Richard

Air cost the better part of AUD$30 million. The prices of the Six Flags coasters were never released, but you coundn't expect anything under USD$15 million, which is a bit out of our budget. I wouldn't say that the flying coaster concept sucks, but I definitely do think that they're yet to prove themselves, both financially and in terms of ride quality. A definite problem with the design so far is that the trains are far too heavy, severly limiting what manouvers can be made and how long and high the rides can be, as well as adding a lot to the construction costs.

Photo Gallery: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/gallery.php?gid=130 This gallery contains 35 photographs showing Scooby-Doo Spooky Coaster under construction, taken from February 2002 until the ride opened four months later. It gives an interesting look at one of Australia's most unique attractions, including many shots showing how exactly the elevator lift works on the ride.

No, all that the Intamin track on the Cyclone shirt proves is that Dreamworld stole the shirt design from Disney's California Adventure. :cool:

There are a few things you have to do with a theme park to survive. Firstly is offer enough entertainment to justify a day trip for locals. If you have enough entertainment for an entire day (let's say a Dreamworld sized park), then realistically your catchment zone for day-trippers is a 1-2 hour radius around the park. The problem with Wonderland that it didn't provide enough to get Sydneysiders in. If you want to attract interstate and international, it must be near other things that justify the trip. People don't make a trip to what is to them the middle of no where while they're on holidays. There are a few ways around this. You can build near other things (our Gold Coast parks have the beach which attracts people), or you can build your own destination (see Walt Disney World, truly in the middle of nowhere yet attracts somewhere around 20 million people each year). In Wonderland's position this would have meant using the empty land to build a quality resort, maybe a separate-entry water park, a bigger wildlife park and even a second theme park. Wonderland had neither the location, nor did it create a destination. You also need to provide fresh attractions. Locals won't come if there's nothing new. Interstate visitors won't come back if you don't provide something new.

Façades are very common in theme parks. It's expensive and time-consuming to build with real bricks or stone or concrete, and there's every chance it will be removed in the future for retheming or to make way for other things. Every single building in the main street at Warner Bros. Movie World is a façade.

kennykoala, learn to use proper punctuation or don't bother posting here. It's in the Community Guidelines.

Discuss Wonderland's inspection procedures in the appropriate forum please.

Let's see how this goes. Let me know if there's still some confusion.

Thanks for reminding me. The name change was made about six months ago, but I've held off from updating it here until their website reflected the name change.

Article: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/article.php?aid=34 Photo Gallery: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/gallery.php?gid=129

Talk about Luna Park or travelling rides in the appropriate forum.

This has done its thing. You can ruin other threads whining about me elsewhere if that's what you want to do.

See now this confuses me. You start a discussion, in which you want to find out whether a photograph is fake or not. People give logical reasons for why they believe their opinion on the matter is correct. What's missing for me is the step between that, and your most recent post Paul. I don't see how anything said thus far could warrant such a post. To everyone, if I've changed over the course of this site and Total Thrills, then I apologise. It's just that this didn't used to be an after-school babysitting service.

Are you kidding? You genuinely still think it's a fake?

OK. These graphical artists they hired did a pretty good job. They got the shape and intricate pattern of the dome perfectly correct, even putting the Channel 7 logo in the right spot. They got the shadows perfect, not to mention replicating the lighting of that photograph superbly. They got the tower joins in precisely the right spots. You can see they even got the track-tower joins correct. The station and queue house are identical to how they appeared. They even got the roof colour and precise winding shape of the outdoor queue entry section. They put in the back-of-house and exit paths, complete with the retaining walls exactly as they appeared once built. The trees and plants are superb, with one seen surrounded by mulch and bark. There's a tree that was perfectly layed over the top of this edited ride, just to give that added touch of realism. They didn't do this in one photograph, but several, each taken from a different angle. These are some pretty talented graphical designers, certainly better than those that Q1 at the Gold Coast hired. I don't even need to add that Q1 is a $500 million investment and Space Probe was what? Under $10 million? Unfortunately though, putting in the brakes completely slipped their minds. Stop looking at the picture so damn hard and actually think. If you stop trying to dissect these photographs and actually think logically, then 99% of your questions and doubts are answered. I've love to see more photographs from this set, because apparently some people still aren't convinced. Other angles of photographs from the same shoot, or high res originals (crop it so that it's juse Space Probe so you can upload them here) would be great in trying to get people thinking logically about this.

So, wonderbus, you're telling us that Wonderland had not one, but two of these photographs edited to include the ride? Wonderbuzz posted two images taken from different angles. If logic and actually thinking about this didn't close the case, then I'd think those images above would. That picture you posted wonderbus is clearly a fake. The textures are clearly CG and the lighting doesn't match that of the people and surrounding buildings. That's what concept art is. To get this Space Probe shot to look as real as it does, you'd have George Lucas working for you.

The photograph in question was taken from above the top of Space Probe, all other photos are from below. That's why it looks more round. The joins would have been perfectly white when the ride was new, i.e. in the original photograph. Over time dirt and mould would build up and cause them to become visible. Makes sense? I'd just like to know, if you think it is edited, why? Why would there be ridiculously accurate concept art like this? What reason would Wonderland have for getting such pictures commissioned?

What cracks in the dome? The brakes are clearly visible if you zoom in on the photo with any image editing software. There is a conclusion. It's real.

The level of details of far beyond that of any artist's impression. The shadow is very accurate. For one thing with concept art you wouldn't bother with shadows at all. If it were edited, it would be done before the ride was in place. Why then is the design of the dome completely accurate? Why does the tower look identical (not similar or close enough, identical) to what it did when installed? Why is the Design of the queue house and station building exactly as it was when built, right down to the placement of plants. Seriously, this is concept art. Concept art is used to create an estimate of the design for overall planning and aesthetic evaluation purposes. You have an unedited photograph. I can't believe there's even any debate over the issue.

It's real. Look at the shadows. Case closed.

Ultimate Rollercoaster has some old media shots, one of which shows the tower being constructed.

The fixed pulley on the axle with the flywheel is attached (via a belt-drive system) to an electric motor. A cable runs over this pulley and the train attaches to this cable (on a launch sled, similar to those on Intamin hydraulic-launched coasters).

It doesn't get any easier than the flywheel launch mechanism, perhaps most famously seen on the Schwarzkopf shuttle loops. A flywheel is a large, generally solid wheel. In the case of the Schwarzkopf coasters it weighs over 5 tonnes. Their purpose is to smooth out vibrations and prevent slight variations in speed that inevitably occur, allowing for a smoother launch and reduces the likelyhood of things like metal fatigue etc. by making it in general, a smoother process. Picture an axle. At one end you have a fixed pulley (2m in diameter). At the other you have a belt that connects the axle to a motor. Close to the belt end is the flywheel. There are also a few clutches and speed reducers along the way to make sure everything goes right and to handle the recoil that will be felt once the train has left the launch (once the train has launched a clutch midway along the axle disconnects to stop the spinning of the pulley). This flywheel machinery is situated very near the loop end of the launch track. A cable system is threaded through this pulley, through what is more or less a trough built into the middle of the track, around another "floating" pulley at the back end of the station and under the track to meet back at the flywheel pulley.

For things like that use the Contact Us link at the bottom of every page and just let me know the changes.

I last rode Lethal Weapon in about October I believe. I was truly shocked and amazed. The coaster was smooth. There's still the tracking problems that give it a few awkward jolts, but at no stage was there any headbanging. Let's hope that they can do something about getting two trains running on it more regularly. They're pretty good with having both going during the holidays, but "off peak" isn't an excuse when queues still hover around the hour mark.