well as far as i can see, the scaling is the only problem, and guess what, there isn't a single rF track in existence that is 1:1 scaleAaron Hall wrote:The problem is that this is mean't to be a 'replica track' but it is no where near a replica but you probably wouldn't know that unless you are from the UKsethiemeboi wrote:It's cool because he made a track for all of us to enjoy for free. How could you be such a fuckwit that you complain about free shit?ktm18 wrote:haha im releasing a track soon as i want it to be all good before i release it and how is this a cool track please explain?
I hope you swan-dive into a woodchipper
2017 Culham
Forum rules
If your topic doesn't contain a track link, this is the wrong place to post it.
If your topic doesn't contain a track link, this is the wrong place to post it.
-
- Crushed Dissenter
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:17 pm
- Team: VlastMX
- Location: Right Behind You....
- Contact:
Re: 2017 Culham
-
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:17 pm
- Team: TMFR [Aulmni]
- Location: TN, for now
Re: 2017 Culham
I think you're misunderstanding the concept of scaling. A 1:1 track width doesn't really matter when it comes to elevation variation, for instance. I'll let Aaron explain more if he wants since he knows the track, but the term "scaling" gets thrown around a lot without a full understanding of what it means.sethiemeboi wrote:well as far as i can see, the scaling is the only problem, and guess what, there isn't a single rF track in existence that is 1:1 scaleAaron Hall wrote:The problem is that this is mean't to be a 'replica track' but it is no where near a replica but you probably wouldn't know that unless you are from the UK
Regardless of whether the track is spot on or not, it's nice to see guys still trying their hand at design for MXS and putting in at least some time to try and learn the ropes - I know it's a daunting task. Thanks for the effort.
Aggressively Mediocre
-
- Crushed Dissenter
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:17 pm
- Team: VlastMX
- Location: Right Behind You....
- Contact:
Re: 2017 Culham
im not talking about width... im talking about the actual scaling... the triple jumps on the sx tracks are like 125 feetBig Smooth one3 wrote:I think you're misunderstanding the concept of scaling. A 1:1 track width doesn't really matter when it comes to elevation variation, for instance. I'll let Aaron explain more if he wants since he knows the track, but the term "scaling" gets thrown around a lot without a full understanding of what it means.sethiemeboi wrote:well as far as i can see, the scaling is the only problem, and guess what, there isn't a single rF track in existence that is 1:1 scaleAaron Hall wrote:The problem is that this is mean't to be a 'replica track' but it is no where near a replica but you probably wouldn't know that unless you are from the UK
Regardless of whether the track is spot on or not, it's nice to see guys still trying their hand at design for MXS and putting in at least some time to try and learn the ropes - I know it's a daunting task. Thanks for the effort.
-
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:30 pm
- Team: Architech
- Location: 0161
- Contact:
Re: 2017 Culham
Well scaling can mean a multiple of things such as width of the track, jumps, or the elevation. The reason behind rf not using 1:1 is that they have 40 riders on a gate so they need a wider track as the collisions of the rider would cause havoc, also with this being sim the bikes ride a lot faster than rl so they rf have to build jumps which suit the bikes power.sethiemeboi wrote:im not talking about width... im talking about the actual scaling... the triple jumps on the sx tracks are like 125 feetBig Smooth one3 wrote:I think you're misunderstanding the concept of scaling. A 1:1 track width doesn't really matter when it comes to elevation variation, for instance. I'll let Aaron explain more if he wants since he knows the track, but the term "scaling" gets thrown around a lot without a full understanding of what it means.sethiemeboi wrote: well as far as i can see, the scaling is the only problem, and guess what, there isn't a single rF track in existence that is 1:1 scale
Regardless of whether the track is spot on or not, it's nice to see guys still trying their hand at design for MXS and putting in at least some time to try and learn the ropes - I know it's a daunting task. Thanks for the effort.
But what am trying get at about this track is that he has just done one gradient for the hill and that is it, if it was going to be a good release he would of got the real height map data and gone from there but he has just done what most people can do when they first load up the editor to make the base for the hill.
maggett wrote:when JLV gives u a good dickslappin
ROSE822 wrote:braden carter die u inbred veggie cunt
-
- Crushed Dissenter
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:17 pm
- Team: VlastMX
- Location: Right Behind You....
- Contact:
Re: 2017 Culham
dude.. he's just a normal guy who probably hasn't made too many tracks, and decided to make this one how he liked it and how he could do it. He probably doesn't really know how to do all that stuff so he did the best he could do.Aaron Hall wrote:Well scaling can mean a multiple of things such as width of the track, jumps, or the elevation. The reason behind rf not using 1:1 is that they have 40 riders on a gate so they need a wider track as the collisions of the rider would cause havoc, also with this being sim the bikes ride a lot faster than rl so they rf have to build jumps which suit the bikes power.sethiemeboi wrote:im not talking about width... im talking about the actual scaling... the triple jumps on the sx tracks are like 125 feetBig Smooth one3 wrote: I think you're misunderstanding the concept of scaling. A 1:1 track width doesn't really matter when it comes to elevation variation, for instance. I'll let Aaron explain more if he wants since he knows the track, but the term "scaling" gets thrown around a lot without a full understanding of what it means.
Regardless of whether the track is spot on or not, it's nice to see guys still trying their hand at design for MXS and putting in at least some time to try and learn the ropes - I know it's a daunting task. Thanks for the effort.
But what am trying get at about this track is that he has just done one gradient for the hill and that is it, if it was going to be a good release he would of got the real height map data and gone from there but he has just done what most people can do when they first load up the editor to make the base for the hill.
When you see a replica track like this (not exactly a replica but kinda) just think of it as a custom track so you don't get the whole "this track isn't how it is irl" stuck in your head and you can actually enjoy it for what it is
-
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:30 pm
- Team: Architech
- Location: 0161
- Contact:
Re: 2017 Culham
Shitsethiemeboi wrote:actually enjoy it for what it is
maggett wrote:when JLV gives u a good dickslappin
ROSE822 wrote:braden carter die u inbred veggie cunt
Re: 2017 Culham
Notice how Justin was able to be respectful regardless of the finished product? Maybe consider trying that route.Aaron Hall wrote:Shitsethiemeboi wrote:actually enjoy it for what it is
-
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:30 pm
- Team: Architech
- Location: 0161
- Contact:
Re: 2017 Culham
SKlein wrote:Notice how Justin was able to be respectful regardless of the finished product? Maybe consider trying that route.Aaron Hall wrote:Shitsethiemeboi wrote:actually enjoy it for what it is
maggett wrote:when JLV gives u a good dickslappin
ROSE822 wrote:braden carter die u inbred veggie cunt
Re: 2017 Culham
Personally I have never been to this track irl, but I feel like there are too many braking bumps. I do understand that the bumps are bigger when going down a hill but I feel they were overdone but it is a decent track for your first.
-
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:11 pm
- Team: Privateer
- Location: Buckinghamshire, England
Re: 2017 Culham
Thx man apprecietedsedaniel2 wrote:Personally I have never been to this track irl, but I feel like there are too many braking bumps. I do understand that the bumps are bigger when going down a hill but I feel they were overdone but it is a decent track for your first.
Kieran Evans | Privateer