A.J. the Engineer...Engineers Things

There's someone on Theme Park Review who's really interested in theme park engineering. He's particularly active in the Walt Disney World discussion thread, partially because he really likes Walt Disney World. He's also planning on going to IAAPA this year.

If you think I'm talking about The_SETGO_Guys, you're wrong. I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about myself!

Even though The_SETGO_Guys is interested in the same sort of thing!

I was blessed in high school with a drafting instructor who nailed Autodesk Inventor into the students' heads. I learned the basics of Inventor very quickly, and now I'm going on four years of sporadic experience. This has given me a way to create rides and attractions completely from scratch, the way I want to create them.

I'm going to use this thread to showcase my sch-tuff from now on, as I have moved away from only creating flat rides. Feel free to comment, criticize, or worship.

Sep 29 2011 - Basic waterslide model (scroll down)

Oct 01 2011 - Modified waterslide model (open-air drop)

Oct 03 2011 - The "Un-OTSR" OTSR

Oct 07 2011 - Contoured Seat with Restraint

I start with my second-most recent creation - a waterslide. I created this waterslide panel by panel, rotating panels at different angles to make changes in height. Check it out.

Would this be a body slide or a tube slide?

Great slide, I'm envious.

It looks like a body slide (would work better as one too).

Looks like a blast! I(personally) think it would be cool if the drop was open cause I love the "effect" of free fall when I can see, but either way this looks like a fun and awesome slide! Keep this up!

What you're looking at here is a slide designed for single tubes. The slide is large enough around such that if a wipeout occurs, you can still safely make it through the rest of the slide in an upright sitting position.

As for the drop, I'll make a modification and check it out. I kept it shut all around so people wouldn't be tempted to put their hands up.

Looks great! Now make a crazier slide.

What you're looking at here is a slide designed for single tubes. The slide is large enough around such that if a wipeout occurs, you can still safely make it through the rest of the slide in an upright sitting position.

 

As for the drop, I'll make a modification and check it out. I kept it shut all around so people wouldn't be tempted to put their hands up.

That changes things... closed are better for a single tube... assumed it's a standard "arms crossed on shoulders" body slide. Of course a lot of people are stupid and don't follow the rules... so that makes more sense.

AJ, I'm always impressed by your work you've put on here. I'm quite pleased with the slide in the dark. Plus it's simple and right to the point.

I also had Autodesk Inventor in high school (just graduated this summer) but i couldn't dream of building that kind of things with such perfection. Great work!

I haven't made any modifications yet, but a potential problem is the turn before the drop. I designed the turn before the drop so the tube would be rocking back and forth as it went down the drop. The banking panels would have to be 45 degrees on either side to be safe, only leaving a 90-degree opening above (although, I might be able to get away with 30deg on either side). You might not get that "open" feeling you want.

I'm still going to try though.

On the subject of "wilder" waterslides, those are a possibility, but I may only end up doing the slide layout with an exit pool and a platform with no stairs. Those railings on the stairs were really a pain in my [censored], and I realize that's part of the design process, but I probably wouldn't include them. The nice thing is that if I decide to create another tube slide, I can re-use a great deal of these panels.

I do have some neat ideas floating around though.

Well, can't you copy/paste brushes? That way, you could have a "45 segment (stair)" 3D object, a "turn 90 to [left, right]" object, and a "flat segment" object. Then just assemble the stair pieces in the way that you want, and some support structure, and there you have it. No need to model all the railings and such again.

This is where being an engineer is a bad thing. I have no common sense.

When I created this model in December of 2010 for my engineering design class, I didn't think I would showcase it anywhere else - so I created the platform and stairs as single parts. All the stairs and landings are one part, and all the supports and railings are one part.

That's not saying that I won't create something else modularly, however. It's just that each part has to be individually constrained in the assembly, and at the time it was just faster to create them as single parts.

This is great AJ.

Did you use Autodesk or Solidworks?

This year my Engineering classes are switching over too Solidworks since it is more relevant to the industry.

Great job on the waterslide and I look forward to seeing more of your designs. I know I will have to be CADing some theme park related objects this year for a yearlong engineering project I'm working on. (Not sure if I'll post them)

Oh, Thanks for the shoutout too! I was defiantly thinking that when I read the first paragraph. Yeah, IAAPA should be awesome this year! I'm just trying to fit it into my schedule.

-Zach

This looks very nice. Which version of Inventor are you using? If it's 2009 or newer, the there's a really cool option in Inventor Studio's camera settings that lets you animate a camera along a spline path. I haven't tried it out yet, but it seems like it could be used to make a POV video for something like this.

I'm using Autodesk Inventor Professional 2012. I'm not particularly fond of how SolidWorks...works, and I like the ribbon interface in Inventor (as well as Microsoft Office 2011) a lot.

On the subject of a moving camera, I have considered it - however it would be incredibly complex modifying the speed and the acceleration of the camera to create a realistic point-of-view video.

I have a development! I have replaced the enclosed panels of the drop with fringes. I have chosen 30-degree arcs so that the overhead view is not obstructed as much, with an exception. The very top fringe on the left side starts at 45 degrees and lofts down to 30 degrees.

Check it out.

^This

Always awesome to see someone like you come along and actually post some legitamate work. I can't stresss how many times I've shot myself down for not going into engineering and pursuing this kind of stuff because I'm horrible with comlicate math and physics. Still, awesome slide, although this version seems alot different than the first with a much bigger drop. Also, what happened to the transparentish panels for the curves? I thought that was your origional concept for the ride....

If that drop were enclosed but a clear see through I think that'd be amazing! I'd ride it over and over because that'd scare the crap outta me.

Definately. Not sure if I'm imagining it right, but it seems like you'd get flung around that last helix pretty fast aster a sloped turn into a steepish drop (maybe some airtime in the drop?) Looks like lots of fun for a "simple" design.

Also, AJ. Your first post mentioned something about flat rides? I haven't stalked the Disney thread so I dont know quite what you were referencing....Old models? New concepts?... I'd love to see what you had in mind.

In the original all-enclosed slide, the ten panels of the drop are translucent (NOT transparent), while the rest are solid. This is done on purpose because the drop is supposed to be startling and unexpected.

The two slides are exactly the same with the exception of the drop - the first slide is entirely enclosed, and the second has the open-air drop. The only modifications that were made between the two were the replacement of the first slide's drop's upper panels with fringes. The height and length are completely unchanged.

The premise of the ride is as follows - as soon as you lose vision inside the first curve, the slide takes off. You don't realize how fast you are actually going until right before the drop - giving a startling pop of waterslide airtime. You pick up great speed at the bottom of the drop before being flung almost NINETY DEGREES briefly against the wall of the tunnel. The slide loses a small amount of speed before making the splash in the pool.

As for flat rides, I had showcased some original flat rides in the past using an old seating system, which I have since revised. SPOILER ALERT - the new seating system is what I'll be showcasing next.

Oh, and by the way, AJClarke - I have started working on a "crazier" slide...

Awesome shots, AJ- and they look like some great rides that ProSlide Canada might build if they had some balls... Any chance you'll be working on a racing/dueling slide in the future?

Yay! A bigger one!

Also, you could technically "sell" both models! Enclosed drop or non-enclosed drop! You should start a pretend slide business and sell different models. It'd be interesting to see all of the designs you come up with. When you get really good, you might find yourself inventing a new slide element!

Since the next waterslide installment is a work in progress, I thought I should showcase something else.

The debate between lap bar and over-the-shoulder restraint doesn't seem like it will be ending anytime soon. More and more roller coasters without inversions are being equipped with over-the-shoulder restraints, while more and more looping roller coasters are being equipped with simple lap restraints. What a lot of people don't realize, however, is that most of those new lap restraints open overhead as opposed to forward, essentially making them over-the-shoulder restraints!

In my research, I have concluded that there are three reasons over-the-shoulder restraints are used.

• First, having a restraint that goes over a rider's chest prevents that rider from moving and/or falling forward - especially useful when a holding brake is applied or a train is stalled, with the rider in question facing toward the ground.
  
• Second, having a restraint that opens upward with a safety belt ensures that a rider is restrained to their seat even if the restraint comes unlocked, with the tension of the safety belt keeping the restraint from opening up any higher.
  
• Third, most if not all over-the-shoulder systems require a full seat backrest and headrest to anchor to. This allows a ride to be a launched roller coaster, and some manufacturers who design trains with backrests simply build the over-the-shoulder system in so they don't have to design another restraint system.

Enthusiasts hate them though! What good is a roller coaster if you have a piece of metal against your shoulders preventing you from enjoying amazing airtime?

I have a potential solution.

Bolliger & Mabillard, as well as Vekoma, have created restraint systems that use an overhead lap bar with shoulder bars anchored high and extending far out from the body, combined with a flexible vest harness. This design ensures rider safety while providing no impression that riders are being restricted at their shoulders.

I have designed a similar system, but with an omission - I have omitted the use of the vest harness. I made this decision to save weight on the trains, as well as provide even less of an impression to riders. It is essentially the "un-OTSR" OTSR.

Check it out.

The safety belt, anchored on the seat and connected to the center of the lap restraint, has been omitted for modeling purposes - so it is easy to raise and lower the restraints while working on different models.

This particular shot shows the size of the restraint relative to a typical lab countertop.

Also worth noting:

4. OTSR's prevent excessive lateral head movement on tight transitions and inversions.

5. OTSR's are practical for rides that don't have a floor, namely drop towers and inverted coasters.

Like the design! I'm just wondering if it will properly serve the purposes it needs to. I mean, with that much space, it pretty much could be a lap bar.

That's the point. It's a completely safe over-the-shoulder restraint, but there is no impression that it's anything more than a lap bar. I wanted to have a single large anchor point to the outside of the seat, but I found that using that kind of system makes it more difficult to produce four-across seating without staggering the seats. This design does allow for seats to be fairly close together, which will be revealed in more detail later.

Also worth noting:

 

4. OTSR's prevent excessive lateral head movement on tight transitions and inversions.

 

If the ride is designed right in the first place, you won't NEED an OTSR. Thus why Vekoma coasters nearly always have them... and Schwarzkopfs RARELY have them.