BSBMX

I'm not sure where you're getting such large numbers. If the lift is 40°, and the drop is 81° (assumption at this point), and per the footer coordinates the two ends are 453' away, the apex point is only 335' high (where the 40° and 81° angles meet). But, we need to factor in the curvature at the top. Throwing in a guesstimate gets me the below, at 300' tall. (my numbers below are intended to be multiplied by 12... my CAD doesn't support the larger, realistic numbers, but this is equally scaled down, so it's still accurate)

I have the backbone starting at L2-1 and ending at L16D. The CAD overlay is only there as reference, I used the legit coordinates to make my sketches.

My numbers use the footer coordinates, down to a fraction of an inch, in CAD software. No estimating there. The only thing I estimated was the angle of the support columns, but that does not affect how far apart the base of the lift footer is from the end of the backbone footer is. Per CAD, I'm getting right at 452-453' apart from these two footers.

Inputting the lift coordinates into Solidworks, and adjusting the two last support columns so they're overhead view matches the CAD drawing, this is what I'm getting. This is 40° lift, 81° drop, right at 300' tall. There's a distance of 452' between L2 and L16D, which I think we're considering is the main outer footers of the lift.

Okay my bad, I thought we had info on all footers, not just the lift.

ki2.bmp If I draw a 40deg lift, and an 81deg drop (same as Fury), at a 435' distance between main footers, and a *reasonable* tangent curve at top, this is what i get right at 300' feet tall. At 310', the curve at top is quite a bit tighter, and at 320', the curve is almost non-existent. Hopefully, the 435' number is smaller than what it really is, which would give us a taller lift.ki2.bmp

Yep, that's the one I am talking about. Lots of the picture is missing if that's all we have.

All I remember seeing were several images, but only two of the images had legit X/Y coordinates on them, but the header was missing so I'd be guessing which is which. If you could resubmit them, or PM them to me, I'd appreciate it.

Sure is. And the face that the backbone mounts to is 50deg, so the backbone portion is held at 40deg. I stand corrected. Good pic. Now, just need pics of the same quality of all the footer coordinates, and we can have ourselves a confirmed, clear image of the ride's layout.

That's starting at zero height though, correct? Fury's station (and beginning of lift) is ~15-20ft. off the ground. Do you tack your 285ft onto ~20ft off the ground to get just barely 300ft+?

Right, there's a lot of juicy info in this single pic, but a toaster or something was used to get the image, so it's hard to read. What confirmation is there that Fury is 45deg?

The lift angle is 39°, assuming the CAD drawing showing the base of the backbone is accurate. Dropping that image into Solidworks and sketching directly over it gives me an angle right at 39.0°, a bit shy from 45°. The footer documents had coordinates on them, but I haven't seen clear enough images of all the numbers. If I had those, I could drop all the X/Y numbers onto a plane, which would give us all the footer locations in a single sketch, which could help confirm if the leaked image of the layout is true or not. The footer dimensions also showed the diameters of the poured footers and their depths, which could be used to estimate where the taller sections of track are located (taller it is, the bigger the footer). There's enough there in the footer images to get a good idea of how the track will be shaped--just need clear images of all the footer information.