Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phatage

  1. There's more to it than that though, especially with GADV. This is what the park has done in the past 8 years: Removed: Removed Chiller Removed GASM Removed Rolling Thunder Closed off entire section of the park past chiller, which put other flats out of commission while they also removed the Intamin 1st Gen Freefall Some rides that were removed (Chaos) were changed to smoking sections rather than replaced with new rides Removed the giant Teepee Added: The Dark Knight - indoor wild mouse The Green Lantern - relocated standup coaster Bizzaro - Medusa is repainted and some of the theming is literally turned upside down, sometimes they turn the fire on too Zumanjaro - Drop tower added to the side of already-built Kingda Ka Safari RIde - The park changed the already existing safari into one that leaves through controlled vehicle from the park and billed it as a new ride. There was an outpost stop added with an upcharged zipline. They didn't add the monkeys back. Larson loop bulled as a coaster S&S 4D coaster that isn't as good as the Intamin version (yes I've ridden both). The capacity and waits for the SFFT version were consistently horrible. That's off the top of my head, sure I've missed something but hopefully not that major. I personally have not bought a SF season pass because I haven't had a reason to go back to GADV (I live in NYC) in the past 3 years and I only go to 1 or 2 other SF parks each summer. My GP friends don't ever feel compelled to go back, usually the saying is "maybe if they add a new big ride, it'll be worth the lines and admission price". When have you last felt compelled to go back to GADV Rob? Do you want to NJ for this ride? Yes there's obviously a lot of investment that was put into the park prior to these past 8 years but really nothing great has been done since Obama's been in office (must be his fault ). I personally get my fair share of credits from travelling for work and then staying a few extra days to go to parks like SFFT, Alton Towers and Thorpe, BGT, etc. And I do one day want to go back and relive Nitro and El Toro and Ka. But to see what's been added to the park recently, or lack thereof, has just been disappointing considering what parks like SFMM and SFGA receive, and everybody here would agree that GADV was once grouped with those parks in terms of SF money allotment. That they have to tear down an entire waterfront theater space for a ride that has a smaller footprint than a Togo heartline twister also confuses me. Here's to hoping for those dueling launched wingriders that reuse Chiller's station, theme to Batman vs. Superman, and dominate that aforementioned closed off area of the park in two years I guess...
  2. Hi all, I'm planning on visiting this Sunday the 22nd, also just by myself (on business during the week in London). I've found all the advice you've given tpainrad very helpful, but I had one more question. Since I'll be going on a weekend, should I get Fastrack or will the SRQ's be enough to let me hit the main rides in the 6 or so hours I'll have?
  3. ^Seeing your username made me think they should've built interlocking versions of these and called them Lightning Loops Strike Back or something silly like that at least for old times' sake. You would probably have to load the upper one just as high as the original too. For a park that's removed more rides than it's added in the past 10 years, would've at least like the Premier version of skywheel, even if it was a clone.
  4. So this is why they didn't have wider trains on Krake huh. Nice to see that there's a good amount of variation in the pacing unlike the first 2/3 of Banshee, and hopefully the forces on those smaller elements like the hill and helix after the zero-g deliver a lot of g-force variation too.
  5. Thanks guys. Entropy actually helped out a lot with my college project and even with this project too (he created a program that let me put the coordinates from my spreadsheet into NL for testing. Here's a video of what happened in NL, note that I didn't spend time fixing up supports and stuff like that, this was just to see how the ride would preform. The jerkiness is both a result of my estimations for transition times being a little too small and the my estimations for the friction being too large. However, great as NL is, it isn't perfect either: http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBG_WdFTcSHI&start1=35&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DElBKraeyqjs&start2=40&authorName=Phatage
  6. Thanks for the comments. How strict is the link-posting policy? I remember way back when, I had either my first or second post removed/thread closed by Rob because of the policy and don't want that to happen again here.
  7. Well I finally finished the report on this, you can view it below if you like. It goes into a lot of the design philosophy and technical details behind the ride. I spent quite a lot of time on it so I would appreciate if anybody had any comments to share, thanks! http://www.travisrothbloom.com/#!roller-coaster-projects/vstc2=project-soar
  8. I was reading an article (link below) which mentioned that CF was investing $10 million to install the invertigo at Dorney, and while I thought that seemed pretty high for such a compact, 'used' ride, I remembered that the cost might include removing Laser which kind of makes more sense. The same article also mentions Leviathan costing $16 million so an error in the other cost wouldn't be out of the question: CF Spending Article I was curious though and was trying to find how much an invertigo went for when people were still buying new ones, and I found something on Coaster-net that said $11 million: Coaster-net link That same year (1999), the first SROS was built at Darien Lake for $12 million (says RCDB), so something seems a little off here. This question is purely out of curiosity, but does anybody have a different estimate for how much the invertigos went for? And if these figures are right, is the reason why the invertigos were so expensive because of the added mechanical machinery? It's also not out of the question that RCDB's numbers on this are off too; Darien Lake's SLC was reported to be $1.5 million less than SFNE's and SFEG's even though they were build in the same year, and DL's was partly over water too.
  9. I wouldn't get that hope up. The curvature is noticeably broader than whatever SFNE's B&M is called these days which is pretty much the same height. Not wanting to compare a rendering of this new ride to an actual picture, here's the rendering I found on McVeen's site: This means that for this ride to be more intense than BDK (a coaster that ins't really noted for it's intensity), it would have to rely on fast twisting given that riders are spread out much farther from the heartline than on a floorless coaster. This still does not seem to be the case just from observation, but maybe there's a chance; because of the train design, the twists in the tracks of the two rides are apples and oranges. Do keep in mind though that these trains are heavier and have more friction. On the topic of renderings, I have to say that this new batch created for SF are relatively sloppy compared to the older ones that were confirmed to be McVeen's work. I'm thinking either this is somebody else they were able to hire for cheaper or they sprung these projects all at once, last minute on him. Anybody have any info on this?
  10. Well lets hope DK gets things right with yet another impulse/shuttle coaster, like their 3.25th or something. It's good to know that Premier is behind this one but I'd hate to see that train valley in that loop somehow. It is cool though how that loop pays homage to Thriller, not sure if that was intended. Also too bad that capacity will be horrible on this ride will be less than half of V2's train while the ride will have a longer duration.
  11. I know it's early to go either way with this comment, but I doubt this will be the best invert. It does have an impressive first half with some tighter curvatures and an unconventional element sequence for an invert, but I don't think the second half was planned out well. The elements seem much more spread out due to the fact that they have to navigate around the station and whatnot. The turn after the Immelman over the entrance to the loop is just as wide if not wider than the turn going into the loop; in terms of surprising riders, I think it would be so much cooler to have the train navigate a similar looking turn and have even more g's the second time around than the first time. Albeit, it does seem like a logical place to give the riders a break in the action, but again I see it more of a killjoy being that the remainder of the ride is more spread out. Again with the order of elements, the extremely inline wingover following the turn mentioned could be more effective if it switched places with the true zero-g roll. Inverted coaster's corkscrews are much more intense (not necessarily better though) than zero-g rolls for they focus on different sensations. Because these two elements appear so similar on this ride, it would be great to have the less intense one first to surprise riders with the more intense element afterwards. This would also help seeing as both the wingovers and zero-g rolls on the newer inverts twist at slower angular velocities, making them less intense than the older inverts. The last thing is the helix finale. The helix is definitely not as tight as Phaethon's at the end and is upward. Granted I'm basing the quality on the magnitude of force it produces, and less intense helices like that on Manhattan Express are still very fun as well, but I still see the second half of this ride paling in comparison to the first half in both intensity and excitement. This isn't true with some of the famously great inverts like Raptor, Nemesis, and even B:TR where after their moments of relaxation in the middle (a little later on Nemesis), they ramp up the intensity again and finish strong. And while I don't think a coaster has to be crazy intense in order to be great or even the best of it's category, I am always disappointed to ride a coaster that runs out of steam towards the end (Alpengeist, Great Bear, etc.).
  12. I think they're thinking that the parks' guests will see the seating arrangement as the main difference between the two. Anybody notice the similarities between this layout and MF? It's kind of as if CF is building a 'foreign' CP in less than half the time; this brings CW's count to 16! I guess CW then is proving to be a big moneymaker for CF?
  13. I just posted my entry for this week, titled "Twisty!". I wasn't too concerned about the ride being a realistic B&M per se, but just focusing on building something compact with good pacing and a sensible overall ride storyline. In terms of speed, I wanted something more along the lines of Timber Falls' Avalanche but I did allow for a place where the train slows down enough for the riders to catch their breaths, and the ride duration isn't too long for the speed to get boring for the riders. Here's the link, for some reason the file's extension has been removed so in order for it to work, please edit the name to add on ".sv6" to the end: http://themeparkreview.com/game_exchange/track.php?id=1947 http://themeparkreview.com/game_exchange/images/thumb/1947_twisty.png
  14. What makes you say that they've stopped building in their older style? I personally see a lot of their older selves in their newer works, even in the Knight Valley coaster. I've yet to ride one of the station-fly-by coasters, but to clarify my coaster does have one but with a twist...
  15. Hey guys, this is just a teaser of what's to come soon, hopefully the style is obvious .
  16. Thanks for the comments, I've since started up a couple of other designs with the intention to mimic real designers' styles while incorporating my own. I'll try to update this thread every now and then.
  17. I'm a little worried about that track alignment. This would be the first modern steel coaster to need it; its one thing when working with many sheets of much-more-flexible wood (even the prefab stuff) but the curvature of the steel rails is pretty much, well, set in steel. Does anybody know (or know of a pic that can show) if the holes in the track used for bolting it to the supports were drilled in the shop or on site? Hopefully it didn't come to the point where they had to modify the track on-site in order to fit it to the old, slightly warped wood structure. I would expect the company who's produced the Intamin plug 'n' play track to have this down, but working with two separated steel rails is a new challenge that I hope they've accounted for. On another note, is it 100% known that Intamin didn't have any part in this? The trackwork shows signs of an Intamin coaster and I'm a little skeptical that Rocky Mountain could do this all on their own given their relatively new status in the field. Even when Giovanola entered the design field, the track work was very drawn-out and conservative in terms of complexity, with a possible miscalculation accounting for how intense the helix finales ended up being (which necessitated the harsh mcbr in both mega coasters and the extra helix that can be seen in the background of some of these construction pics). This new Giant trackwork, however, seems pretty complex.
  18. Hi, my name is Travis and although I've technically been a member of this site for quite a while, I haven't really introduced myself on these boards. I am a serious aspiring roller coaster designer and I'm currently getting my Master's in Mechanical Engineering for this reason. To make a long (and on-going) story short, my college engineering senior project was to create a design process for creating roller coaster track based on g-force inputs, similar to the FVD system some of you may know from NoLimits but more flexible. I also designed, built, and tested a model track to test the method's accuracy. Since the project's completion, I've spent the last six months creating my first full design, a small, ~50 ft. tall wooden coaster named "David" (as opposed to "Goliath") that packs quite a punch! A picture of the layout and dots showing the location of the train every tenth of a second can be seen below, and while it may be hard to see, it does have a turn banked to 90 degrees What I eventually want to do is create a portfolio of designs and present them to different roller coaster designers in hopes that they may offer me my dream job. Before doing so, I wanted to know if you, the Theme Park Review community, had any opinions and/or suggestions on what I was doing. For anybody interested, a detailed writeup of "David" along with my final project report (a bit lengthy and technical) are linked below, and I hope that you enjoy them. http://wikis.swarthmore.edu/ECE90/images/4/42/David_Writeup.pdf http://wikis.swarthmore.edu/ECE90/images/4/49/E90_Report.pdf Thank you, Travis
  19. I'm really not trying to imply anything by this question as to whether or not it is normal to remove track during the off-season while not making any modifications to it, but is there another 'case in point' picture that shows this, particularly one that isn't a 'case in Cedar Point'? I just think that WT isn't a very good example to show that removing track doesn't necessarily signify change seeing as it has had structural reinforcement in the past (and isn't the only CF Intamin coaster that needed it) and that the park has had a tall ride snap in half due to high winds. Personally, if anybody had photos of them doing something like this to a B&M ride, I think that would be cool to see. The only other steel coaster I've personally seen with track removed was when they replaced the tops of GASM's loops and the section of track leading up to the mcbr (one of the 'old' tops is still in the safari, kind of weird that it's the only standing piece of the ride now). While on the topic of reinforcing the supports on CF Intamin coasters, I don't think that's what 305's track removal could be for (even though it was a large span of unsupported track there) seeing as 1) I like to think of CF as a company that learns from their mistakes and that they were one of the influences on Intamin to beef up their supports and 2) 305's track size rivals that of SD2K. As somebody mentioned before, that area of track doesn't really experience great stress compared to others so it doesn't seem likely, especially after only 1 season, that it would have to be replaced.
  20. Has anybody had a chance to see the area from inside the park? I know the park just closed for the season not too long ago, but I would think it would be more efficient if they poured the new footings (in the case of a re-profile) before they took down the track so that they could do the latter while the concrete dries. Cost-wise, it would be a lot cheaper for them to pour new footers than to modify the supports to stay in their current footers but be able to support an overbanked turn there instead, which will have a significantly different plan outline than the current flat turn. I think the most realistic outcome is that the turn will not be overbanked but widened (and still be flat). Designing an overbanked turn there to literally make ends meet would be extremely difficult, much more so than the Maverick retrofit. A widened flat turn would be much easier to design and implement, and it would still make sense considering what track has been removed so far, although they would have to remove the entire current hill if they wanted the final hill to be symmetric geometrically and in terms of g-forces. There are larger implications to this; we will most likely not see a coaster like the original Intaminidator 305 again. Obviously no coaster before this combined such speed with such sustained g's, and I've seen quotes by Intamin alluding to that they took a risk with this design. But like any business, this industry is controlled by costs, and parks are going to keep this in mind when asking manufacturers for coasters in the future.
  21. To continue this discussion, airtime is the result of the train constraining the body from lifting out of the seat completely, and the only force one feels (other than gravity) is from the restraint holding one in the ride. So not only can the restraint not ruin airtime, it is essential for airtime to exist. I think what the original poster was more concerned about was the physical separation of butt and seat, which is a result of un-stapled-restraint airtime. Obviously if the rider is constrained tight enough to the seat, there will be no physical separation, but the force will be the same. Technically, the airtime force in a stapled-in restraint will be ever so slightly stronger than that of a loose restraint because the body travels in a slightly tighter vertical radius of curvature, increasing the centripetal force outward.
  22. I created a ride that is composed of two; the first half being a dark ride themed to a haunted hay ride with the second half being an Intamin rocket coaster. I spent a lot of time on this, and I would like to know your guy's thoughts on it. Here is the link to its page. Enjoy! LINK REMOVED. ADMIN NOTE: We really appreciate you sharing your work, but please upload your park/tracks for people to see. This was your first post, and when your first post is "Hey, here's a link to another site" it looks like spam. You are more than welcome to post your parks here, but please don't spam the site. See the 3rd post down on the ToS topic: http://www.themeparkreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=137 Thanks! --Robb
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/