2017 Culham

Post your tracks here
Forum rules
If your topic doesn't contain a track link, this is the wrong place to post it.
User avatar
sethiemeboi
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:17 pm
Team: VlastMX
Location: Right Behind You....
Contact:

Re: 2017 Culham

Postby sethiemeboi » Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:54 pm

Aaron Hall wrote:
sethiemeboi wrote:
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?

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?

I hope you swan-dive into a woodchipper

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

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
Image

User avatar
Big Smooth one3
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:17 pm
Team: TM-Factory Racing
Location: TN, for now

Re: 2017 Culham

Postby Big Smooth one3 » Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:56 am

sethiemeboi wrote:
Aaron 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

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

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.
Justin Smedley | #304 | UID 13800 | Aggressively Mediocre Image

User avatar
sethiemeboi
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:17 pm
Team: VlastMX
Location: Right Behind You....
Contact:

Re: 2017 Culham

Postby sethiemeboi » Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:43 am

Big Smooth one3 wrote:
sethiemeboi wrote:
Aaron 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

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

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.

im not talking about width... im talking about the actual scaling... the triple jumps on the sx tracks are like 125 feet
Image

User avatar
Aaron Hall
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:30 pm
Team: Architech
Location: 0161 Manny on the Map
Contact:

Re: 2017 Culham

Postby Aaron Hall » Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:37 am

sethiemeboi wrote:
Big Smooth one3 wrote:
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

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.

im not talking about width... im talking about the actual scaling... the triple jumps on the sx tracks are like 125 feet

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.

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.
Like my work donate here https://www.paypal.me/AaronHall16
Image

User avatar
sethiemeboi
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:17 pm
Team: VlastMX
Location: Right Behind You....
Contact:

Re: 2017 Culham

Postby sethiemeboi » Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:05 pm

Aaron Hall wrote:
sethiemeboi wrote:
Big 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.

im not talking about width... im talking about the actual scaling... the triple jumps on the sx tracks are like 125 feet

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.

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.


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.

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
Image

User avatar
Aaron Hall
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:30 pm
Team: Architech
Location: 0161 Manny on the Map
Contact:

Re: 2017 Culham

Postby Aaron Hall » Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:12 pm

sethiemeboi wrote:actually enjoy it for what it is

Shit
Like my work donate here https://www.paypal.me/AaronHall16
Image

User avatar
SKlein
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:08 pm
Team: Evergood
Location: MN

Re: 2017 Culham

Postby SKlein » Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:51 pm

Aaron Hall wrote:
sethiemeboi wrote:actually enjoy it for what it is

Shit

Notice how Justin was able to be respectful regardless of the finished product? Maybe consider trying that route.

User avatar
Aaron Hall
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:30 pm
Team: Architech
Location: 0161 Manny on the Map
Contact:

Re: 2017 Culham

Postby Aaron Hall » Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:55 pm

SKlein wrote:
Aaron Hall wrote:
sethiemeboi wrote:actually enjoy it for what it is

Shit

Notice how Justin was able to be respectful regardless of the finished product? Maybe consider trying that route.

Image
Like my work donate here https://www.paypal.me/AaronHall16
Image

sedaniel2
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:11 am
Team: Privateer

Re: 2017 Culham

Postby sedaniel2 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:10 pm

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.

KieranEvans122
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:11 pm
Team: Whites Transport
Location: Buckinghamshire, England

Re: 2017 Culham

Postby KieranEvans122 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:41 pm

sedaniel2 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.


Thx man apprecieted
Kieran Evans | DoubleDank
Image


Return to “Tracks”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bradclay306 and 15 guests