Jump to content

X7123M3-256

Members
  • Posts

    1081
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

X7123M3-256's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Well Followed Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post

Recent Badges

632

Reputation

  1. If you're making objects for OpenGraphics you could probably make sprites for vertical boosters yourself. I was experimenting with those a while ago, although I can't show what it looked like because I've lost all the footage. But, I still have the code somewhere. It's a pretty simple thing to add.
  2. I don't know why these coasters weren't given banked sloped turns in the original game - my guess is just to save time making sprites - but this is a very common complaint that OpenRCT2 will probably eventually fix. We have added new track sprites to the looping coaster, LIM launched coaster, giga coaster and log flume, and someone is working on new sprites for the B&M. Some prototype banked curves for the Arrow track were already created as well, and they look pretty good already: Like I said, unless Sawyer himself comes out and says this, there isn't any evidence that points towards this being the case. All the rides in game that have lap bars have lap bars in real life. There is only one ride that has a different type of restraint system in game, and that is the air powered vertical coaster. It has OTSRs, because it was modelled on the prototype which had them. I would point out that it does not get an airtime bonus - despite the fact that it probably ought to - which again suggests to me that it comes down to the restraints and nothing else. And again, not giving the RMC the airtime bonus would be silly. Even the RMC train did have OTSRs, I would have seriously considered breaking from the established pattern and giving it the airtime bonus anyway because such an airtime focused ride not getting any excitement from airtime wouldn't make sense, once more, there is really nothing like this ride in the base game. Removing the airtime bonus doesn't just mean less excitement from airtime, it means none - in fact, airtime is effectively penalized. You would be penalizing the player for building the ride the way it's meant to be built. Yes, I understand the exploit you found. I do not think this is a good reason to remove the airtime bonus at all. This game is riddled with exploits - the original game had a similar exploit with the heartline twister that could give over 600 excitement. You've got people beating scenarios without building any rides at all or even using only one tile of land. This exploit doesn't break the game because the game is already broken - in fact I doubt your exploit layout would be more profitable in a scenario than a standard microcoaster design because it has low capacity for its size. Removing the airtime bonus from the hybrid would penalize the player for using the ride the way it's meant to be used and therefore reduce the incentive to do so even further. It wouldn't affect most exploit designs, just that one specific one. Moreover, there are other ways this issue could be addressed. For example, it would be possible to make the game distinguish between hangtime and airtime and not count the former towards the airtime stat. That change might be controversial as it could affect the stats of existing rides, but designs that aren't intentionally exploiting this would probably be minimally affected. Yes, I'm a bigger asshole than Kim Jong Un and Putin, because I didn't make the hybrid coaster in exactly the way you wanted it. Maybe you would be happier if I didn't make it at all. You know, you don't have to use it, you don't have to include it in your scenarios, and it would take literally 5 minutes for you to download the train and make your own version without the airtime bonus - and if you really wanted it changed upstream then you have the same ability to submit a PR that I do, but you're not interested in any of that, you're just here to be a dick. It's clear you don't think you're going to convince me of anything since you're just posting insults in lieu of actually responding to anything I said and it's clear to me that I'm not going to convince you of anything either, and I'm not sure you're even reading my posts, so I don't see any point in replying to this thread anymore.
  3. Replying to your post isn't "trying to bury it", FFS, just how thick are you? I'm trying to tell you where you can actually put this request to the devs but you don't care because you're only interested in being a prick. This forum is basically dead and I don't know if there's anyone on the dev team that still checks it. I am not a troll, but I am beginning to think you are.
  4. Those objects are from the expansions, if they appear invisible it usually means you don't have the expansions installed. If you think you do, maybe try reinstalling the base game?
  5. What shouldn't? The hybrid coaster trains? They do have lap bars: I've already explained that that doesn't contradict my hypothesis because the hyper twister coaster has lap bars and the twister doesn't. The hyper twister coaster doesn't contradict your theory that it has to do with whether the ride can do inversions, but there are two other rides that do. There are no rides in the game that get lapbars but do not get an airtime bonus, there are no rides in the game that have OTSRs but do have an airtime bonus. And, as I explained, the fact that the airtime bonus is tied to the vehicle and not the ride type, I think also points towards it having to do with the restraint system. You clearly aren't even reading what I said and don't have anything else constructive to add, you either lack reading comprehension or you're just here to troll. You're the one being an asshole. You're the one whose posts consist mostly of insults. LMAO what are you going to do to me?
  6. This is true, but you're asking for a very specific, simple change ... it's not like it's less likely to cause problems if someone else makes the same change, and any PR you submit would be subject to review by the dev team anyway. I think it's unlikely that anyone on the dev team will see a comment here as I don't think any of them check this forum anymore - submitting a PR if you know how to do that at least guarantees they will look at it. Otherwise maybe post here https://github.com/OpenRCT2/OpenRCT2/discussions/ One possible consequence would be that if you extend the timeout, lost guests take longer to give up and might become unhappy as a result. But, having the timeout be tied to the park size doesn't seem like a bad idea because it's also a problem if you have a park so large that guests are likely to timeout even when they aren't actually lost - and it's a fairly simple thing to test if this change helps or not if you've got a park that's having problems.
  7. For scenarios and track designs I think most people use https://rctgo.com/. This thread is 4 years old, so not too surprising the links are broken.
  8. This place used to be a lot more active but I think most of the people who used to be here have moved to Discord. There's an official OpenRCT2 discord but it's mostly focused on development - maybe try Deurklink or RC&F. This video lists some other sites:
  9. What do you mean "plural vs singular". Do you think I should have said "one of the established premises"? I'm not interested in a pointless grammatical debate. You're not "tearing me apart", you're just insulting me for no reason, which is not winning the argument. If you don't communicate clearly it's not everyone else's fault if you're misunderstood. Your posts repeatedly use the term "zero G element" - which you made up - and you're mad because I thought you were talking about "elements that can produce zero G". The word you were looking for is "inversion". I created all the code and sprites for the hybrid coaster; I know exactly how it works and I was the one who decided to give it the airtime bonus in the first place so I do know what I'm talking about here. No, your argument is not indisputable, in fact, I don't think there's any evidence to support it. Yes, the hyper twister coaster gets an airtime bonus and the twister coaster doesn't, but also, the hyper twister coaster has lap bars and the twister coaster doesn't, and hyper twister coaster layouts IRL consist almost entirely of airtime hills while twister coaster layouts rarely have any. That's not evidence that the reason it gets the airtime bonus is because it doesn't have inversions. My belief is that the airtime bonus is applied to rides which have lapbars. Evidence against this would be, for example, if there was a ride which has lapbars but does not get the airtime bonus, a ride that has OTSRs but still gets the airtime bonus, or perhaps a ride with the airtime bonus that has inversions IRL but is missing those pieces in game. That might suggest that Sawyer deliberately avoided creating rides that have both. But there are no such examples, and in fact, there are two examples in the vanilla game of rides that get the airtime bonus but also get inversions - and those are the looping coaster, and the wooden coaster. The looping coaster, in particular, isn't particularly airtime focused IRL. It would have made sense not to give that an airtime bonus. I believe the reason the looping coaster gets an airtime bonus and the corkscrew coaster doesn't is because the looping coaster has lap bars. Another point is that the airtime bonus is a property of the vehicle, not the ride type - it's possible (though there are no examples in the base game) to have a ride with different train types available, one of which gets the airtime bonus and one not. This suggests that this bonus was meant to reflect characteristics of the train (such as the restraint system used) rather than those of the ride type (like the track pieces it has available). Specifically, I think this is meant to reflect the fact that airtime tends to be more fun with lap bars than more restrictive restraints, and rides with airtime focused layouts pretty much never have OTSRs for that reason. Remember that at the time the game came out, it was very unusual for coasters with lap bars to have inversions - so, almost all the coasters in game which have lapbars also don't have inversions, and rides which did have inversions rarely had much in the way of airtime. It would have made sense at that time, to give the airtime bonus only to rides without inversions - it would make sense for the looping coaster not to get an airtime bonus, it would have made sense for the wooden coaster not to have a loop piece - but that's not what was done. In recent years, however, it's become a lot more common for looping coasters to have lapbars and for rides to feature a mix of airtime and inversions, and the RMC is a prime example. RMC layouts feature a lot of airtime - but usually do feature inversions as well (not always though). Nothing like this existed at the time the game came out. So even if it was true that the vanilla game never gave an airtime bonus to rides that were capable of inversions, I think there would still be a very strong case that the hybrid coaster should get an airtime bonus. Not having the airtime bonus means the ride gets no excitement from airtime - in fact, it actively penalizes having airtime on the ride because you still get nausea - which would be completely wrong for the hybrid. Building a hybrid that has no inversions is more realistic than one which has no airtime - it's more like a souped up wooden coaster than a wooden version of the twister coaster.
  10. The established premise of the game is that trains that have lap bars get an airtime bonus, and RMC hybrid layouts tend to be very airtime focused so of course this ride gets an airtime bonus. That it can be exploited is not surprising, but nor is it really an issue, because everything else is just as exploitable - the way the game calculates stats (and most other things besides) is very naive and it can't really tell the difference between good and bad designs as long as a few basic requirements are met. Just take a look at this corkscrew design that Marcel Vos shared recently: Trying to "fix" this exploit by removing the airtime bonus would hurt normal gameplay because the ride is intended to be airtime focused, that would penalize players for building the ride the way it's meant to be built. Implementing an entirely new stat calculation that doesn't suck would be a separate project entirely (and if such a thing was added it would almost certainly have to be optional, because it would be a major deviation from vanilla behaviour). I'm not being deliberately obtuse, your previous comments made little sense and not once did you make clear what the hell you were talking about. I see now that by "zero G pieces" you actually just meant inversion pieces ... why didn't you just say that ... you could have just posted a screenshot of the exploit you were referring to. Also, you don't have to use the hybrid coaster if you don't like the way I implemented it, and you don't have to build exploit designs if you don't like them. I don't like them either.
  11. What would be the point? That would involve redoing pretty much all the work that was done on OpenRCT2 to arrive at pretty much the same end result.
  12. No, that is what is commonly called a dive drop. A zero G stall is similar to a zero G roll, but instead of continuous 360 degree rotation, there are two half rotations, such that the train is not rolling at the apex. The second rotation may then go the opposite direction to the first. A good example is the zero G stall on Zadra Zero G stalls were first introduced by RMC and are very common on their coasters, though a few other manufacturers now also use them.
  13. That's a zero G roll, not a zero G stall. I was once planning to add zero G stall pieces but it never happened.
  14. No, no, and no. Guests treat transport rides as any other ride, they will not use them to help get where they're going and I don't believe that gravitate to them when tired. The only difference I know of is that guests who are "leaving the park" will still ride transport rides (a change made in OpenRCT2, to help prevent guests becoming trapped in areas of the park that are only accessible by transport ride). Taller rides can be seen from further away, that's true, I don't think tall rides help guests see other rides, though I'm not 100% sure of that. Underground does count, IIRC a certain percentage of tiles must be covered (maybe 40%?). I am not sure if covered rides are necessarily more popular in the rain than they would otherwise be, but uncovered rides are very unpopular in the rain.
  15. Yes. Do you have the expansions installed? This object is from the expansions.
×
×
  • Create New...