Leaderboard

If i had to describe Abyss and was only allowed to use the words "smooth" or "rough" smooth would win hands down. There are much much much worse coasters around.

Hybrid Theme Park/Water park works perfectly fine. It is definitely a unique place and one i am glad i have on my doorstep.

I am just praying to god they wont put VR on abyss

Nobody said anything about the bar being the only cause of whiplash. Call this number: 13 11 26 now! I'm afraid you have taken something affecting your brain. GOOGLE STUFF BELOW "The holiday camp confirmed that the rules for their ‘experience dodgems’ had been tightened to avoid customers injuring themselves or others. So they have banned visitors from bumping their cars together, requesting that they manoeuvre them carefully and sedately around the course instead. Staff have been ordered to ban any visitor who dares to flout the strict ‘no bump’ rule. It is thought the company was concerned about potential legal claims for whiplash or other injuries suffered during a ‘crash’. BACK TO MY STUFF @Brad2912 is on the money. One day DW will stop all bumping.

Perth Local here who has been visiting the park for years. I think i would struggle to call it a theme park myself based on the actual meaning of the name, and for that matter same really for any of the parks in Australia. Movie World is the closest we have i think in that most attractions throughout the park are movie/entertainment themed. Dreamworld got close with its few themed areas - the wild west areas, and then the industrial type areas of ToT and giant drop etc. To me the strict definition of a theme park requires either a single unified theme through out the park, or if more than one theme then dedicated areas and attractions to each theme which are easily and clearly distinguishable as separate areas. So that means it extends far past just the theming of the attraction/ride to things such as pathways, gardens, staff costumes, signage, naming etc. That being said - AW is somewhat unique in that it really doesn't fit any of the suggested categories. It's not an amusement park - to me that's something that's primarily trailer rides/side show stalls/fun fair type stuff. With the amount of water rides/slides you could argue it contains a water park. I wouldn't call it an adventure park either, as to me an adventure park is more about physical activities - flying foxes, rope courses, hiking trails etc. So where does that leave AW? Good question.. i think the only name for it though is still a theme park. Maybe not in the dictionary meaning, but more in the common meaning of a place containing rides and attractions both wet and dry that you go for fun.

so - once?

Quality of food and dedication to service isn't really what this discussion is about. A person can give an opinion based on what they know. As I noted in the original post, it is a much fairer opinion if one has visited, but all are entitled to have one, are they not? I note however that only 6 out of 30 have gone with theme park, whilst the overwhelming majority have gone with Amusement or Action park. It's interesting too, because the former CEO of the park, who made such a maximum impact (SWIDT?) considers it a crossed theme \ water park, and yet only 1 person has identified it as a 'water' park despite the large number of water based slides and attractions. I did predict a lot of fanboy heat on this topic... LOL> You couldn't even recognise that a photo in an airport promotional billboard wasn't yours. I'm sorry if the bell ringing comment offended you. It wasn't meant to be derogatory - you certainly should be proud of the work that you do - and you very well know that I am aware of how much of a perfectionist you are - but you do sometimes lay claim to things that are a little bit of a stretch, and can also be chalked up as a happy coincidence. Ironically, I included the website as a source to pad out my research - fluff it up a little. All i've used from the website is the park map, and the WORDS to see the language they use (as I did with Chessington and Thorpe park. Sat images aren't my only source of information, and as I said i've seen the photos from iwerks, tim, et al also. the good thing about Adventure World is that there isn't much in the way to obscure satellite view. As you so rightly point out - Dreamworld does have a lot of greenery \ tree \ forest towards the back end. It certainly covers parts of the park, but in no way does it offer sufficient coverage to deserve 'tree world' - again you're stretching it here. I'm not sure the relevance of mentioning wonderland except because you think it'll get a reaction so i'll move on. When you're considering where to visit next, do you just ask RCDB to pick a random park, and go wherever it brings up first? (Or the Parkz randomiser?) No. You talk to people, read things, view photos, websites, reviews - and you make a judgment - "does all this stuff make me want to visit it?" - you form an opinion based on what you see before you visit. If that opinion isn't favourable enough, then you never will visit... unless of course you're in the area (note the number of votes for that particular option above too). AW was raved about a few years ago when Abyss was put in, and rightly so. You yourself specifically raved about it, and made quite the call about Abyss' status \ ranking for coasters in Australia. Judging by all accounts though, it hasn't aged well, and whilst at launch, it was something that got me very close to visiting, the current stories of it's upkeep - especially at a park that has several months downtime each year - make me want to visit and ride about as much as Richard does Dreamworld right now. But this thread isn't all about my opinion, and i'm entitled to mine, as everyone else is entitled to theirs. the poll results speak for themselves however, so i'll just leave it at that.

I dunno why this would be a major issue, the number of enthusiasts in a theme park would be a couple per day on average among thousands The number of them who are ticking off a ride on a kiddie coaster is an even smaller number of that. So don't try and tell me they are making lines longer lol.

I can think of a few reasons: i'd imagine a lot of buyers were scared off after the two in Great Adventure were scrapped this was at the tail end of the "faster, taller, longer" rush for parks, and Intamin's hydraulic launch system was favoured as it was able to deliver those marketable metrics this is very speculative, but after Intamin ejected a few folk with their lap-bars, all the parks went through a phase where everything needed an OTSR (ala Superman Escape) and so parks would've shied away from their lap-bar train designs. It's not all bad though, Premier have made a comfortable comeback by delivering a really solid few post-GFC products that leverage their LIM tech for smaller, lower capacity and yet visually impressive roller-coasters (Tempesto at Busch Gardens, Williamsburg.)

I just checked out the Proslide flying saucer. Oh man! I'm not a water park guy but that looks like loads of fun. If AW did something like that, I'd make the trip to WA.

For those wondering - based on the measurements in the image posted above, Maloney's corner is really the only option. They really don't have the option to take it out over the big top, nor could they take it over the carousel. the square in the harbour is just a more accurately measured rectangle as i couldn't get the diagonal measures as precise.