Help me to understand........

Ok, I am from the Ultimate Ride crowd, so perhaps that is why my style of rating differs from the rest here. I would like to know what are you guys seeing in the coasters that are posted in the exchange that I am not, because either I am rating too high or the other scores are too low. Before you ask me, this is what I rate on when I download a coaster:

Technique - Was the coaster smooth? Did the supports look right or did they appear to not be able to hold the track? If posted as a Realistic, are the g-forces in check?

Adrenaline - Did the coaster thrill me? Were there any close calls with trees or headchoppers?

Theming - How well was the environment themed/terraformed? Were the hills rounded off or were they pointy? Were props/3ds used to give the coaster a full and polished look?

Sometimes I combine these into one paragraph when I rate, while other times I will break it down into the three categories so the builder can see how I viewed the coaster. Even still, am I missing something here? Do I rate too high or is it that you guys critique on more than what I do? This is not meant to be a rant, I just want to understand how things are done here in terms of rating coasters.

The originality category is meant for track layout and any extras.

[Dirk_Ermen]

princess G, for everyone is rating different. Just rate the way you feel it's right to rate. Just give the numbers the value you think it's worth to have.

Here is my way of rating:

Technical:
- Was it smooth?
- Were the g's in check?
- Would be be possible to be build in real? (when it's uploaded as realistic)
- Do the supports work?

Adrenaline:
- Did i get the feeling of WOW!?
- Was there feeling of speed there?
- Did the g-forces give me some thrill?

Originality:
- Were there new elements used?
- was the elements in a original sequence
- Were the used 3ds correct with the rides story or gave it a better ride look?

[hyyyper]

this is mostly how i rate tracks, not that i rate often though:

Technical:
-pumping, jerks, transitions
-impossible collision with trees, supports and ground
-supports realism, can they hold it?
-are G's in check?

Adrenaline
-close calls (choppers, ground feeling)
-high speeds
-high G turns
-airtime
-pacing

Originatly:
-suprising layout/elements
-terrain
-3ds/supports buildings/misc
-name, colors, don't count heavy, but they do count

I rate tracks like this:

TECH:
- pumping
- bumping and jerks
- transitions (realistic if uploaded as realistic?)
- Track/tree/support collisions?
- E stop
- Supports (realistic)
- And also if the track looks good. I dont care, i WILL mark down if a track doesnt look nice. Parks dont build things that look like crap, well not if they can afford it anyway.
- Track shaping

ADREN:
- Smoothness again, as it really does affect the ride
- G forces, are they high enough to thrill? But always in control?
- Airtime, this is where people get lots of points from me [:D]
- Layout, you gotta have a good layout
- mixture of hills and curves, not one or the other (unless out & back woody)
- Close calls, headchoppers. (extra marks for airtime and headchoppers at the same time)
- New elements?

ORIG:
- layout (i award at least 5 marks to a ride in ORIG if it hads a decent layout)
- Presentation overall, the rides appearance, the whole package
- 3ds
- Terraforming
- Custom textures
- Environment
- Unique supports
- Unique element order/new element/ surprise factor

FINALLY:
- Whether i like the track or not. That sounds really bad, but if i dont like it, then i may take 0.5 - 1 point off. But ifi do like it, i will add any amount of marks depending on how much i loved it. Sometimes i will overlook things if i like the rate so much.
- Effort. If someone hasnt put effort into their track, they dont deserve a decent rate or a thorough rate. But if they have worked on it for along time, then they deserve a mark of so, for spending the time trying to improve their skills on one track.

I dont know if i sounded harsh or generous then, lol. But hey, thats how i rate rides. I only tend to rate rides that i see someone has put alot of work into (even if it sucks), or that i really like. But i dont download much anymore. Only the ones that catch my eye. [:)] So a good screenshot helps. [:p]

Now there's something I don't know about, what is an E Stop? We don't have anything like that in the UR series.

[Dirk_Ermen]

E-stop: emergency stop, so all brakes will close and no train can continue @ a block brake. You can enable and disable it in NoLimits with F12 [:)]

Oh, ok. That makes sense. I suppose we do have emergency stops in UR, but they are just the normal brakes.

My thoughts: http://www.freewebs.com/tconwell/rating.htm

Also, what level of detail was the track created with? Does it follow real world principals? If custom, does it follow those principals close enough to be built?

I look at the depth someone puts into a ride. After looking at many tracks in the editor you can get a feel for the people who spend alot of time and those who dont.

I rate with pretty much what everyone else said, but I also tend to look at supports a little more in detail because that is something I'm more familar with.

I differ somewhat with the real world portion but only if it is posted as a Fantasy coaster. If it is a Realistic than I scrutinize the coaster more. I am sort of programmed this way I guess because in UR a Fantasy coaster means something completely different than in NL (you'll have to see one to know what I mean). I think those are all good points to take into consideration when rating a coaster TConwell.

I thought the fantasies still had to be semi realistic (decent g's, etc), but you're doing something like a launched woodie or something of that sort and isn't done in real life.

Really, if that concept followed, just about all coasters uploaded here would be fantasy, at least their surroundings...

The only thing that I can see wrong with your rating theory is "theming". I mean, a coaster does not have to be themed to be original. You can also accomplish good originality with unique concepts, new elements, inventive sequencing, outstanding pacing, good supports and/or ride environment, and many other factors besides just theming.

[Brtnboarder495]

To add ... realism, if the ride was thought out and planned or just thrown together, support placement, headchoppers/quick turns, creativity (even an intamin hyper can be created with creativity).