Vortex39

Because they use separate coordinate sheets for the footer locations, then use separate detail drawings provided for the specific dimensions and tolerances of the footers. On something as large as a roller coaster you don't have small structures such as footers to exact scale with the rest of the coaster. I'll leave it up to you and everyone else to decide if the actual length scale engineers put on the diagram themselves is accurate (which indicates a 200ft lift hill) or if they got it wrong and were corrected by forum posters measuring pixels on a .jpg/having fun at others expense.

And around and around we go. I asked him at great length and he said he based his calculations off the physical dimensions of the footer as represented on the diagram. i.e. "if the 3 foot wide footer as represented is X pixels wide that must mean the lift hill is X long" I'm saying, and Kissfan4 said, you can't do that. The footers are not meant to be to scale on this diagram. And you can't say the actual length scale we WERE given (indicating a ~200 ft lift hill) is somehow wrong or a typo because of measurements based on something that is inaccurate to measure in the first place. If this diagram is real, then it is something with around a 200 foot lift hill.

Can you show us the numbers you used and your math? Thank you.

Show me those numbers and math please, I don't see it anywhere. He just said in his last post he scaled his calculations off the footer as represented on the diagram. Thank you.

But as Kissfan4 said a couple of pages back, and what I have always thought as well, "They will use the coordinate sheet for the locations, then use the detail drawings provided for the specific dimensions and tolerances the footers have to meet." i.e. they show the footers location but they're not drawn to scale, i.e. you can't scale things off the representation of footers on the diagram. They're not to scale. The only thing we have to go on to give scale is the actual length scale they gave us, that's its purpose, which indicates the lift hill is around 200 feet long. You're saying the length scale is wrong because of your estimation based on the footers as represented on the diagram. It seems to me that the actual length scale given is more likely to be accurate than to scale things off a 15 pixel wide representation of a footer, which from what I can gather, is not intended to be scale accurate.

So you are saying the footer you used on the diagram is drawn to exact scale in relation to everything else in the diagram and you extrapolated your math from there, right? Thanks.

But no one can explain how they arrived at that determination, that the scale is off by 2?

That's what I thought. So basically we are looking at a ~200 ft lift hill? Is anything wrong with how things are measured (as an estimation) in the below pic that anyone can point out? I don't want to be looking at a ~200 foot lift hill, I wanted a giga, but that's what I see.

So... basically you're determining this by saying that the footing is 3 feet wide... and it's to exact scale with everything else in the diagram... and a little over 111 of those footings would fit withing the length of that lift hill? Thus around 335 feet? How did a program determine this? Is it measuring pixels from the .jpg? Or basically like a ruler overlay? Are things like representations of footings drawn to *exact scale* in diagrams like these? I had always assumed not. I would assume the actual distance scale they put on there would be accurate. Can you explain how you arrived at this in a little more detail?

Please do. Also, so basically, the explanation for pic related being off is they "screwed up"? How could something like that slip by on something official like this?

This is that 200 ft tall wing coaster B&M built in China. Those lift-hill supports look like a good match to those in the diagram to me. Even the turn-around is the same. I'm afraid we're looking at a 200 ft wing coaster. I hope I'm wrong. I've been wanting a giga for years.

Can you explain what you mean?

Based on the given scale I assume.

This is what it comes down to, either the scale is wrong or it's not a giga. I just don't see how they could make a mistake like that on official documentation.

There's this scale.

This is what I'm wondering as well. According to those plans, the lift hill only covers about 200 feet of land horizontally, far less than Fury 325. Google maps shows Fury 325's lift hill covering 400 feet+ of land horizontally. Or am I looking at it wrong?

New shot of the clearing thus far... it's a big one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeuqEzOv41I