MrSum1_55

^I actually somewhat agree with this. I actually kind of like the way the coaster begins off the lift: it starts with a very long pre-drop, followed by a gradual drop/turn which whips to the right. To me it works because the long pre-drop allows for a descent buildup of speed before being whipped around a high-elevation turn/drop. I also wish more inverted and flying coasters had a pre-drop that long. And honestly, if Silver Bullet had all the same elements it did, but just flowed through them with a little bit more intensity, it could be one of the best inverted coasters. But even the cobra roll is not all that forceful. (While the cobra rolls on Aplengiest and Kumba are insane). The first helix is also pretty forceless. Silver Bullet has that same forceless tilted helix that can also be found on Talon. (Also possibly Patriot and OzIris, but I have not actually ridden these to confirm if the tilted helices on these are just as forceless. But I would assume that they are). However, B&M still does know how to make an awesome ending. Bullet's final helix is great, and I love the helix/sweep turn ending that they use on Talon. (Also Patriot and OzIris have the same ending).

I agree with what others have said. Unless the launch is super amazing (like on an Intamin accelerator), a launch should be seen only as as alternative to a lift, and not the main gimmick of the ride. This is why coasters like the Premier Spegetthi bowls, Cheetah Hunt, California Screamin, Rock n Roller Coaster, Maverick, and many more are great, because they do not entirely rely on a lunch as the main gimmick of the ride. By contrast, rides like YOLOcoaster rely a bit too much on the launch as a feature of the ride, as opposed to just an alternative to a lift. Xcelerator and Stormrunner are guilty of this too, but at least these rides have some very amazing launches. But whether or not a lunch is better to me depends on whether a lift and drop with descent airtime would have been better than a launch. And in about 80% of all cases, I would have rather had a descent drop than a launch. The exceptions are if the launch is especially powerful (Intamins) or if the lunch ties into the theming of the ride in some way. As in, I love how RnRC and FoF launch you through a dark tunnel into the unknown. (Though I have ridden these coasters more than enough times to know exactly what happens, it is still a cool effect).

I much prefer a traditional lift/drop coaster over a launch for a few reasons: 1. The lift allows you to build up anticipation at the beginning of the ride 2. I have found that most launches get old after a while (excluding some of the most powerful ones). A good or even okay first drop beats most standard launches. For me, launches are something that is just kind of 'there.' I thought the launches on California Screaming or V2 to be very intense when I first began riding coasters, but now I really see launches as being nothing memorable, excluding some of the most powerful ones. (Like all the Intamin accelerators, and possibly Maverick's second launch) However, I do think that launched lift hills are pretty awesome. They combine the best of both worlds: the initial rush of speed of a launch and the anticipation of starting the ride by going up a "lift hill." I have experienced these on Maverick and Hulk, and I bet Lightning Rod is amazing.

What they should have done was make Silver Bullet blend with the theming. I wish they could have made it a Black Mamba style invert, and built it partially underground, having it weave through Ghost Town theming. Had they done this, and given it colors to match, I guarantee nobody would be complaining about it. Heck, Silver Bullet would still be semi-passable now if they just painted the track brown to blend with the area.

I know IAAPA is mostly a business trade show, and tickets are very expensive, I do still want to go once in my lifetime. Besides, it is not like there is nothing else to do in Orlando. Maybe once I finish engineering school and no longer have to tailor my vacations to the school year. Or, you know, maybe I will be one of the people behind the counter. I can dream, right?

SFDK: 1. The Joker 2. Superman 3. Medusa 4. V2 5. Boomerang 6 Kong CGA: 1. Gold Striker 2. Flight Deck 3. (Soon to be) Patriot 4. Psycho Mouse 5. Demon 6. Grizzly

^True. I love the new attractions they have added, but I absolutely hate the way they have managed their parks in recent years. If you wonder why, look a few pages back and observe the discussion on metal detectors in queues. In a strange way, the current management of Universal sort of reminds me of Premier/Six Flags in the early 2000's. They are really building some great stuff, but are operating their parks poorly from a guest perspective. However, the difference is that Universal has been financially successful, while Premier/Six Flags expanded their parks in such a way that bankrupted the company, closed the largest amusement park in the world (Geauga Lake), and turn some parks into shadows of their former self (Elitch Gardens).

^Of course it will be. That is walk-on time by Fuji-Q standards with a new ride.

^Well, that tradition has not changed! It is still very common to have coasters not located at that park in trailers. I have even seen commercials for Cedar Point using stock footage of rides at other parks. (Seems kind of funny that the "Coaster Capitol of the World" sometimes does not even use its own coasters in advertising).

That seems like a strange clause to put in a lease. I am pretty sure this park has been seasonal since opening, so it must predate any current conflicts of interest with businesses. I also do not really see the practicality in giving a permanent establishment like this limited operating times, especially since being open in summer should bring in a good deal more traffic than winter. Also, if they were really not allowed to be open in the winter, it would probably still be a massive pain for them to negotiate with a California city to even open the park partway as they are doing now.

It seems like a small addition due to several factors. It is true that it seems small because of being compared to The Beast. Also, Kings Island has added three large coasters since 2007: a flying coaster, a hyper coaster, and the largest inverted coaster. Most people would consider all of the last three to be among the top five coasters in the park. (As much as Firehawk gets a lot of unneseccary hate, IMO). Compared to the last three additions, a GCI seems small, even if this would be a huge announcement at 80% of other parks. With the scope of attractions we are used to seeing KI add, it would seem more in character for them to add a prefab or a custom RMC. But, a GCI will still be a good ride.

How about we build a wall around Cedar Point to keep all the Magic Mountain fans out? And Great Adventure is going to pay for it.

On the other hand, I think a flying theater attraction with Steven Colbert would be amazing!

Weren't there rumors a while back of talks of making this park go year-around? I could see this move as the first step in transitioning to year-around operations.

Well, I can say that I hope this is better than Soarin. On no attraction should I have to force myself to look straight forward in order to be immersed in the ride experience. (Look to the side on Soarin, and the illusion is instantly ruined). However, the GP seem to love screen-based attractions. Soarin can easily get some of the longest waits at both US Disney resorts, and this is a ride that I choose to skip at least half the time.

Yeah, the ride is pretty awful. The worst thing about the ride is how much it wastes such great technology. It uses a trackless system, which should be awesome! However the ride is incredibly short, doing nothing more than going through a few rooms with movie screens in them. Why would they invest in such great technological system for a dark ride that bad? Even Six Flags has proven they can make a better dark ride with Justice League.

^When it comes to the metal detectors, it is not about waiting an extra five minutes. If they were truly necessary for saftey, then the USO parks would not be literally two out of the three parks in the entire Western World who have them. The only other park known to have them is Morey's, and even they have them in just one coaster. I am against them strongly for two reasons: 1. I dislike the idea of being separated from my phone and trusting a locker. (I can deal with being away from my phone from an hour, but it's separation makes me worry) 2. It shows how they view their guests. Or more specifically, they distrust their guests. 3. They have a terrible system, and show no interest in fixing it. I would be fine with this if they redid the stations to have lockers in them. They have not done this, and there is no excuse for not doing this with Universal's budget. Also, they could install nets on coasters. I know that a specific incident happened here, but Dragons does not even duel anyway. When Magic Mountain can trust its clientele with a (theoretical) dueling coaster, and Six Flags America can trust its guests with a VR headset, while Universal will not even trust its guests with a penny in a zipped pocket (not exaggerating), you have serious problems. Also, this is not always a "five minute inconviennce." I have heard stories of people waiting up to 90 minutes for a locker.

I just thought of something else: Remember when Universal tried to halt construction of Skyplex so that they would have their title of best thrill rides in Orlando? If that is the case, then it is extremely hypocritical of them to remove two out of their five major coasters, and what many consider to be the best coaster in the park! For thrill rides, I would much rather go to Seaworld just across I-Drive. Or, I would also rather drive a good deal out of the way to go to Busch Gardens. I will still feel obligated to see USO when I return to Orlando, as they have been continuiously adding some great new rides, but if they cannot trust me that I know how to secure my wallet, then I might rather be at Six Flags America.

From a business perspective, I could see why they would want Dragons removed, especially since it is already nearing the end of its lifespan. From a business perspective, I would remove the two coasters, but follow that up with building a bigger inverted coaster elsewhere in the park (something with a layout more like Banshee. Maybe it could be Jurassic park themed?) Then, they could remove Dragons and replace it with a dark ride. This still allows Universal to claim a similar number of thrill rides, and they could get what they want in improving Hogsmeade. And, having an even bigger inverted coaster would satisfy most general thrill seekers who would miss Dragons. As an enthusiast, I hope nothing happens in terms of removal. Red Dragon is my favorite coaster in Orlando, and my second favorite coaster in Florida after Kumba. I would still rather have that than a new, less forceful invert. And yet, I think it is more likely Dragons gets removed and replaced with a dark ride. This may piss off many enthusiasts, but Universal has shown that they like to look at things from a purely financial standpoint. The metal detectors at entrances of rides show that they care far more about profit than guest convience. (The metal detectors are literally the reason why I no longer consider USO to be my favorite set of parks).

GRONA LUND!! The answer to literally every "this park does not have enough room" comment ever. If they want room, they can find it. This is one of few examples where running a park in real life is actually kind of like RCT: if you want room for something new, you can make it work.

^Well, at least we are getting somewhere.

I am planning on going to Germany this summer. I was originally planning on skipping this park, but this coaster may have changed my mind!

My favorites are (in no particular order): Hersheypark, BGW, Disneyland, and Epcot. I cannot really define any of these four as my favorite because they are all awesome in their own different ways. My least favorites are probably Elitch Gardens and SFA. SFA actually has some good coasters, but the park experience is just not there, unless you like rides over an open field. Also, VR Superman can have dispatch times up to 15 minutes! Elitch Gardens, while a nicer park, suffers from being overrun with clones. Now, SFA, SFGAm, and even SFOT to an extent are all overrun with clones, but the difference is that most of their clones are actually good. I wish parks like Wild Waves or Elitch Gardens looked to Lagoon as an example for how to exapand a smaller park. Salt Lake City should be a smaller market for a park, but Lagoon has added two major coasters in the last ten years, while Elitch Gardens has only removed one major coaster.

^^Not every new coaster has to be amazing or the best thing ever. Yes, Kolmarden added something amazing, but I would be very happy to see any future growth at this park, even if that addition is a used accelerator. I hope this thing gets sold, and I am curious to see where it ends up. This is one of the better coasters to have been removed in the past few years, and I would consider myself very lucky if it ended up within driving distance of me. At my two closest parks, I can ride an RMC, an awesome GCI, and a great older inverted coaster. But I would still drive 10-15 hours to ride this if it somehow ended up at Silverwood or Lagoon. I think it will most likely end up at some random park in China, but I am keeping my fingers crossed for the minuscule chance that it is somewhere I can get to with relitave ease.

^^We might need Prince Desomnd to save teh Kanonen! I can think of many smaller parks in the US that could make good use of this. This thing would be awesome if it could be moved to a park like Silverwood, Elitch Gardens, Waldemeer, or Knoebels to name a few.