Official FVD (Force Vector Design) Thread

Here: https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=ab32db323fe3d5e8&id=AB32DB323FE3D5E8!105&ithint=folder&authkey=!AIUt9TyXyrDmcyY

Someone tell me why when I import FVD into NL it’s off? I’ve tried every method, every outcome is the same. This is a comparison, green is original FVD design, blue is after I exported the track into NL and then import the CSV back into FVD. This is incredibly frustrating.

I have something for you guys to help with your loops. This is from a weird perspective.

The different colors is the Lateral Forces

Normal Force

Roll Force
Recognize the weird eggy shape

this one

Perfectly flat at the top

I would advise against trying to force shaping by using laterals where you don't need to. Most anything "B&M" can and should be done without inputting lateral forces. Even the "snap" on invert wing-overs can be achieved without the use of laterals. This goes for most "FVD" type roller coasters in general. Most of the lateral force you actually feel on these types of rides is due to the real thing not being a point-mass and not being directly bang-on at the heartline, like what we have when designing in FVD.

Better practice here is to start the transition into the loop with a bit of roll and roll rate already applied. It looks like you've started out with the rails level to the horizon and no roll rate, hence why you're having to compensate. Try to play with the roll and roll rate at the entry while leaving your lateral forces at 0 constant.

I'll expound a little more and with pictures later if need-be.

Edit:

The way I like to do my B&M floorless loops.
This one almost comes to 0 degrees banking (rails level with horizon) but just doesn't. (It would though if I had looped the other direction, just wanted to highlight that the banking at the bottom is not zero.)
The quartic for the normal force and the quartic for the roll are pushed forward slightly, using the "center" value. About 0.5 there. The normal force quartic is "squished" a bit, making the forces a bit stronger overall. About -2.0 there. You can make these basic shapes using two cubic functions, more-or-less mirroring each other, and adjust for more exotic entries and exits than the straights I used here.

Working with Batman in FVD for 6 months and another recreation, I could not achieve the exact shaping of the track — with the references — without the use of lateral. My references also consist of having imported google earth models. Google earth models are a huge help but I still need to make sure the track’s orientation, banking, and ‘incidental characteristics’ in the trackwork is identical, thus I check every angle from medias to make sure it’s oriented accurately, and ride experience both from media and simulator.

I did everything I can to not touch lateral, and I used to believe that I should avoid lateral completely at all cost when creating transitions, slowly became accepting, then being openly to experiment with laterals. I’ve always experiment and work without lateral first, I think theoretically in my head. Hypothetically it feels like it shouldn’t have any laterals, which I am right at times, but to my surprise a lot of the times after struggling to manipulate the transition over and over, I decided to finally implement laterals into the trackwork, after that I was able to achieve the exact banking or any of the characteristics I need it to show in the transitions.

After from what I learned and observing other B&Ms, I’m surprised how much lateral have been used.

May not be talking about loops now but this is my first FVD coaster, well the loop did not use lateral but the helix did at the bottom which was inspired by Talon.

But perhaps my loop post is more for smaller size loops.

This is my Batman recreation below with reference.

My loops before using lateral did not have that identical look I needed at specific points of view. Batman’s drop transitioning to the loop — before I decided to use lateral — was not banked enough, it didn’t look like the references until after I decided to go that route. I didn’t have to second guess whether the shaping was correct or not anymore, because it looks exactly like my references now.

Main focus with the photos below is the helixes that uses lateral, before using lateral, my helixes were wobbly and were either banking too much or too little and didn’t have a consistent flow than it did with the real POV until I implemented the laterals.

Lateral mode

Next is my Hydra recreation, which has incredible use of lateral. My references includes stripped google earth’s models and many medias too.

I want to point out that the transitional beginning of the first flatspin— the 4th inversion, before the cobra roll — of Hydra’s took me roughly a week to figure out, the transition was difficult to achieve until I used lateral, then it became identical to my references.

Lateral mode

This is the track graph which starts at the first drop. Between the dash lines is the zero g roll section that uses geometric section than force section. Before and after the zero g roll section are force sections

Down below is a test pov of Hydra.

Comparison of real POV and FVD, real POV is running faster than anticipated, running at .026 than the recommended friction values NL-Central suggest which is .031. Thus FVD has a bit of a head start.

https://i.imgur.com/O3xDiFn.mp4

I think my argument here is that, it’s nice to see our graphs clean and simplified, and we all understand the final process of the ride being imported into Nolimits or real life is that there are going to be incidental laterals. An example element: a wingover/flatspin, we understand we’re not in the middle of the exact heartline, but they typically though give you laterals past 1.0-2.0 Gs naturally. What I’m getting at is, the loop I demonstrated above for example is a 10th of a fraction of your body weight, the graph’s lateral is around 0.1-0.2 Gs.

There’s aught to be laterals no matter what, we all understand that from not being exactly in the heart-line, but just because some laterals are implemented purposefully doesn’t mean it is bad, 1/10 of lateral force to your body is not close to it being bad, nor is it even noticeable at all. Sometimes necessary, and what I think also is perhaps is that the lateral isn’t necessarily there for the rider’s experience but perhaps it reduces the train’s stress, or/and easy way, intuitive, and non concerning way to create transitions for coasters.

Here’s my Batman POV, the highest lateral implemented into the trackwork design is around 0.6-0.7 Gs.

Time spent on something doesn't make that thing good or correct. I'm not saying what you've made here is "bad" necessarily, just that I do not believe the technique you've employed to be the most accurate. I'm not Stengel, so I can't say with absolute certainty, but I'm able to get the shaping with most of these elements without the use of laterals, so maybe it could be right.

Let's look at your Batman recreation, which is a really nice attempt and gets good pacing, but misses out on some crucial shaping points. This is a ride I know very well from riding experience and have attempted a recreation of my own as well, so I know some of the challenges you faced when tackling the FVD on this one.

• end of the lift release comes down a tad too far (angled down too much) and the pull out of the lift into the first drop should be tighter; it really snaps up and quickly into the first roll here
• the rolling in the first drop is slightly off. it first rolls a bit harder than yours does. There's also something funky going on with the vertical forces as there's some weird psuedo airtime here. You can just see the track taking a slightly different path than you would think from certain angles.
• the rolling in the zero-g roll isn't quite the same, it's snappier but also continues for longer; likely why you've used so much lateral here to get the alignment of the exit correct.
• shaping of the loops seem fine despite the slight banking differences because of the laterals
• the transition into the turn after the second loop needs to be much snappier, yours if much more drawn out
• your wing-overs are very nice, the best part of this recreation if you ask me
• the turn after the first wing-over has an obvious amount more banking in the comparison you've provided, this would account for the amount of laterals you've applied there
• again, very nice wing-over
• your final turn into the brakes bobs up and down a bit too much. I see what you were going for, and you're spot on with how the roll is changing there, it's just a bit too much.

I am being very picky here of course. This would probably pass just fine as a tech demo or for a commercial showcasing the new ride. I like to pick out the fine-toothed comb though and I think I have valid and fair criticisms for your creation. A really nice attempt with a few very minor flaws.

FrankLeeMadere posted on May 15th, 2022

Time spent on something doesn't make that thing good or correct. I'm not saying what you've made here is "bad" necessarily, just that I do not believe the technique you've employed to be the most accurate. I'm not Stengel, so I can't say with absolute certainty, but I'm able to get the shaping with most of these elements without the use of laterals, so maybe it could be right.

Let's look at your Batman recreation, which is a really nice attempt and gets good pacing, but misses out on some crucial shaping points. This is a ride I know very well from riding experience and have attempted a recreation of my own as well, so I know some of the challenges you faced when tackling the FVD on this one.

• end of the lift release comes down a tad too far (angled down too much) and the pull out of the lift into the first drop should be tighter; it really snaps up and quickly into the first roll here
• the rolling in the first drop is slightly off. it first rolls a bit harder than yours does. There's also something funky going on with the vertical forces as there's some weird psuedo airtime here. You can just see the track taking a slightly different path than you would think from certain angles.
• the rolling in the zero-g roll isn't quite the same, it's snappier but also continues for longer; likely why you've used so much lateral here to get the alignment of the exit correct.
• shaping of the loops seem fine despite the slight banking differences because of the laterals
• the transition into the turn after the second loop needs to be much snappier, yours if much more drawn out
• your wing-overs are very nice, the best part of this recreation if you ask me
• the turn after the first wing-over has an obvious amount more banking in the comparison you've provided, this would account for the amount of laterals you've applied there
• again, very nice wing-over
• your final turn into the brakes bobs up and down a bit too much. I see what you were going for, and you're spot on with how the roll is changing there, it's just a bit too much.

I am being very picky here of course. This would probably pass just fine as a tech demo or for a commercial showcasing the new ride. I like to pick out the fine-toothed comb though and I think I have valid and fair criticisms for your creation. A really nice attempt with a few very minor flaws.

I used to live by Dallas and Arlington, so also familiar, but it’s the least of help. It vaguely — to me — gives me information about the Gs I’ve experienced.

The lift, I haven’t change the speed yet, there’s two speeds it transitions to, not yet I want to implement that. It’s snappier because the lift’s speed transitions before reaching the top, where it starts out at 4.25 mph (that is the speed out of the station and into the station and entering the lift) then to around 6-7 mph. Typically the speed transitions at around 1/4th of the lift’s duration, so then at the pre-drop I’d get that snap you wanted to see, and of course the drop’s transitions would then appear to look quicker and tighter because now it’s at a faster speed. Depending on some clones, the transition of the speeds is either earlier than the 1/4th of the lift I suggested or no change; I feel like depending on the weather or capacity, it’ll change correspondingly. Some clones like Le Vampire at La Ronde in this video stays at 4.25 mph throughout the lift duration and the snap wasn’t as intense like the POV was below.

I’ll gladly show the coaster with the model to show that the pre-drop isn’t too steep. It’s exactly perfect. Especially the curve radius and length; clean digits.

Eventually I want to redo the track again for the zero g roll (like you said) and raise the s bend a bit higher after the first helix before the first wingover too for a while. There’s a mesh error in the model when being mapped. I think hypothetically the zero g roll should be a geometric section ‘for me’ this time because exporting Hydra as a .csv into FVD so I have reference sometimes glitch and inverts the .csv layout, the zero g roll — well the whole layout — is now in its inverted form, the zero g roll in inverted form looks ‘drawn’ and straighter and to me resembles Batman a lot; Hydra’s zero g roll section is a geometric section. My zero g roll for Batman, even though its not correct — we can agree on — but it’s not less drawn than what it should be, it’s at perfect length, but it’s the way the roll is rotating that is wrong.

OMG, actually. The loops, thank god! Before lateral was involved, it was not aligned with the loop supports, it was about 5° off if I remember. The boxy-spine is suppose to be parallel with the loop supports, that determines the support’s Y rotation and direction, it’s dependent on where ever the track’s orientation leads it to be. I was frustrated until I tried lateral and it solved that problem. I should’ve mention that from the start, that was the biggest evidence in my case for why they would use lateral in their trackwork, even for something that would seem pretty insignificant to consider.

The turn into the helix is actually intense and not drawn out, the normal force transitions from 70 seconds timeframe to 71 seconds timeframe is from 1.4-5 Gs to 4.6-7 Gs, its transitional duration though is 3/4ths of a second, that’s 3.2 Gs added onto your body less than ‘one second’. What I like to do is to place my finger next to the rails and watch its placements afterwards to see if there’s a changed position of the rails in POV from point A to B. I match that with the real POV, and match its distance of point A and B.

The transition after the last wingover in the video is outdated, I went and redid that after I uploaded that video, quite a lot of times, forgot to mention that. That was the first “final” layout exported. It’s less wobbly and not as defined as before I assure, but I’m glad you pointed that out.

But be my guest having a shot at it again, I’ll gladly send you the .dae files, the track reference .csv so you can import it into FVD and try it yourself.

Implemented lateral forces in layout is definitely a choice whether you want to do so or not, but know that coasters like B&M uses lateral whether we like it or not. And it’s good to try and experiment.

RollerCoaster1234 posted on May 16th, 2022

Implemented lateral forces in layout is definitely a choice whether you want to do so or not, but know that coasters like B&M uses lateral whether we like it or not. And it’s good to try and experiment.

It's all well and good to say that, but what credibility is there to that claim? If you look closely at certain B&Ms, you'll see that the loop support is not actually just a simple wedge tacked on, but rather it has some twist to it, and is actually segmented.

As stated earlier, just because time's put into something, doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate or true-to-form.

ThatFlyerGuy1 posted on May 16th, 2022

It's all well and good to say that, but what credibility is there to that claim? If you look closely at certain B&Ms, you'll see that the loop support is not actually just a simple wedge tacked on, but rather it has some twist to it, and is actually segmented.

As stated earlier, just because time's put into something, doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate or true-to-form.

That maybe true to some, but specifically for Batman though with the photos I provided. Do you see any twist? Even if it’s 1°, it’s very much aligned.

The loop connectors for Batman specifically I’ll say, is aligned with the tracks orientation meanwhile there would be others with more intense rolls that would have a bit of a twist. If there’s a twist in Batman, which I am in no doubt, it should be about at most 1° by seeing how parallel it is. And I’ll admit I need to rework on the loop’s orientations again.

Proper demonstration for the helix, with laterals vs without. Blue is with lateral in the trackwork, yellow is no lateral.

I’ve experimented with Quaternion and Euler. In the red box is Euler. Note that the roll speed graph is set a Quartic Symmetric Function in Euler mode, but the graphs how they look when you’re viewing a Quaternion mode section looks like as it appears in the red box.

Comparison at same perspective.

I came to realize that the one in blue has been in Quaternion the whole time, and yellow I experimented with Euler which seems to be recommended for working with helixes I hear. Yellow like I said uses no lateral, quite impressed that the roll graph outcome in Euler is similar to Blue’s roll graph.

Lateral Implemented

No Lateral Euler Experiment 1

Screen shot comparison

Lateral implemented

No Lateral Euler Experiment 1

Here’s another roll experiment if it was still in Quaternion, no laterals.

Reference

Quaternion No Lateral Quintic Doublebump (1) Experiment 2 1/2

Quaternion No Lateral Quintic Doublebump (1) Experiment 2 2/2

Here is the third roll experiment if I use Quartic Symmetric Function follow by no manipulation after the Quartic, roll speed 0.

Reference

Quaternion No Lateral Quartic Symmetric Function Experiment 3 1/2

Quaternion No Lateral Quartic Symmetric Function Experiment 3 2/2

Fourth roll experiment, where I used Quartic Opposite Direction with bump to -23° roll speed. It’s quite identical to the roll graph in the version that uses lateral and my first experiment which uses Euler than Quaternion and no lateral. It may look quite close without lateral, but it’s pretty much the same result with the first experiment since they both share identical roll graphs.

Reference

No Lateral Quartic opposite direction first Quaternion Experiment 4 1/2

No Lateral Quartic opposite direction first Quaternion Experiment 4 2/2

It would seem the fourth experiment would or could be ideal. But unfortunately this comparison says otherwise too. Pay close attention to the top right of the real-life screenshot and observe the trackwork.

Reference

Lateral Implemented

No Lateral Experiment 4

And here’s the original trackwork that has lateral compared again to the reference.

Reference

Here’s the lift, drop and loop photo compared with NL. I do admit there is need of some fixing. The fixes are more towards the bottom of the drop and loop but not the suggested criticism for the pre-drop nor the first half of the drop. This is also to address about whether the pre-drop was steep or not. Please note that my Batman recreation’s track spine is purposely thicker earlier than Great America’s Batman’s spine, some clones have a thicker spines earlier in the drop than others, which my coaster was based on.

And here’s that thing I mentioned about when Hydra’s .csv is inverted in FVD

Maybe a forum post specifically for this coaster would be good, if it doesn't exist. This is really a general FVD thread, and we're getting pretty tied up in the weeds with this one.

At any rate, none of us are Stengel so we can't know for sure, only postulate and speculate, and we don't have the original software used to create these rides, only a (really good) open-source implementation of force vector design techniques, so we should be mindful of our expectations. We're unlikely to get perfection, especially with google satellite imaging or video and picture.

FrankLeeMadere posted on May 16th, 2022

Maybe a forum post specifically for this coaster would be good, if it doesn't exist. This is really a general FVD thread, and we're getting pretty tied up in the weeds with this one.

At any rate, none of us are Stengel so we can't know for sure, only postulate and speculate, and we don't have the original software used to create these rides, only a (really good) open-source implementation of force vector design techniques, so we should be mindful of our expectations. We're unlikely to get perfection, especially with google satellite imaging or video and picture.

Yeah we’re not gonna be perfect, but this isn’t a satellite, it’s an actual model, and the images and other kinds of medias’ are helping me with what it should look like further. The perspective is a bit different in NL2 and the FOV is very weird than what we’re used to seeing in real life photos and videos. Yes photos and videos are also distorted or skewed in its own way too, but I don’t have that problem for having a model to reference by. But the thing is whether the photo or video was skewed, what we see is what we see.

My no lateral experiments showed it was banking too much at the start and it’s not possible to avoid that, whether you want to admit that or not. Considering I looked at many sources, the pictures aren’t playing tricks even if it’s distorted or skewed a bit.

---

But let me get this straightened out, my post is not just for the sake of recreations, but experimenting with coaster designing itself for whoever wants to try it.

---

If we don’t want to talk about Batman, how about Hydra then?

It may not be synced since it seems that the train exits the station at a faster speed in real life than I though it did. But pay attention to both of the track’s orientations, I suggest placing your finger on the screen to have a pinpoint reference for both POVs to find those identical track orientation identities how they warp around the frame. This should be easier to pinpoint where in the layout it changes because I manually place the track flanges to be identical with real life’s Hydra.

https://i.imgur.com/qWeEEFo.mp4

This is what it looks like with lateral mode in FVD

So you tell me, is it accurate? I’m more on about the turnover after the Jo-Jo roll, it’s safe to agree that Jo-Jo was designed using a geometric orientation for its transition. Would you agree?

---

So let me get this straight, because they’re not the same exact software and you claim that ‘that’s’ the reason to be the cause of the difference of outcome is invalid because we don’t have that information to verify really. What we do have is information that is actually present here, and we’re able to actually see how the track’s manipulation behaves. Now of course there may be some differences between the two, I could speculate that, but the identicality or replication of making the track orientation is possible whether we did use their software or FVD++. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to debunk FVD and say it’s not possible (for how good you say FVD is too) or say it’s due to the software’s limitation when our theoretical speculations don’t work, and without stepping out and ruling out our explorations first. There may be some limitations the program cannot generate but it’s not a major disadvantage to what we can do.

It’s like trying to debunk Blender because it’s not exactly like Autodesk’s Maya and for Maya being an industry standard modeling program; kind of scenario.

---

It’s an opening thread for FVD++ users and this is a relevant topic and I’m sharing what I know and discovered, it’s a great thread for discussion and challengeable debates when they do happen as it is with other threads. A third of information I posted is without doubt a good demonstration on how my technique is being executed.

Truth be told though that 1/4th of my claims are not definite and looking into it, so I may be wrong about those claims. My claims about lateral loops is what I am referring to.

I admire the discussion we’re having and I don’t think it should be negatively reflected upon because we’re both learning something together. But anyways, I have backed up at most 3/4th of my claims with resources, I don’t think saying ‘it’s not the same program’ is a suitable answer to go by.

I didn’t just speculated, I demonstrated it for you in those examples and proved that they don’t work as it should from what we were wanting it to be.

---

My main message from the start was to be open to things we don’t expect and experiment with an open mind.

To end on a positive note, I’ve watched you tutorials and tried your own techniques too. Some are actually very useful. I’m in no way seeking to disrespect or discredit you if I sound so. After all, we’re still picking things up, and that would mean hearing others’ and their journey too.

I know this is a tedious read and a tedious topic to engage in, but at least I am able to provide answers for people to see.

Little lats like 0.6 g's is tolerable. But not if you use like 3g's instead

RollerCoaster1234 posted on May 17th, 2022

So you tell me, is it accurate? I’m more on about the turnover after the Jo-Jo roll, it’s safe to agree that Jo-Jo was designed using a geometric orientation for its transition. Would you agree?

A lot of what I'm getting is "I'm entitled to be zealous because I use laterals."

RollerCoaster1234 posted on May 17th, 2022

Yeah we’re not gonna be perfect, but this isn’t a satellite, it’s an actual model, and the images and other kinds of medias’ are helping me with what it should look like further. The perspective is a bit different in NL2 and the FOV is very weird than what we’re used to seeing in real life photos and videos. Yes photos and videos are also distorted or skewed in its own way too, but I don’t have that problem for having a model to reference by. But the thing is whether the photo or video was skewed, what we see is what we see.

A couple things to consider - those Google models are extremely low resolution, and can't be trusted as valid references - because they're most likely just vague approximations, any errors made in those models, coupled with the near-impossible chance of recreating the layout faithfully in NL2 - it all compounds.

RollerCoaster1234 posted on May 17th, 2022

I admire the discussion we’re having and I don’t think it should be negatively reflected upon because we’re both learning something together. But anyways, I have backed up at most 3/4th of my claims with resources, I don’t think saying ‘it’s not the same program’ is a suitable answer to go by.

I'm not liking this attitude. "3/4th" of your claims are just POV videos from a camera which may have a less-than-accurate FOV. None of this is actual, palpable evidence to support your claims, and I'm getting a lot of "I'm right because it looks right to me." Well I can say that about a recreation I could easily make in 5 minutes and not give a damn about.

Most of this evidence is secondary. No force readouts, no roll rates, nothing like that - it's just a matter of "seems legit, that checks out." When are we getting believable evidence? I don't understand.

RollerCoaster1234 posted on May 17th, 2022

If we don’t want to talk about Batman, how about Hydra then?

I'm pretty sure you have the ability to create threads if you wanna showcase recreations the way you're showing off here. Let's keep this as an FVD discussion, not an RC1234 discussion.

ThatFlyerGuy1 posted on [May 17th, 2022]

A couple things to consider - those Google models are extremely low resolution, and can't be trusted as valid references - because they're most likely just vague approximations, any errors made in those models, coupled with the near-impossible chance of recreating the layout faithfully in NL2 - it all compounds.

You don’t think I kept that in mind? You don’t think I don’t think the Google models are low resolution? There may not be very detailed polys in the meshes, but it is scaled properly.

There is some mesh flaws that I did noticed already and eventually I will come across more inaccuracies in the model. I believe I already addressed that above.

I'm not liking this attitude. "3/4th" of your claims are just POV videos from a camera which may have a less-than-accurate FOV. None of this is actual, palpable evidence to support your claims, and I'm getting a lot of "I'm right because it looks right to me." Well I can say that about a recreation I could easily make in 5 minutes and not give a damn about.

If I’m so absolutely wrong, and you’re so absolutely right, and if my evidence is faulty, what do you have to backup your stance? I would also love to see your work so we have mutual understanding of each other’s background.

I'm pretty sure you have the ability to create threads if you wanna showcase recreations the way you're showing off here. Let's keep this as an FVD discussion, not an RC1234 discussion.

I’m sharing my discoveries? What is your point about a thread then? My examples and experiment’s focus was NOT about the recreation itself when I presented them in FVD — if that’s what you got out of it — the main focus of my demonstrations were about the technicalities of the graph’s aftermath from different manipulation methods. The aftermath and comparisons of the lateral and non lateral experiments were not close to being subtle differences, they were significant differences from each other.

Most of this evidence is secondary. No force readouts, no roll rates, nothing like that - it's just a matter of "seems legit, that checks out." When are we getting believable evidence? I don't understand.

I don’t understand how you can say there’s no graph readouts when I included them, a lot.

You know what I find astonishing? I have addressed the criticisms and I don’t think you nor Frank have yet formed specific responses to that. The response I got after addressing the criticism was ‘they’re two different programs’ and not addressing what’s in front of you, but then came to realize you don’t think me showing actual photos and screenshots and my results is hardly worth as evidence to support me because they’re skewed by a fraction.

An example that FrankLeeMadere has criticized is that the helix entry is drawn out and in his words, “needs to be much snappier, yours if much more drawn out.” If you (Frank and Flyer) going to base on your saying of ‘just because it looks the same doesn’t mean it’s right’ — which I don’t think fits for this discussion and debate specifically — then my graphs don’t lie; like I have been including in my posts.

That is the helix entry graph, that is one full second of the graph you’re seeing. The duration from +1.4Gs to +4.6Gs is 0.8 seconds (+3.2Gs) Don’t tell me adding more than 3 times your body weight in 0.8 seconds is a gradual and subtle impact nor gradually drawn out when we have the graph readout right there.

kamikaze6900 posted on May 17th, 2022

Little lats like 0.6 g's is tolerable. But not if you use like 3g's instead

Here’s your Jo-Jo roll no lats

For the record, the Jo-Jo Roll laterals is 1.0Gs. And you want to know what? Even though lats are present, it’s technically not a purposeful manipulation of lats into the graph. You’re literally going 10 mph. 1.0Gs is the regular weight our bodies and trains right? My graph below is the Jo-Jo roll that was made using a geometric section, but we’re viewing it if it was converted into a force section.

If we were straight, no roll, just straight, we’d always stay at 1.0Gs. As you see below, look at the relationship of the lateral graph with the normal graph. The start we’re at 0Gs for laterals and normal graph is 1.0Gs, the middle where the lateral graph goes back to 0Gs, we see that normal graph is at -1.0Gs because we’re upside down. Then at the end of the graph lateral is back merely at 0Gs and normal is at 1.0Gs again.

Top lateral Gs on the helixes on Batman is 0.6Gs by the way.

Hello. I am completely new to FVD++. I am trying to make a launch coaster, but I cannot figure out how to add launch tracks. The closest thing to adding a launch track I could do was to add a straight section with a fixed speed, but that fails to simulate the actual "acceleration" of the track, instead the speed just jumps from 5m/s to 30m/s. Is this the best thing to do to add launch track in FVD++?

upstopwheels posted on May 18th, 2022

Hello. I am completely new to FVD++. I am trying to make a launch coaster, but I cannot figure out how to add launch tracks. The closest thing to adding a launch track I could do was to add a straight section with a fixed speed, but that fails to simulate the actual "acceleration" of the track, instead the speed just jumps from 5m/s to 30m/s. Is this the best thing to do to add launch track in FVD++?

Yes, there’s no way to show it ‘accelerating’.

FrankLeeMadere posted on May 15th, 2022

Here’s the fixed zero g roll, I matched the perspective and FOV close to what I can do. I did not use warping nor perspective tool in photoshop when I merged them together.

Video

https://i.imgur.com/fFCbJze.mp4

I theorized earlier that the zero g roll could be created using a geometric section method, and it worked beautifully.

Lateral mode

Geometric Graph readout Version

Force Graph readout Version

You know, maybe graphs don’t have to look pretty if the results is fantastic, the graphs looks quite organic-ish though too.

Just because a project or multiple projects’ is posted on an ‘open-to-all’ thread that presents itself to be quite visually advanced — and at an intermediate level of work — we shouldn’t have that simplistic assumption upon the creator being egotistical nor bragging to show off. “Hey! Look at me! I’m better at designing roller coasters than you.” To me sounds like projection. I shared something different that happened to become a challengeable debate, but I’ve explained my methods into a thread where it should be opened to diversity of knowledge.

Don’t take somebody’s applaudable work shared on here as an egotistical flex, instead be knowledgeable and be open; like what you told me, be open. You disagree and misunderstood the integrity of my posts and suggest I should have my own thread is a pitiful suggestion and a morsel amount of interest in hearing other distinctive approaches, and more so interested in hearing the techniques you’re mostly familiarize with, only.

I rest my case!

Look, with the amount of pictures and videos you've posted about just one ride, and the amount of wordy detail you've bombarded this thread with, I think that a thread dedicated to this is well within reason for us to ask. And what you're presenting isn't what the general community accepts as established Force Vector Design. You're free to experiment and share your results and start a discussion about this, but this thread isn't really for that. It's more for those looking for guidance. You came in toting an unconventional technique as if it was actually the correct way of doing so; and it seems few agree with the premise.

I have not claimed my method to be the correct one, but simply the way I construct vertical loops, whereas you seem very confident your method is the correct way because you've lined your track up to a model that was made not by B&M. I don't trust the accuracy of the model you've based your method on, so I don't trust your method. If you had the actual engineering drafts in your hands and based your ride off of that, I would be more open to accepting this.

Also, 0.6gs lateral doesn't seem like a lot, but there are woodies that pull this amount and we talk about how much that adds to the experience. If a turn pulls more than 0.4 or 0.5 laterals, people generally start talking about their impact on the ride experience. I might give it a pass if what you were doing was negligible, but it isn't.

Another place you might look if you're not getting the right shaping is with the friction parameter and coefficient. This can greatly affect the speed of the ride, especially towards the end, and gets worse and worse the longer the track length is. I could easily see that one would have to compensate track shaping with lateral forces if the entry speed into the force section or the friction parameter are slightly off. If the speed at the end is close, I would gently adjust the entry speed at the end of the lift into the first force section. If the speed at the end is slow or fast, adjust the friction parameter, lower or higher, respectively.
Also know that I see that you have a good understanding for how this all works, so some of the words here to specifics are for those following along who may find it helpful; don't take it personal.

FrankLeeMadere posted on May 18th, 2022

Look, with the amount of pictures and videos you've posted about just one ride, and the amount of wordy detail you've bombarded this thread with, I think that a thread dedicated to this is well within reason for us to ask. And what you're presenting isn't what the general community accepts as established Force Vector Design. You're free to experiment and share your results and start a discussion about this, but this thread isn't really for that. It's more for those looking for guidance. You came in toting an unconventional technique as if it was actually the correct way of doing so; and it seems few agree with the premise.

I have not claimed my method to be the correct one, but simply the way I construct vertical loops, whereas you seem very confident your method is the correct way because you've lined your track up to a model that was made not by B&M. I don't trust the accuracy of the model you've based your method on, so I don't trust your method. If you had the actual engineering drafts in your hands and based your ride off of that, I would be more open to accepting this.

Also, 0.6gs lateral doesn't seem like a lot, but there are woodies that pull this amount and we talk about how much that adds to the experience. If a turn pulls more than 0.4 or 0.5 laterals, people generally start talking about their impact on the ride experience. I might give it a pass if what you were doing was negligible, but it isn't.

Another place you might look if you're not getting the right shaping is with the friction parameter and coefficient. This can greatly affect the speed of the ride, especially towards the end, and gets worse and worse the longer the track length is. I could easily see that one would have to compensate track shaping with lateral forces if the entry speed into the force section or the friction parameter are slightly off. If the speed at the end is close, I would gently adjust the entry speed at the end of the lift into the first force section. If the speed at the end is slow or fast, adjust the friction parameter, lower or higher, respectively.
Also know that I see that you have a good understanding for how this all works, so some of the words here to specifics are for those following along who may find it helpful; don't take it personal.

I apologize for taking it personal and presenting pretentious characteristics. Thank you for your professional response.

RollerCoaster1234 posted on May 17th, 2022

Here’s your Jo-Jo roll no lats

For the record, the Jo-Jo Roll laterals is 1.0Gs. And you want to know what? Even though lats are present, it’s technically not a purposeful manipulation of lats into the graph. You’re literally going 10 mph. 1.0Gs is the regular weight our bodies and trains right? My graph below is the Jo-Jo roll that was made using a geometric section, but we’re viewing it if it was converted into a force section.

If we were straight, no roll, just straight, we’d always stay at 1.0Gs. As you see below, look at the relationship of the lateral graph with the normal graph. The start we’re at 0Gs for laterals and normal graph is 1.0Gs, the middle where the lateral graph goes back to 0Gs, we see that normal graph is at -1.0Gs because we’re upside down. Then at the end of the graph lateral is back merely at 0Gs and normal is at 1.0Gs again.

Top lateral Gs on the helixes on Batman is 0.6Gs by the way.

It kinda sucks without the lats

RicCoaster posted on May 24th, 2021

Hey,
do you guys have any tips on how to get back to the station within fvd++?

you cant bring it back to the station, but when you export it to nolimits you can connect the end of your track in fvd to your station in nolimits

I'm new at Fvd why is my geometric section not going longer it just stops and i cant append anymore