Park / Pe rm ut as hi nz
-
10-September 23
- Views 759
- Downloads 100
- Fans 0
- Comments 6
-
Description
It's a fun but not very serious experiment, for a quiet non-accolade release.
-
No fans of this park
-
Download Park
100
-
Objects
1
-
Tags
![park_2850 [PT4 R5] Unnamed entry](https://www.nedesigns.com/uploads/parks/2850/aerialt2503.png)
![park_4380 [MM3 R1] A Petty Squabble](https://www.nedesigns.com/uploads/parks/4380/aerialt4172.png)
![park_4253 [H2H8/8] Rot](https://www.nedesigns.com/uploads/parks/4253/aerialt4039.png)
Fun to see something experimental and chaotic like this sometimes, looks like quite a difficult challenge to do all that and have a functional coaster with peeps.
Part of me finds this intriguing, part of me can't quite disconnect it from just being a bunch of stuff on a map. "Random" is certainly a fitting tag regardless.
Meant to give this a comment earlier since we discussed some of your methodology behind it, but got caught up in GT shenanigans. It's interesting to see something that started from a very formula-based concept produce something very random and almost chaotically organic. I'd love to see you continue refining the concept, as I think you could get a balance between a methodology-informed build with a more consistent aesthetic. Could be particularly cool if you found a way to build multiple with smaller changes in their foundation and then compare how they differ in the end product. While it may not be everyone's vibe, I will always support thinking outside the norm, so bravo for doing something bold.
Thanks all for the comments.
Lurker, I did the best I could with one coaster type. I realized later that I could have hacked it so that the coaster uses different track pieces of different particular coasters only once. However, that would have cut in to the usage of track elsewhere and made the rest of the work smaller.
CoasterCreator9, I see how you could have mixed feelings about it. I made it as an experiment. When I started it I honestly didn't know how it would turn out. The end result ended being a bit more ride heavy than I would have liked due to the comparative size of scenery to the rides. For a while I wasn't even sure that it would get finished in any form. If I did it over again, I'd use an invisible entrance to get a more aesthetically pleasing and pure result.
RobDedede, I agree I could have refined the approach somewhat. I could have studied the bench in hindsight and predicted the end result better. I did it with a premade bench to figure it out without exerting too much direct control myself. That approach had its pros in how it shook things up and cons in how it threw off the scenery/ride balance.
FK, yeah, it pretty much started with the coaster and the path to the entrance and then figure out how to theme it and then deal with covering all the land that I could/use all the different rides simultaneously. Now that I know the ropes I could figure out a better land footprint and see how different approaches to the ride, like I was talking about to Lurker, would affect the surroundings.
Well, thanks for the comments and with the new colors and ride types the project is already outdated, so it's as good of a time as any for somebody to try something like this again with the new features.
Such a unique approach to building... I can see how it can feel random at times, but you committed to the formula and put things together in a way where the placement made sense within the context of the map as a whole (including the construction of a functioning roller coaster), and that in itself is worthy of appreciation. What I like most about it, though, is that it gets the viewer thinking about RCT as something that can be approached aesthetically as something other than just a sandbox in which to create concrete concepts using a palette of items - there are mathematical ways to experiment with the items as well, and this is just one of the many creative ways that a builder can take a certain formula and build something interesting with it, as abstract as the end result may be.