DaptoFunlandGuy

Rumor has it this thing had a pretty serious collision?

I doubt they ran out of time. If the plan had been to put in properly fitted cabinetry etc, they wouldn't have blown the wad on the imagery affixed to that wall - they were never going to cover that up...

sounds like someone has dropped the ball over there...

now THAT is how you do fake brickwork!

#fail https://rcdb.com/r.htm?pl=26777&ot=2 RCDB lists 95 roller coasters on the continent of Africa. Australia and New Zealand combined have only 71. https://rcdb.com/r.htm?pl=26795&ot=2 (obviously this is a total count and includes defunct and relocated)

Who says I don't?

the pick and mix wall looks great. Am I the only one that thinks a few retail stands plonked against the opposite wall is a bit of a miss? Like - would it have hurt, since this is a new \ first for the park for them to have had some built-in cabinetry for the hang-packs, rather than those mismatched and cheap stands?

In two google searches I found http://www.themeparksofengland.com/features/china/china06/china0604.htm and this brief mention, which seems to indicate the ride was a Togo creation? Although i'm pretty sure the Kings Dominion blurb relates to the same ride - i feel like their model was sent to Wonderland, as many of Wonderland's rides came out of other Paramount parks.

for fucks sake somebody hold a gun to the head of someone at VRTP so we can get a theme, a layout, and a promo so we can talk about SOMETHING else?

LOL. My old man bought a complex many years ago under strata. The vendors insisted a condition of sale was that the entire complex must be kept under strata title. One of the more interesting parts of Strata is that the owners must have a meeting each year. So every year, dad sits down in his office as chairperson, and has to record the minutes of the meeting, as secretary, of the details and financial statements, which he presents as treasurer, and conducts a vote on the issues, as a representative member \ owner of each lot. that's right. this stupidly ridiculous establishment requires my father to have an annual meeting with himself. *sigh* only another 17 years left until the contract condition runs out.

Its all about the pentiums...

CARPARK COASTER CONFIRMED!

Ok now you're just being argumentative for the sake of being so. Note I said the following words: You are entitled to your opinion, so i'm not about to tell you that you can't take the position that you are, but it seems the majority here don't agree with your purist views. Might I suggest TPR.com? it would depend on a number of factors - most of which i'm not about to research, but given Magnum was the first coaster in the world to top out at 62 metres, its pretty fair to say that it was the first one to cross the 60 metre barrier as well - although it would seem, again given the different status \ classifications, that there were likely coasters that HAD exceeded 50m. If you're going to blow your horn as the 'first' anything, it wouldn't really matter what the number was - first to cross 200 feet? sure. first to cross 60 metres? why not. I honestly would not have thought this sort of pettyness would come from you @Santa07 and i'll admit i'm disappointed that you're on the drum as hard as you are - its not what i expected. Except to reach the status (which would be 100% hypercoaster) you need to reach 200ft or 60.96 metres. At 60 metres, which is a blazing 98.42% hyper, you haven't failed. it just depends on how you look at it, see?

Are we really getting that hung up on a definition that differs by less than 1/60th? You're seriously splitting hairs. I'm going to throw another cat amongst the pigeons - Everyone is arguing over a definition of something coined by an American manufacturer (arrow dynamics). America is ALMOST the only country in the world that still measures in feet. The term Hyper was coined to suit Magnum XL-200 - a ride that measures 205ft or roughly 62.5m. So why didn't they just define Hyper as being 205ft? Because a nice rounded even number (200) sounds better - heck, they even used the number in the name (despite it actually being higher than that) - they could have called it Magnum XL-205, but it just doesn't have the same ring to it. Now - as you can see - most of the world is green - this is the Metric system. Here's a little comparison for why Metric is better: "Arbitrary retarded rollercoaster" - enough said. So here's the thing - if Arrow had been based pretty much ANYWHERE except the USA, their original definition of a hyper would have been rounded down to 60m, not 200ft, and this pointless argument wouldn't need to be had. Further, there are now coasters that appear on the 'hyper coaster' list that are under 200ft - including Phantom's Revenge which is 160ft (~49m) built by DH Morgan \ Arrow Dynamics, which are classed as a hyper (both RCDB and WIKI show this) - so if the organisation that originally coined the phrase 'hyper coaster' can put their name to a ride under 200ft and still call it a hyper, then I'd say we're ok with 60 metres. On a side note, i'm also totally ok with classing a hyper as designed for 'speed and airtime', although i would also insist on it having 'some height' to it - although given the muddied waters in the points above, i'm not about to assign an arbitrary number, and suggest each coaster be decided on it's merits individually, with all the factors considered objectively. In answer to the poll question at the start, and taking into account the world map above - in Australia AND in fact most of the world, yes, 60 metres, with speed and airtime would be a hyper coaster. /end debate.

Shhh! don't say that too loudly or they'll take one off!

A platform, complete with safety rails, and a ladder, i believe. Never in any danger, and quite safe where he was, if i recall correctly...

Can anyone say Diorama?

that's what she said.

My only thoughts - the pictures of DFW in the article show the access hatch adjacent to the target, but the article picture (above) shows no hatches. I assume this is a new design?

Here's the thing - when they are planning the ride, they'll naturally consider the theme, as they need to choose colours etc. Any new ride is probably going to need conversation \ negotiation with DC regarding what theme they wish to use, so that it can be added \ negotiated onto their license. During that negotiation, the likely time of opening \ construction would be known, so if DC had been planning any changes to the character, they would need to advise them at the time. That said, paint \ colour scheme wouldn't have had to be that far in advance, so even if the change was known in say June 2016, there was still plenty of time to change artwork and colour scheme before shipping.

^As you can see in the first picture, there are blocks of timber wedged in between, there are foam sheeting wrapped around the edges (as you can see bottom right of the container) and everything is then strapped in with rated strapping (see the 5100lbs white straps). Every contact point would be protected by one of those methods of protection, and everything would be tied down so nothing would move, and therefore, nothing would scratch.

if you removed both ToT and GD, it would be moronic to just leave the infrastructure of the former attractions sitting around the park rotting... #OhWait

I do like the idea - transfer tracks allowing two stations with one launch. I hear Pin's point about one more thing to go wrong (and he's probably right there) but the other thing giving me pause is that I seem to recall that there needs to be a certain amount of time between launches to allow things to cool down, doesn't there? So running twice the trains on the same track, whilst improving efficiency, probably isn't possible.

I've given up trying to reason with him. He won't be happy with anything else, no matter how much sense it makes...

Yeah, AlexC doesn't quite have the same ring to it.