, and the corkscrew had a really poorly shaped entrance. This was about an average effort, so you get a 5/10 in shaping. The other big problem was that there were a lot of under-supported sections. At the bottom of the first drop, there was a good 300 ft of track that was completely unsupported. Coming out of the loop was also unsupported, as well as both the entrance and exits to the second loop. The 0-g roll was also a bit under-supported, but not as badly as the loops. This wasn't as severe as on the wood coasters since it would be easily fixable with just a few clicks, so you only lose 1.5 points. You do lose another half-point on the ferris wheel, though. Your re-supporting was inadequate. Those steel beams would buckle under the weight of all that concrete with no support poles in the middle. Then you lose another half-point for the painful g forces in that turn coming into the cobra roll and the entrance to the corkscrew.

Adrenaline:
My real complaint with the adrenaline of this track is that it never really got going. Everything was taken a bit too slow, and it never felt like it was going fast. There were no ground turns or quick changes in direction to break up the layout, making it just one big inversion after another. This doesn't work. It just left the whole thing feeling bland. So sequencing was pretty bad because of that lack of variety. And pacing was even worse, because it never really got going, and never felt fast. And the ride was too short after the MCBR. That is usually the dramatic pause that you use to really kick it into high gear in the end, but in your case it was over almost instantly after the MCBR, and still hadn't gained any more intensity. So I just felt unfulfilled by this coaster. Next time, try doing something more original than just inversion after inversion, and observe some of the other good coasters on the site to understand the mechanics of pacing better.

Originality:
I, again, had some big problems here. The coaster was basically an out-and-back, with one inversion after the other and the track never really made any significant deviations, and never even crossed over itself. Add in nothing but standard B&M elements and it made this coaster very predictable. That is not a good thing. You needed to so something more to break up the layout. You did try with the two turns, but a bit more would have helped immensly. Maybe add in another inversion or two, and some turns and hills to break up the layout. This would have made it much more random and interesting.

Budget:
Way taller than ?????????Wildfire,????????? way longer, and it had way bigger elements. I therefore estimate that the cost would be about $19 million, and you're $5 million over-budget.

Technical: 2.5 Adrenaline: 5.75 Originality: 4.5 Bonus: +5 Budget: -5 Total Score: 12.75 / 30
Final Rating: 4.25





tracksix - ?????????Orange Laser?????????

Overall Impression:
To your credit, this was the most ?????????complete????????? of the coasters in this contest, with completed supports and a mostly good attempt at trackwork. I have lots of minor gripes, though, mainly in the intensity department. It's also going to be a real bank-breaker in terms of budget, but you should still be able to crack the top 3 no problem.

Records Broken:
Tallest Arrow Hypercoaster (228 ft)
Longest Drop on an Arrow Hypercoaster (240 ft)
Fastest Arrow Hypercoaster (83 mph)
Longest Arrow Hypercoaster (6022 ft) [Difficulty: 4]
[Bonus Points: 7]

Technical:
I didn't think I'd say this to anyone, but this coaster was actually too smooth for its chosen type. It felt more like a Morgan hypercoaster than an Arrow. And with supports that looked remarkably like the signature ones on the turnaround of Steel Dragon 2000, I wouldn't be surprised if that was actually what you were going for. If you were doing that, you got it almost perfectly, even though this technically was supposed to be an Arrow category. As is, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and only take points off for the minor bumps in a couple of the drops, and the fact that the supports on the turnaround were a bit sparse, which might make it a bit rough in some parts. Aside from that, no gripes. 8.5/10 in shaping with no deductions.

Adrenaline:
Pretty easy to summarize here: too much turning, not enough airtime. The first helix was really intense, but most of the other turns were just kind of mid-speed, and there wasn't enough airtime. There were maybe 3 or 4 moments of brief strong floater air in the front, and basically none at all in the back. This is a big gripe, because it is the insane ejector that, IMO, is what makes or breaks Arrow and Morgan hypercoasters. This is why Magnum and Steel Force are such awesome coasters, while a lot of their others just fall into the mediocre category. Your helixes were very intense, and the second drop was really awesome, but that's about it. The speed was kept up from start to finish, but it just wasn't intense enough in most parts.

Originality:
The helixes were very nice, as mentioned before, and again the drop was really nice. Also, props for finishing a complete support structure even if the tower supports really didn't look much like Arrow or even Morgan's standard hyper supports because they were too thick. Really I don't have much to say. It was solid, but not flamboyant, and it was decently sequenced aside from the lack of airtime, and didn't feel predictable at all. It seems like you might have been hindered slightly by the bounds of the template, but it still turned out pretty nice. You also get major props for the great tunnel, and the extra detail on the supports, and around the station. This gave you some extra points here.

Budget:
Since your supports were much more like Steel Dragon 2000 than any Arrow creation, I will likewise take Steel Dragon into consideration here since they have a lot in common. These kinds of supports that you used are a lot more expensive than the more standard hyper supports which are generally thin and efficient. The track itself is also getting expensive, with height bigger and length longer than Pepsi Max, and with almost every element elevated high above the ground. Since this was in the open rather than built over other rides, the cost of the extra height and length would be offset, but you're still looking at a coaster around $23 million. 9 points off. It was this that cost you the contest. You had the best combined tech/adren/orig scores in the contest with 24.25, but in the end it was just too expensive. You should have made it shorter and punchier rather than massive.

Technical: 8.5 Adrenaline: 7.75 Originality: 8.0 Bonus: +7 Budget: -9 Total Score: 22.25 / 30
Final Rating: 7.42





vid_w - ?????????Thunderbird?????????

Overall Impression:
Lol, did you and guitarplayer673 psychically decide to make the same mistakes or something? Because both of you somehow made CCI coasters with instantaneous transitions from dropping to pullouts, with no wide supports. And although yours was great too, his had slightly better originality and sequencing, although this coaster was better technically and had some good intensity. It should finish well, but I don't think it has a chance to beat Jake or tracksix.

Records Broken:
Tallest CCI Wood Coaster (139 ft)
Longest Drop on a CCI Wood Coaster (169 ft) [Difficulty: 0]
Fastest CCI Wood Coaster (71 mph)
World Record for Steepest Drop on a Wood Coaster (79 degrees)
[Bonus Points: 3]

Technical:
Your technical problems weren't quite as bad as those on the other CCI coaster in the contest. It was a lot less pumpy and there were at least transitions in some of the hills. But I will say the same thing that I said to him. Yes, CCI does occasionally do the thing where there is no transition between airtime and positive g's, but it is very painful in real life, and therefore I still have to take points off for them. Also, CCI doesn't so much have the slam-transitions so much as they have the ?????????ramp????????? transitions almost like those on an Arrow hypercoaster but with less banking. And this is especially true on hills. They generally use straight sections between changes in g's rather than the slams from one to the other. More of that ramp effect could have made it feel much more CCI and less painful. Still, it was fairly decent, and it was obvious that some effort did go into capturing the company style. 7/10. And then, in accordance with every other track in the contest that lacked wide supports, 3 full points off.

Adrenaline:
The intensity of this coaster was amazing. The drops were really intense, and the airtime was right on the limit of what would be insane without being dangerous for a CCI. It found that perfect range where it was pushing boundaries but not breaking them, and therefore had the perfect intensity for top adrenaline scores. The first part of this coaster was just plain insane, in a good way, and it stayed great until after the tunnel on the return leg. After that, though, I really wasn't a fan of the ending. It could have used one last good element to finish on, and felt a bit abrupt as is. This was a detractor in the sequencing score, but the rest was really great. Awesome stuff for what was there, I just wish it could have been a bit longer and had a better ending.

Originality:
Again, the sequencing wasn't as good as it could have been. There were some really great moments, like the tunnel-hill-tunnel sequence, and the intense helix, but then the ending just wasn't good enough. It was a bit too straight-forward as a whole, disguising its grid-following well in the beginning but then just losing interest by the end. Still, some good things going on are enough to make this semi-respectable.

Budget:
Again, even though it was huge it's basically impossible to build a CCI coaster that costs more than the target budget. This one would be $9 million at the most. No points off. So with all the scores out, you tied with tracksix for 2nd place, but he gets it because he had better tech/adren/orig scores.

Technical: 4.0 Adrenaline: 8.0 Originality: 7.25 Bonus: +3 Budget: -0 Total Score: 22.25 / 30
Final Rating: 7.42





FINAL CONTEST RESULTS:

GOLD MEDAL: ?????????Uproar????????? by Jakizle (20,000 points)
SILVER MEDAL: ?????????Orange Laser????????? by tracksix (10,000 points)
BRONZE MEDAL: ?????????Thunderbird????????? by vid_w (5,000 points)


FINAL STANDINGS:

1.?????????Uproar????????? by Jakizle (7.67)
2.?????????Orange Laser????????? by tracksix (7.42)
3.?????????Thunderbird????????? by vid_w (7.42)
4.?????????El Toro????????? by guitarplayer673 (7.33)
5.?????????The Towers????????? by Dirk_Ermen (7.08)
6.?????????Nighthawk????????? by hyyyper (6.83)
7.?????????El Diablo????????? by TJM94 (4.25)
8.?????????Wildfire????????? by Jonny Richey (6.75)
9.(un-titled) by Sobek (6.33)


Thanks for participating, everyone! I hope to see you this February for Coastercrazy.com's 8th annual NoLimits Tournament.

Post October 17th, 2009, 1:41 am

Posts: 5367
Points on hand: 1,916.00 Points
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA

I would have really liked to submit my Premier ride I was working on for the template, but it would have been WICKED expensive. Thanks for the extremely detailed rates!

Post October 17th, 2009, 8:49 am

Posts: 6184
Points on hand: 483.00 Points
Bank: 19,590.00 Points
Do you still have the primier? Maybe you still can upload it.

Post November 9th, 2009, 11:07 pm

Posts: 246
Points on hand: 685.00 Points
Location: Beaumont, TX, USA
woot woot! congrats to the winners
i put the laughter in manslaughter!

Post November 12th, 2009, 11:24 pm
Dirk_Ermen User avatar
True Addicts
True Addicts

Posts: 13387
Points on hand: 2,175.50 Points
Bank: 45,000.00 Points
Location: Noord-Brabant, Netherlands
Wow, awesome ratings CJD. Thanks for holding this contest. [:)]

Congrats winners, Everyone submitted great rides!
Coastercount: 1410 (I've seen the world and it's horrid contraptions... @.@)
- Wood: 142
- Steel: 1268

Post November 13th, 2009, 2:41 am
cjd

Posts: 3370
Points on hand: 4,718.00 Points
Location: New Concord, OH, USA

lol, I was starting to wonder if anyone saw these results or not when I posted them...

Post November 24th, 2010, 12:37 pm

Posts: 25
Points on hand: 892.00 Points
Location: USA
hey i am wanting to make a record breaking arrow multilooper for this contest but I do not know how to get and install the track packager.

PreviousNext

Return to Contests

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
cron