To be completely honest, every one of these layouts has its issues. For instance, Quickdraw's layout where there are so many unbanked s-bends would kill people. Or, Sunrises' layout which looks really cool, but dangerous and rough like Galaxy stated. Yeti's layout is not terrible, but Arrow Loopers, unless there is one I do not know of, have two lifts. The Coaster Factory's layout is not realistic, but it does have several realistic components that I would actually find on a Gerstlauer Eurofighter.

They all have their quirks with the layouts. It's only now a feature of which entry has the better theme/creativity. The reason I went for TCF is because the whole idea is cool. It's overly long, and could be two separate rides, but I do like the creativity and thought behind it. Sunrise, despite the not-so-safe layout, it's really creative. Close second, for sure. Yeti would come third, as there could be so much more done with it. Last place goes to Quickdraw as I feel the layout was not superb, and there wasn't much to look at outside of that.

Despite each entry having issues of its own, this is the first, in a long time, that I feel all four entries gave some thought and are decent/good. A little more work, and these entries could be great!

Keep this feature up, and do a wee bit more work, and we're bound to have a round where every entry is great, and it will be close. For now, good luck with this round, everyone!

"Yeti's layout is not terrible, but Arrow Loopers, unless there is one I do not know of, have two lifts."

Not sure what you mean by this, as Yeti does have two lifts. If you want examples of Arrow Loopers with one and two lifts here ya go:
Loch Ness Monster (Busch Gardens, Williamsburg) - Two lifts

Viper (Darien Lake, Darien) - One lift

Well. I feel stupid. LOL. MY HOME PARK IS BGW and Lochness Monster is the first 'inverting' coaster I went on.....lol I fail.

I mean it more as in it is a lot rarer to see roller coasters with two lift hills, especially modern day ones. Arrow Dynamics was a rebel against that....but then again, those were the 80s.

Really, if I were you, stick to modern day layouts, or real layouts for inspiration. That will definitely help in the layout department!

Well if you read the description for Yeti, it says that the ride debuted in 1981. I tried to make this the conceptual sequel to Loch Ness Monster that never really happened.

Your layout is definitely the best layout of the four entries. There is no doubt about that. All these layouts need a refinement in the layout department. Some do need more quality within the entry, such as adding more to distinguish itself; make it part of your memory so you would want to see it again.

The only entry I likely won't forget from this round is Sunshine, but that is only because it's creatively bizarre. All of these entries are certainly far from the worst we've seen, but more context, depth and other things such as more buildings/more park like, rocks, supports, etc.. would really bring up the quality.

This is a mediocre round at best, and of all of you, I know you all can do better than this. (Yeti gets a pass, perhaps, because it was an unfinished upload to get the round started). Others, think outside the box and ask questions on how you could make your work better. It helps, trust me.

Anyways, back to the subject of this round, good luck, once more, everyone! I still feel that this will be a very close round!

Hello all! There's quite a lot of feedback on this round, I love it! Thanks to everyone for keeping the CC alive and well I always love this part and look forward to it. For anyone who's somewhat new to rctgo, this is the area of the forum you should be taking notes from, remember this is free advice and motivation. Not everyone will see what you see, and that's not a bad thing at all. Of course hearing how someone likes or loves what you're doing is always an awesome feeling but I also want to hear what someone doesn't like just as much. A really good example is my entry this time. Mine was literally the product of an idea I had and I was pretty certain it wouldn't win. I only reason I entered was because I think it's a fun design and to show the results of thinking outside (or inside) the box. I do just as many non-realistic projects as I do a more realistic ones. I always try to make my ride designs be somewhat believable but sometimes in an non-realistic environment or maybe something off the wall like a large yellow glass hexongonyish-sphere-like-weird-kinda-building-like-thing/monument/sculpture-thing! I don't even know if it would be architecturally possible, the glass would be rather heavy, but I don't care lol! It was really fun to design and build and I'm almost certain any riders in the real matrix would likely be decapitated if they rode this! Remember at the end of the day they can't all be winners and not everyone is going to like your entry, but you got recognition, CC, advice, praise, and maybe even friends! Cheers mates -Brad

I'm not sure what ctr was used to make QuickDraw but it looks nice

I started this, left for an hour, and came back to find the round had ended. Since I had finished my reviews of the RCT3 coasters, I'm going to finish the NL2 section despite the fact that the round is over.

Quickdraw
This layout started off nicely, with some large drops as one would expect on a dueling woodie. After a few of these, however, we started seeing some unbanked turns at high speeds, which on this ride would not have been enough to actually kill the riders, but would still be highly uncomfortable. The bigger issue with this coaster is that the majority of the layout consists of low hills, through which the train is traveling much too quickly. Throughout most of the ride, it seems as if the train is going roughly the same speed at the top of these small hills as it is at the bottom, which essentially defeats the purpose of the hills, and would make for a ride that's more nauseating than thrilling. I would suggest looking more closely at the flow of most roller coasters to see how to properly gauge speed in future designs. This should prevent the train from barreling into the brake run like a cannonball. Scenery-wise, it's supported well and lit nicely.

Sunrise
This is somewhat reminiscent of a Poler-coaster, and that idea would have actually been easier to pull off in any game other than RCT3. NL2 and PC have a much more open-ended interface, eliminating most layout constraints, while OpenRCT2 allows track merging and vertical lift hills. RCT3's layout limitations, combined with the challenge you set for yourself to build a coaster inside of a small structure, ultimately caused this coaster to look relatively unplanned. The whole layout as a result is a couple high-speed curves followed by a random brake run that seems forced, then the ride basically just continues downward until it charges into the end brake run. The flow should never be interrupted just because there's no more room to build track. It's a clever idea as a whole, but I would suggest either making the structure larger next time, or building it using a platform that supports more layout capabilities. The scenery is nice, and the custom supports are interesting.

Yeti
This one had a lot of potential, and out of all the POVs this round, this one seemed the most realistic in terms of actual roller coaster physics. The second lift hill really was a deal breaker, and not because it's unrealistic, but because it's entirely unnecessary, and it significantly disrupts the flow of the ride. The train shoots at least halfway up that lift hill before slowing down to lift hill speed. That's a lot of squandered momentum that could have been used to just finish the ride; if the train wasn't already traveling fast enough to smoothly maneuver through those corkscrews, modifications could have been made to earlier parts of the layout rather than just tack on a second lift hill. While it works on Loch Ness Monster because both loops are equally part of the ride's whole gimmick, the best parts of Yeti are almost all before the second lift hill, and it could have definitely been built to incorporate all five inversions with the momentum from the first lift hill without losing flow and ending so abruptly. The high point of this ride is the realistic terrain interaction, which I hope to see more of in future designs.

The Coaster Factory
This concept was interesting, and unfortunately, the execution missed the mark. The transfer tracks were a clever idea, and though it did sacrifice much of the flow of the ride when the train would stop abruptly to wait for the track to move, it wasn't a detrimental decision to include them. However, both track paths shown in the POV seemed unnecessarily long and repetitive, particularly "Only Lift Hills and Airtime". The launch-and-inversion path seemed stronger, as it was shorter and contained more diverse elements. The lift-hill-and-airtime path, meanwhile, was three minutes long, and contained a second lift hill two minutes into the ride that led to literally 20 more seconds of ride time. While it isn't the only NL2 coaster this round to feature an unnecessary second lift hill, this was a more extreme case of throwing one in that really didn't add anything to the ride and actually detracted from it. Aside from being overly long and filled to the brim with more elements than even a split coaster could possibly ever need, it was a smooth, comfortable ride without any moments that stood out as rough or jerky. And yes, it's in a large, empty box, but so is Space Mountain.

RCT3 coasters this round needed work on layout planning, particularly in the speed department.
NL2 coasters were stronger, but contained unnecessary elements that prolonged the ride without enhancing it.