Park / Thunderclap
-
02-October 12
- Views 13,076
- Downloads 954
- Fans 6
- Comments 64
-
-
85.00%(required: 65%) Design
wheres_walto 100% Fizzix 95% RMM 95% robbie92 90% Sulakke 90% 5dave 85% AvanineCommuter 85% Coupon 85% Liampie 85% geewhzz 80% Goliath123 80% Louis! 80% Pacificoaster 80% Loopy 75% pierrot 65% 85.00% -
6 fans Fans of this park
-
Full-Size Map
-
Download Park
954
-
Objects
396
-
Tags
Similar Parks
-
Virus
-
[MM3 R1] A Petty Squabble
![park_4380 [MM3 R1] A Petty Squabble](https://www.nedesigns.com/uploads/parks/4380/aerialt4172.png)
-
City of Dreams
-
The Child's Dream
-
[MM2014 R2]The Mirage Hotel & Casino's White Lightning
![park_3188 [MM2014 R2]The Mirage Hotel & Casino's White Lightning](https://www.nedesigns.com/uploads/parks/3188/aerialt2809.png)
-
Le Rêve Parapluie
disneylhand Offline
I utilize rides to compose structures that involve curves, as the game lacks the scenery objects necessary to do so. I think those of you who say I use too much "trackitecture" actually mean you prefer rectilinear forms in RCT. It'd be nice to hear if any of you could point out a specific instance in this where I could have expressed the same design with scenery objects. It certainly would make working much easier in the future.
For those of you who take issue with the park's overall composition, remember that this is an interactive video game in which you can at any point adjust what's visible to you on the screen. This is not art, and I find it baffling that anyone would think less of this park because its whole is not crafted in an artful or designed way. I did not consider the relationship between the park and its utilitarian surroundings/nature beyond what I believed to be realistic, as that's what an idealist parkmaker would do. Idealistic parks/details have become too common over the past few years in my opinion. There's a formula in which everyone builds them, and it's gotten boring. The only recent exception I can think of is Lijiang, and I certainly hope I don't have to point out that these two parks entirely different at the most fundamental level. Go look in the Design thread for Phantom; I took comments that criticized its lack of context to heart and built what I view as a successful backstage area this time around. The whole dam argument is such crap I can't ignore it. Calling it "physically / visually obtrusive" is seriously laughable. You may find this one an eyesore, but dams are not inherently ugly. I find them rather fascinating, and I honestly believe the bridge above the gorge near the scrambler would be one of the most exciting segments of the entire park. As for it being in view for Thunderclap's riders, see eight sentences above.
For those of you who enjoyed this submission, thanks for sharing.
Regarding the glitched track, I didn't even look into fixing it. Is it really all that distracting?
-disneylhand
For me, the problem with trackitecture is it looks too metal-like, so just looks messy in my eyes. And, when you try combine it with scenery, there are always glitches, which adds to the messy look. I like that you use it to create shapes you normally can't, although there are curved line objects which you can use for paths instead of the monorail (I know for a fact they're used in New Fantasyland), but I personally will just never be able to get over the glitchy/messy look of it when it's combined with scenery. Just personal taste.
Sorry, but if it's on the map, it will be judged along with the rest of the map, otherwise what is the point in having it on the map? Someone could build like, one amazing building and then fill the rest of the map with crap, then send it in to spotlight and say just judge it on that one building. Very exaggerated, yes, but in essence that's what you'd be doing here. I don't actually dislike the backstage area, I just found it far too distracting with that bright coloured road. Maybe if it had been black or something so it didn't catch my eye every time I had to spin my vision, I'd have viewed it in a different way.
I personally liked the dam as well, it was something new and innovative, but it definitely added to the sort of industrial feel I felt when looking through this, due to all the trackitecture.
RMM Offline
i used to enjoy cedar point, right? then i viewed the park in google maps and i haven't returned since. have you seen the matienance areas? all that pavent-colored pavement... yuck! after seeing the bareness behind the mean streak, i'm beyond ashamed to admit that I used to enjoy riding it.
So let me get this straight (from my understanding). You refuse to return to Cedar Point, simply because you don't like the look of the backstage areas?
Do you suggest parks make their bacsktage areas just as "purtyful" as the normal park area? Make the pavement different colors backstage or something?
Sorry if I sound harsh, but really?
That logic is so befuddling...
Sephiroth Offline
I laughed so hard at this. Thank you RMM for being so awesome.
I believe that the difference in opinions is due to the fact that two types of people are generally attracted to a game like RCT: Artists and Engineers (in very broad senses of the words, I realize this is a generalization and that there are exceptions). Artists, usually architects in this case, are mainly concerned about how pretty everything looks and whether or not they can "feel it" - artistic functionality. Engineers are concerned about how everything works - the function of the system/machine/device/etc (not to be confused with artistic function), and less about how it looks.
I come from the engineer's standpoint, and so I really enjoyed this. I loved figuring out how all of the service roads work, why the dam would be built there, how it works, etc. Are these things ugly? Maybe, but I love infrastructure, and infrastructure is generally not appealing to artsy people.
From the artist's point of view, all of the infrastructure included is an ugly, unnecessary eyesore. The artist asks: "What visually appealing purpose dose this structural/mechanical/transportation infrastructure serve?" To the artist: none. Therefore it shouldn't be included.
Another trend I have noticed is that Americans are more likely to come from an engineer's point of view, while Europeans are more likely to come from an artist's point of view.
Anyway, this post wasn't meant to be so long, sorry about that. I just feel like I am seeing this kind of debate happening a lot around here lately and wanted to share some opinions on it.
Keep up the awesome work disneylhand.
Oh boy. I feel like I have to defend my future profession here.
We artists/architects are NOT primarily concerned with how 'pretty' something looks. If I went to a critique with my project and said "I made this because it looked pretty", I would fail. If my art critique went the same way then again, I would fail. Art (and especially architecture) is not about what is pretty and what is ugly; it is about exploring the human condition, revealing the unspoken ideas that lie dormant behind representational objects. Architecture specifically is a relational art: architects are primarily concerned with relationships, such as the relationships between bodies and spaces, building and site, site and city.
In this regard, infrastructure is VITAL to architecture. The preexisting site condition is the constraint that informs the final design. Architects don't go to a site and say "all this infrastructure here is hideous, get rid of it", rather "how are we going to design the building that draws in the current condition of the site?". We are not concerned about how the things there work, but we are concerned with how it affects what we design, which is what Disneylhand did really well here; his layout/planning is very well integrated with the surrounding infrastructure and environment.
On a personal note, I would not say any of my architectural work relates to RCT a lot. RCT for me is a hobby. It is very difficult to bring architecture in its contemporary form into the game as our tools are too limited. Thus RCT for me is purely a representational game in which I try to create amusement parks, whether that be realistic representation or fantasy creations, neither of which have a lot to deal with architecture as we know it. The 'architecture' that is created in this game is nothing like the 'architecture' that is created in contemporary architecture schools or firms (not including neoclassical firms that spew out all that mcmansion filth).
And a note about art in general, mainly concerning conceptual art: very few artists focus on aesthetics alone; to do so would be a very shallow way of representing the world around us. I cannot comment for classically trained artists like painters, but for a lot of contemporary artists, their method of madness revolves around the concept that then brings forth the art that is created.
they sound like dickheads, do what you want, paint what looks pretty. i dont see why you should fail for doing what you want, theres no right or wrong to art
Wicksteed Offline
Yes it is very technical, and has much focus on details, but it didn't feel sterile. Some parts in the backstage area (the roads near the brakerun namely) looked unfinished and all the roads there seemed very chaotic to me. You used 10 different road textures there, I counted them. However I really liked all the other infrastructure structures (umm). The dam was nice, though I don't quite see its purpose, realistically speaking - no electricity generators (at least not visible) or anything. judging from the landscape there would be a waterfall if there was no dam. Wouldn't that have been a nice sight for the guests? Well, that is nitpicking. However, the bridges were wonderful, and I really love how that large tunnel in the backstage area is following the shape of the mountain it goes through. Your landsacaping and foliage in general was spot on in my opinion. The coaster probably was also good, but as I know hardly anything about coasters...
In terms of good art vs. bad art, I guess there is a 'right' and a 'wrong'. I don't know what that line would be, but there has to be some criteria for judging art. In architecture there is no argument, it's definitely the process and the translation of an abstract concept through diagram to a concrete architecture that is being judged; that process is almost as important (if not more so) than the final product, especially for a student of architecture. Making something because it's pretty shows nothing of this process and is pretty much pointless.
I don't know who this is directed towards... but I really dislike it when people do this. Discussion =/= fighting, discourse =/= argument. Let the people talk if they want to, moderators will step in if things get heated/out of hand. Otherwise, what's the point of a 'discussion forum' if no one is going to talk? It's not like anyone is saying "my opinion is better than yours" or the like...
Wicksteed Offline
Now, I'm not an architect and I don't know much about the process of producing architecture, but I'm sure that the outcome of the architects work is highly important. The building needs to serve a purpose, or several purposes usually, it needs to allow people to perform certain actions in it, and the way in wich it does so should be the criterion for its quality? Maybe thats what you were saying, Avanine, but I didn't really understand your last post.
Also, unrelated to that, you avatar is highly disturbing
And sorry, this had nothing to do with your design disneylhand.
Sorry for being so off-topic Disneylhand. This will be my last post here about this, but if anyone wants to continue the conversation I'd love to do so through PM or a topic in the basic chat forum.
Yes, the final outcome of the work is important; after all what is the point of an architect if the end product doesn't work? The modernist ideal of form follows function is what you are describing about the architecture allowing its inhabitants to perform certain actions in the space of the building. However, if function is the sole criteria for design, then what will architects have to do besides build the most efficient form for the function at hand? This means: boxes, cubes, and rectangles for the majority of programs as these are highly efficient forms that allow for a variety of functions. Wonder why modernist skyscrapers are monochromatic glass boxes?
This is what I've learned so far in my experience with the design process in contemporary architecture:
Diagrammatic stage:
Based on the function of the building, the architect selects certain obsessions to examine. These obsessions come from the site (both contemporary and historical context), and the required technical, legislative, and programmatic elements presented for the project.
Based on that obsession and the architect's analysis (usually through diagrams, drawings, and graphs/charts/maps, whatever works), the architect then selectively pull areas of interest/fascination/importance out of the analysis to inform the design of the final building.
Design Stage:
The information that is pulled out of this analysis dictates the form of the building; how it is applied is at the discretion of the architect (example: how rigorous is the translation of abstract data into concrete forms, what are the rules of translation, what are the methods of graphical representation, etc.). This is how we arrive at the final form of the building. Throughout this process, technical requirements are applied (sq. footage, height, zoning restrictions, programmatic layout, material choices, structural engineering, etc.) and the final product is presented to the client, who, depending on the type of project, may or may not have been following along since the diagrammatic stages.
Construction Stage:
The architect then works with the developers, contractors, and construction crews to actually bring the building to life.
This is why I say that the process if just as important as the final product; basically, *how* the architect decides to view the function of the space is important. Else we'd all be living in boring tenement-housing-like buildings.
I feel that is very valid in here right now. So, please continue.
Bad artists bullshit, and unfortunately there are too many bad artists out there. Good art can stand on it's own and if it requires an explanation, it better be a bomb ass explanation. But to claim that art boils down to aesthetics or making a statement is unfair and seems philistine.
This applies to architecture as well but it's too easy to see what's bullshit and what's real in architecture. By saying that it "is a very valid in here right now", do you mean to say that architecture requires bullshit explanations when what it boils down to is pure aesthetics...?