JonnyRCT3

The same way anything is built. Plotting footers for a roller coaster isn't much different from plotting footers for a highway bridge.

Jack Rabbit. I really don't understand the hype, at all.

Giga dive coaster.

Tragic. This is the LAST thing the park needed. It's going to take a lot of effort to recover from this, and time.

Keep in mind that parks can only do what they can afford / make a return on. Cedar Fair had a average per capita sending of $44.10 in 2013, times at least 1 million visitors, equals $44,100,000 in average revenue. Amusement parks, and most companies in general, usually cash in at a 10% profit . Or in this case, $4,410,000. Most short term loans can double your money, hence why the most expensive expenditure the park took was 9.5 million, roughly 2x that amount. Now, it is not 100% impossible for any Cedar Fair park not to get a $20m attraction, the money IS there. However, they wouldn't make a good enough return investment with a park like Valleyfair. I can't see more than $12-15 million ever being spent on Valleyfair with its current cash flow.

Hello everyone. I would just like to thank everyone for their continued support of Valley Hills, as it has grown from a small-town amusement park into a huge regional theme park destination. I have recently discovered, however, some rather unpleasantness with my park. I personally find the story-line and pacing from the last 10 years to be quite stale in contrast to how it was prior. So I went ahead and did a complete overhaul on my 10 year plan. I was completely unsatisfied with it, so I decided to make it 300% more interesting. I can certainly say, without a single shred of doubt, the next 10 years WILL be Valley Hills' finest! I hope you all enjoy what's to come. Again, thank you all for your continued support and feedback! -JonnyRCT3

Sorry, $42,440.32 per foot.

Kennywood, Knoebels, Cedar Point, Hersheypark, Knott's Berry Farm, Holiday World, Universal Parks, Disney Parks, Sea World Parks.....basically everything not Six Flags is the contrary.

Tower of Terror II comes in a $4.2 million per foot.

The extra $5 million was due to the front gate renovation. I also like that you pointed out that parks release the overall investment (which includes everything related to the ride during its first year, even the merchandise), most people seem to think that it's just the cost of the actual coaster. Big projects, like coasters, usually cost millions just to build. And then there's the demolition of the two other rides that GateKeeper replaced, which was no cheap undertaking. The coaster itself, material wise, probably cost somewhere around $18 - $20 million.

I'd personally like to know what prompted Holiday World to go with B&M? Why not some other companies like Mack, Intamin or Vekoma? Also, is the LSM B&M technology, or some other 3rd party like the Incredible Hulk Coaster?

Park's build what's viable for the park. B&M offers the most diversity, while still maintaining their overall quality. Hence why they're a popular brand.

Blueprints are the same as HW's. So I think that about sums that up. Blame the market for the lack of offerings.

It's a wing coaster, you already know what to expect.

Why do people care so much about forces? I have NEVER heard, not even once, from anyone outside the enthusiast community, of a ride not having enough force. 99% of people judge a ride on how fun it was, not "it didn't pull 4.5 g's". 2 to 3 g's provides plenty of dynamic forces imho.

I think it could have the normal slope. If there was a drop out of the station and then an upwards half roll into the launch (also upwards) in the event of a roll back the train would roll to the non upside down bit just between the drop out of station and the launch track. I suppose that could work.But that is basically the opposite of what I posted, and creates an emergency zone before the launch instead of afterwards. The most efficient solution I could find was to have a segment that can invert itself. Similar to this; Edit: just realized having a positive slope creates more negative g's. Ideally; you'd want zero slope, but that's not going to work out too well, so the best decision would to have a negative slope. However, I doubt that it would make too much of a difference G force wise, I'm just simply stating the most efficient design.

I've seen this mentioned numerous times on other forums. So I will share my opinion on this subject here as well. Honestly, the big selling point of the Dive Coaster is being briefly held over the 90° drop. Theoretically, the higher you go, the level of thrills and excitement also rise. However, a 200-foot version has proven to be very effective, so I don't see the purpose of a 300 foot version, other than bragging rights. There would be no change in ride experience besides being dropped for an additional 1.6 seconds. Even the small 100-foot versions provide enough thrills and positive feedback to continue to be built. If something like this were to be attempted, I suppose B&M would use a spine & track combo for the drop, like that seen on Leviathan. This should help support the increased load without needing too many additional supports. A park that would build this? Someone willing to dish out $20+ million for something that could be significantly cheaper, and still provide the same thrills.

I honestly don't even see the point in something like this. Just like a standup suspended coaster, pointless and unnecessary. Technically, yes, this could be done in a way that would work. However, this would require the train to launch immediately as it enters the launch zone (Skyrocket). This would eliminate a upstart sequence, which would drastically reduce the time spent upside down. The launch track would also need to be higher at the start, and lower at the end, so the train travels on a slight downwards slope (opposite of rocket coasters). This is due to the possibility of a malfunction, where the train would be unable to clear the launch zone. This would enable the train to roll out of the launch zone, and not trap rider upside down. However, there would need to be an emergency evacuation zone immediately following the launch. This wouldn't be efficient for a park to operate since the train would need to be manually pulled back into the station. Regular launch coasters have the track slightly sloped upwards to ensure the train can easily slide back into the launch position in the event of a rollback. For all the complications that come with such a pointless design, you're better off doing it right side up. Here is a plausible version.

Launched coasters are expensive. 25 million for the one-hill Dragster is evidence enough.

It all depends on radius. This thing is spread out Assuming the immelmann is already 15 feet above the ground, which leaves a maximum radius of 39.6 meters. Do the math, and you'll end up with AT LEAST 2.8 gs. So it's more than likely we will be seeing 3+gs in the real thing.

Oh, right cause you went to the future and rode it already? People on here complaining have a lot of nerve. Can everyone quit bitching already? This ride looks fantastic. It's called a difference in opinion. The ride looks great to me, some disagree, and that's fine.

It all depends on radius.

That could be for anything.

Yeah. But it's a better version of what Leviathan could of been.

This is exactly what I was getting at earlier. A lunch will not magically change the way they do things, it will only eliminate the lift.