Official FVD (Force Vector Design) Thread
What's wrong with my Roll, Pitch and Yaw in FVD++ for the anchor?? Doesn't work like it used to, Like if you want to rotate the track, the track stays flat but goes around in circles forward and sideways.
you just need to append a straight section from the anchor and delete it. when you have a section appending the anchor and then change it. It doesnt seem to work, but if you "refresh" it by adding a section directly after the anchor and deleting it it seems to apply the changes correctly.
Hm, can't seem to get it straight. I can't find any videos either how people got their straight section. it's just some continuous roll. Or something really funky.
Think of The section of Silver Bullet though how after the helix into a nice long section to the brake-runs. That's what I have in my design.
Okay, so my coaster has a bit snappy transition and then I added a force section that is merely straight on ahead so it reaches to my Brake-run but want it as a smooth transition. And roll at 0 will stop the continuous roll?
Think of Silver Bullet after the helix before the Brake-Run, that seems to be the route my coaster is going to be. As you see the graph above you, instead of the roll smoothly continue to roll it the same direction, towards the end it rolls back down, and it's weird. Want to do what Silver Bullet has.
What seems to be causing FVD to crash? My file is now 12 KB and every 10 min or sooner, it crashes...
FVD is crashing too often and too soon now. File size is 12KB.
Still trying to do my first FVD track after moving over from Newton2 (late to the party) does anyone have any tips with getting the track to zero banking/entering a brake run?
I like to make a piece of track that I intend to have 0 banking after the piece that I'm using to bring the banking back to 0 (I hope that makes sense). This way I can manipulate the cubic or quartic or whatever section and go ahead to the following section to check if it's actually at 0. When you're done, delete that "test" piece that's at 0 and add a straight section in its place for the brake run.
Hi FVD++ users ! I am not comfortable with the relative roll (degrees per second/roll speed) FVD++ works with... I would like to use absolute roll (precise banking value like the roll points in NL2) instead. Is there any way to work with it in FVD++ ? Thanks ! :-)
Unfortunately there isn't any way to directly input absolute roll in FVD++. :( The closest way to doing what you describe is to work only with quartic roll sections, but there are a couple of problems with that. First is that you'll still have to do some trial and error to reach the exact banking value you want. Second, and the more noticeable issue, is that at some points the banking on your ride will feel artificial (less fluid) than it should be, because your roll will have a stop-start-stop-start flow to it instead of having transitions blend into one another.
I think working with only quartic sections is alright if you're just starting with FVD++, but I think you should also start trying to get the hang of the roll speed system as you work. Getting used to the roll speed system that FVD++ uses will help a lot in making your track smoother and better. :)
the easiest way is to look your roll by getting it around 0 degrees/sercond
i would just try to practice, in the beginning its really hard but it will get easier as you will understand the mechanics more and more
Does anybody know how to make a cobra roll (particularly the ones found on B&M inverts)? I've been trying to make one, and it has been giving me a lot of trouble.
Asianguruu posted on August 7th, 2018
you just need to append a straight section from the anchor and delete it. when you have a section appending the anchor and then change it. It doesnt seem to work, but if you "refresh" it by adding a section directly after the anchor and deleting it it seems to apply the changes correctly.
Ah, thanks for the alternative. Much better than opening an older version, then importing it; tried it out when I happen to actually need to.
L
Train length, speed and acceleration of transport/lift sections, and other things can affect timing. FVD will never match up exactly to NL, but it's possible to get close. If you have the pro version of NL, try modifying the friction to match exactly what you have it set to in NL. Also, .24 seems like quite a low friction value, but I'm not an expert.
I get that, I mean the time in seconds in FVD for transition graph, the end of what I got FVD claims to be 1:52 minutes tops, but my timer said it's 1:58 minutes calculating real time of course. I mean like if I move it into NL2 would 1:52 minutes FVD claims it to be will actually be 1:52 minutes, is the POV in FVD just a bit slow?
(EDIT) I tried it myself, so from what I've can make of is that the pov from FVD is still stuck in .030 for the friction, thus why I see different results compared from my phone timer and FVD's time. Testing in NL2 with the default got the same results, with my phone timer which is 5 seconds late than fvd time, but then I notice that the g's in NL seem to be under what FVD calculated, so I switch the friction input to .024 like I had in FVD, and the g's results were much better for my transitions and much accurate, thus ended exactly what FVD has given me where it would end at.
This is the second time, FVD changed the track work, but the graphs and force values are still the same, trying to import the same track, see that it imported it very different, so I restarted it, and now looking like a frakin' spaghetti noodle??!
I. Swear. I'm about to lose my mind with every bit of problem I --- and I don't doubt other's feel the same --- have faced through. Why spent five hours when the next day its a spaghetti noodle, but nothing changed.
what do you mean “import the same track”? Just open the file or something else?
JetPulse posted on September 10th, 2018
what do you mean “import the same track”? Just open the file or something else?
This is what I meant. The file is already open, I'm importing a track from the same FVD file, so I would have two.
I'm thinking of making one of thoses arrow loopers with strange roll banking transitions, should i use linear functions for roll ?
Coaster Blast posted on October 19th, 2018
I'm thinking of making one of thoses arrow loopers with strange roll banking transitions, should i use linear functions for roll ?
Use linear functions but since FVD++ uses roll rate, make sure the roll graph has a gradient of zero for the sections where the roll is progressing.
I'm new to this forum and new to force vector design and I'm having some trouble with lats when I import my tracks into nolimits. I've made sure to set the correct heartline height, set the friction to custom and match the friction in FVD++ (just at 0.03, I'm not on the pro version) and matched launch speed and positioning, but there are still some laterals of ~0.4g. The only other thing I can think of is the air resistance parameter, but it seems negligible. My turns are long and sweeping, nothing very whippy at all. Is there something I'm missing?
I'm new to this forum and new to force vector design and I'm having some trouble with lats when I import my tracks into nolimits. I've made sure to set the correct heartline height, set the friction to custom and match the friction in FVD++ (just at 0.03, I'm not on the pro version) and matched launch speed and positioning, but there are still some laterals of ~0.4g. The only other thing I can think of is the air resistance parameter, but it seems negligible. My turns are long and sweeping, nothing very whippy at all. Is there something I'm missing?
Try messing with the friction. Sometimes 0.03 isn't best for all styles and all train lengths. Check out the friction thread on this forum.
Hello -
I’m looking to get into FVD and I have a few questions:
-
Is there a way to zero out the track? I’ve been having issues with making the track level out after a helix, even after setting the roll back to zero.
-
Is there a way to smooth out transitions? The ones I’ve been messing around with have just come out rough for whatever reason.
Thanks
Thanks, now i see !