Millionaire2K

Here is what I came up with. This is the coaster and the MK on the same scale. There is plenty of room for this coaster.

I wonder if Soarin will have a scene over any of the parks? Last year when I was in AK I saw what looked like that red Helicopter hovering and sweeping around Everest.

I'm going Oct 18th and 22nd. I bought the FFP with express to avoid those crazy lines. Can't wait.

You are also forgetting that the game is not done, and optimization is one of the LAST things you do, because if you do it early on, you just need to do it all over again. I remember when we were making one of the Call of Duty games, it ran like CRAP up until the last few weeks of development. If the frame rate is your biggest issue based on an alpha demo, then you're looking at the wrong things. Agreed.

I can't wait. I'm so happy Atari is doing great work with this. I just find it odd seeing the trains flying off the tracks. Was that a special car with no up stop wheels?

I still stand by my thoughts that SF building these was a waste. My local carnival just built a Ring-of-Fire about 5 mins from my house (No joke). SF has done nothing to entice me to visit the park this year. I feel more insulted that they call it a "rollercoaster". My local carnival does not even call their ride a rollercoaster. A big chain like SF id expect better. I know that not all rides are gonna be big coasters. I also know that it's ok to advertise rides that are not coasters. But for them to try to make this ride seem like a coaster feels cheap.

Those prices are odd. It reminds me of going to the Movies. A VERY small popcorn would be $3.50. A MUCH larger medium-sized bucket of popcorn would be $7.50 and a CRAZY large would cost $8.00. Most people end up spending $8 thinking they're getting a great deal because it's only $0.50 more, when in fact they spent about $8 for popcorn that cost the theater $0.50.

Any Member inventory not reserved by members using points is made available to Disney CRO at the 60-day mark for cash reservations by the general public. This is actually beneficial to DVC members, in that the association earns “breakage” income on these rooms rather than letting them sit empty.

That is not how the DVC rooms work. DVC allows 2% of the rooms to be available for cash reservations. In addition to these, if anyone has traded out book the Disney Collection , or used their points for a cruise during this time, then DVC can recoup those costs as well by selling cash rooms. No one knows how Disney selects rooms to turn to cash for this purpose. So if someone buys a cruise on points then random bungalow nights may become cash. However Id suspect they would turn studios to cash first to ensure they can get their $$ back for the cruise. Also Poly DVC owners would have to use their points for say a cruise for Poly rooms to turn to cash. And with Poly being new I don't think many Poly owners will be trading their points out. However Disney does not send DVC points rooms to cash because they are not selling in DVC. NOTE: Any Member inventory not reserved by members using points is made available to Disney CRO at the 60-day mark for cash reservations by the general public. This is actually beneficial to DVC members, in that the association earns “breakage” income on these rooms rather than letting them sit empty.

The GP (cash) rooms are a different inventory then the DVC rooms. DVC booking rate does not affect cash rooms availability and vise versa.

I would be shocked if they aren't already booked solid for the first year! Right now ALL DVC members can book the bungalows up till Nov 2nd. As of this post 54 days are sold out. 160 days are still free to book. I'm surprised how easy it is to book a bungalow. But then again im not surprised. The points needed for just a 3 night stay (480) cost almost as much as a 10 night stay in a 2bed at BLT (498).

Answer one of the following two: My main YouTube viewer is my laptop/desktop Answer one of the following two: I rarely watch playlists created by YouTube Channels Answer one of the following two: I find most YouTube videos through the channels I'm subscribed to Answer one of the following two: I rarely share YouTube videos on social media Answer one of the following two: I often comment on YouTube videos

Pro tip: There are 2 fountains in the plans.

Don't forget he also directed a little music video called Thriller.

The seatbelt you want doesn't do anything different than what the restraint system is already designed to do. Those seat belts you show will not lock if the restraint does not close far enough. We've already established that NTAG has a system that doesn't allow the train to be dispatched if the angle is not met on the restraint. As for seat belts in general, I'm against them. There's no proof that having a seat belt would have stopped her from falling out. If she could have slid out of the current restraints then she could have slipped out of a seat belt that was designed for the current restraint max angle distance. It was a freak accident. I don't want to be strapped down beyond movement to go for a ride (that's a different fantasy ) Based on current speculation the most I would want to see done is locked angle changed. Ok if what you say is true then yes they need to fix the lock angle to prevent large people from riding. I was only talking about the belt as if the NTAG did not prevent the coaster from dispatch. of course no belt is needed if they already have a system to determine the position of the restraint. But writing it off as a "freak accident" is not acceptable. The coaster has been running for just a few years and one person is dead. What if this happens again next year? Would it then be time to come up with a better restraint system? Or would a few more people have to fly out? Just sayin..

Because allegedly this coaster has restraint sensors that showed her as being OK to ride...the seatbelt would have been made to those specifications, so her fat theoretically would have sucked in the belt too and allowed it to buckle... There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to coaster restraints. Unfortunately. No restraint is failure proof. But as has been stated about 2000000000 times...it's all speculation at this point. We'll find out the actual cause and ride modifications in due time. If the light said OK and the restraint failed to hold her then wow to the coaster. Note the seat belt I think should be added would NOT go around the rider. Oh and yes I agree we will all have to wait till the report to find out what went wrong. However I think its ok for us to use common sense here as long as we do not get angry at anyone (the lady, SF, ect) until we know for sure. Like when that person fell off a drop ride years ago. People said they didn't know how that could happen unless the person didn't have legs or was missing arms. Well the person was missing legs. Look how far Rob comes out of his seat at the 3:47 mark

WOW. How about they make the seat belt small enough so it will ONLY buckle when the restraint is low enough to be effective. Why would you think they would add a belt that does nothing? Flight of fear is 1 example of the "if you can't lock the seatbelt you can't ride"

Anything that can add safety to a ride is not a "knee jerk reaction". If they added a seatbelt for the restraint that was a "one size" seatbelt, it can ensure the harness is low enough to ensure EVERYONE is ALWAYS secure by the restraint. This lady should not have been allowed to ride. If the belt was on here seat it would not have been able to be buckled because the bar was not low enough. I would be shocked if they did not add belts to the restraint. Not to keep them closed but to ensure they are low enough. If people remove the belt during the ride it mean nothing because the belt already confirmed a safe position of the lap bar.

At this point I'm sure anything is possible.

This is my point. The restraint was most likely locked to high to be able to keep her in. And it is a judgment call weather a person is secure. The system should not allow the trains to dispatch if they are not low enough. I'm pretty sure most of Intiman's new rides also use the hydraulic type restraints and they have a system in please to know if the restraint is low enough to be effective. Like Manta At Sea World SD or El Toro at SFGADV. When it comes to safety and peoples lives the system needs to be failsafe. There needs to be a way for the train to "reject" the body if the restraint will not be effective.

Seeing the picture of the lady its starting to seem like a case of "she was to big". I wouldn't be shocked if the lady did ask if her bar was secure enough. Maybe she was on other rides with "clicks" and didn't hear any so she was concerned. Also mix that with a "possible" employee who didn't care or was ignorant about the clicks. No matter the case this should be considered a design problem. The trains on any coaster should not be allowed to dispatch if all the restraints are not secure "enough to be effective". And if the restraint did lock at a far off position and it allowed her to fly out, then that needs to be fixed. Restraint should only lock at levels where it will remain effective at holding a person in. If the person is to large the restraint should not lock and the train should not be permitted to dispatch. Intiman seems to have gotten this figured out after their accidents. Adding seatbelts to attach to the restraint to ensure they are low enough makes the most sense. Also if the seats were smaller (like El Toro) it would also help.

I think people on here like to make a lot of things over complicated. You have explained this very simple system very well. Anyone else who is confused will never get it until they are exiting the train. Heck even then I'm sure people will be confused. Also maybe it will help people if they stop thinking of it as a "ride" and more as a quick way to enter the other park. Just pretend Universal put a shuttle in the back of the park to bus you over. NO way would they let 1 day tickets take a quick ride to the other park.

How about the "Gulp 'N' Blow?

Laser at Dorney Park

I only ever rode this ride once. I thought I had internal bleeding afterwords.