Concept - Stress Comb
Hopefully that might discourage the generic, not too helpful "supports need work" comments.
^ Haha, I am one of these persons who mostly complain about bad supportings hence I would absolutely LOVE to have a Stress Comb. I officially would vote for that if that's a thing.
Though this would probably require a large addition to the physics in NL2 to respect thickness, placement and rotation of a support beam.
Emonadeo posted on January 25th, 2018
Though this would probably require a large addition to the physics in NL2 to respect thickness, placement and rotation of a support beam.
True, it would probably have to be its own major update on its own. Especially when the NL2 Dev team is already busy adding more urgent features
I barely use NL2 anymore, but I 100% support this feature!
I’ve thought of this myself; I thought I suggested it somewhere, but probably not. Reguardless, it would be nice (as well as some sort of clearance indicator that didn’t involve freezing/running the ride to check clearance, it would save so much time). Isn’t there already a thread for game suggestions though? Shouldn’t this be there?
Engineer student here:
While I agree this feature would be cool, it would require a lot of new calculation power that isn't in NoLimits. With all the 3D-bending and twisting going on I would nominate FEM, which would quickly kill every below-average computer. And not only the cross-section shapes and materials need to be taken into account, there are MANY more phenomena related to mechanics... In my opinion NL is not an engineering tool, but a visualization tool and an excellent one! I'm still amazed of how amazing results you can do with it, while it only costs so little AND is actually user friendly. Trust me, some FEM calculation programs have horrible UI but they give good results so you just need to bite through it...
Instead of a stress comb my tip would be to use the G-force comb. In high G-areas use more supports, and utilize airtime hills' arches to have less supports. A-frames are also good. Mimic existing coasters, they have been made the way they are on purpose ;)
I'm currently writing my Master's thesis about coaster engineering (more towards track and supports than trains), so feel free to PM me about this topic! After all, coasters are the reason I started studying mechanics.
Oh and about the clearance: I use round concrete tunnel applied to the whole coaster and then freeze. That way I don't need to slowly check the clearance envelope scenery item that attaches to the train.
^ I'm really curious about supports, because some parts are needs (stress, efficiency), but some others are arbitrary (aesthetic). I really wish to meet or speak to someone who design coaster supports to learn more about that process, so if Fintamin you have some insights, please share!
The concrete tunnel method works, but is already too large as its passing the clearance test on its own. I wish we had a dedicated function, further more one that doesn't need to freeze the coaster and/or run it throught.
About the idea of this topic, I like that, and already thought of something similar as well. But yeah, it could work for pointing where you'd need a track connector (assuming whatever support underneath is strong enough), but further calculus might be too much.
I had this idea, so i decided to share it and see what people think.
It's similar to the G-Force comb, but it changes where sections of a track need more supports. For example:
This turn needs more support, hence why the comb is red.
But after I add supports, the comb shrinks, so the section of track is good on supports.
Personally I think that this would help with creating realistic custom supports, but what do you think of this?