+- RCTgo Forums (https://forums.rctgo.com)
+-- Forum: RCTgo Community (https://forums.rctgo.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Introduce Yourself! (https://forums.rctgo.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: I'm new here (/thread-11124.html)
Pages:
1
2
I'm new here - Blubb - Jul 25, 2013
Hi there!
I've been using RCTgo a long time, but finally decided to make a account because i couldn't find the pieces i needed
.Soon i will upload my park were i'm working on already a few 100 hours.
If you wondered; i'm from the Netherlands/Holland. Not German.
Gr.
RE: I'm new here - NieSch - Jul 25, 2013
Welkom!
RE: I'm new here - sixflagsgr8 - Jul 25, 2013
Welcome to RCTgo!
RE: I'm new here - FlightToAtlantis - Jul 26, 2013
You've been working on it for a few hundred hours?! It must be fabulous. Can't wait to see!
Welcome
RE: I'm new here - Blubb - Jul 26, 2013
I love details! So if you want everything perfect, it will cost time..
Maybe i will upload a sneakpreview
![[Image: 907jlv.jpg]](http://i39.tinypic.com/907jlv.jpg)
Here is just a random angle, about a quarter of the park.
RE: I'm new here - sixflagsgr8 - Jul 26, 2013
Looks amazing, the coaster looks cool intertwining the castle buildings. Greenery looks great as well.
RE: I'm new here - DorneyPark5 - Jul 26, 2013
wow looks great! can't wait for more!
RE: I'm new here - FlightToAtlantis - Jul 27, 2013
Shows lots of promise. The only things missing are the flying buttresses!
RE: I'm new here - Blubb - Jul 28, 2013
Yeah i know! but those didn't came with the set
. But i think thats because that style is victorian (?) and the set is middle age. I think thats why there aren't any flying buttresses or maybe i can create them from a other set .
RE: I'm new here - FlightToAtlantis - Jul 29, 2013
No sets immediately come to mind to suggest for flying buttresses but I’ll keep an eye open for them.
For the effective placement of scenery, particularly CS, in RCT3 there are two things that are most important and you’ve already shown both of them. You’ve got the details and you’ve spent the time. One can easily see you’ve thoroughly considered your options before coming up with these results. Too often we see images of a park where there’s a single coaster (which was obviously the reason for the park being built) and in that park there are a few buildings that are simply blocks of afterthought built with CS walls with CS roof dropped on top and the minimum amount of windows sprinkled sparingly about the sides and all leaving no doubt that it came from the same CS set. It’s apparent your park will take us beyond this. You’ll go far in this game with your existing park building skills and your style of park building – things I hope you won’t change if later on in your development if you begin to get comments on realism, naturalness or technique.
Our techniques are our very own and I don’t go for realism or what looks natural in my parks – I go for what I think is possible within the realms of the game. In real life a park might not be able to afford a hundred-storey hotel but if I think it’s possible for a park to have a hundred-storey hotel then I’ll put it in my park. Whether one goes for realism in a park or not one shouldn’t pay any attention to remarks made about reality or naturalness unless they’ve asked for such critique. We are after all playing a game and not recreating photographs of actual parks. I choose to leave that to the people who are interested in this technique of park building and if they’re interested in this then that’s just fine for them. If it looks real and I know that’s what they’re attempting then I’ll comment on how real it looks.
The same goes for comments about symmetry. Or about long straight paths as opposed to short curves. I think we should each make our park the way we think it should be. Having said that I think it would be helpful if when we put our work up for critique we’d comment on what sort of input we want. For example, the next time I update my current park I’m going to specifically mention that I’m not going for naturalness or realism and that I like long straight paths but that I would welcome comment on anything else. This would be better than posting an image of a park, getting such comments and then posting that what’s in the previous reply doesn’t matter to me – that would look like I only pretended I wanted critique.
The other day I was on another site and saw an image of a park. While I would never have thought to use CS in that way what was in the image was breathtaking. Everything in the image was complete and carefully considered and while I was remarking to myself how nice it was to see a building with enough windows the next post was a remark that that individual believed there were too many windows.
You’ve attained success with Middle Ages CS with a possible tendency towards Victorianism and that’s just fine. If you approach your parks like I do you’ll eventually find some CS that’s neither Middle Ages nor Victorian but a few pieces from that other set are just what you’re looking for. That’s just fine too. None of us are going to find everything in just one or two sets. Alexwohlbruck’s images are a good example of someone who not only knows how to mix CS but how to mix CS effectively.
RCT3 gives us carte blanche to create any sort of park we desire. You’re on the right track. Carpe diem!