DaptoFunlandGuy

I mean that's worlds away since that happened. A lot can change (has changed?) in almost 6 years.

probably could have done with it's own topic - it's relevant enough. I know Village were originally contracted to develop the top golf business in other regional centres, but obviously a few things got in the way - good to see they haven't abandoned the idea altogether... (i'm making a big assumption its a village deal, but I can't see any reason why they wouldn't be behind it) Looks like the complex has a surf complex behind it too.

Yes, pretty sure they had a prize for the first person to guest it correctly and it was won by somebody.

010002.

I've gotten the impression that RobMac really has a bee in his bonnet about Dreamworld lately. Certainly entitled to his opinion but I can't say I agree with almost anything said lately.

Yeah i'm with brad on most of his response. I did find Dinosaur's Express pass re-entry was quite set back and there was still a good 20-30 minute wait from the metal detector - but given the extreme lines BEFORE the lockers, it still skipped a huge amount of waiting. I think it could be better, but they do need to ensure there's enough of a buffer after the metal detectors so that the coaster isn't waiting for people to clear security. Its a tough thing to balance. But yeah public holidays in Japan are always days to avoid the parks. Many folk don't work mon-fri and tend to work regularly on the 'weekend'. kids also go to school on saturday, so when there is a holiday, it's a day for literally EVERYBODY to go to parks.

27t42s98k? At a guess its 27m tall 42m high swing 98 kilometres per hour

My understanding is that the Adelaide regulator requires the restraints to have seatbelts, and the manufacturer won't support those additions, no? Youve been around here more than 20 years. While it's changed names over the years, it's called Parkz. Not Showz.

I'm being ridiculous to highlight a point. You yourself argued that beast was better because it was 3 metres taller. When confronted with an alternate reality where if King Claw was the same height as beast, and asked if that would make it good, you countered that Sky Flyer XXL was even taller. Implying that it still wouldn't make it good. I was simply inferring, by your own (irrational) logic - that since Beast was shorter than SkyFlyer XXL, that must mean Beast isn't good either. According to the technical data - the footprint is actually smaller, isn't it? You are correct. You never said it was bad. You bemoaned the amount of fanfare for something that isn't as high as the beast Argued they should've chosen Zamperla instead. Suggested that the priority was catering to fat people at the cost of providing a "premiere attraction that is unique" claimed all Australia's parks are embarassing - again arguing it's insane that 3 travelling rides are taller Chipped the park for an announcement made by the manufacturer Argued Dreamworld has no excuse to not build a bigger attraction Argued that even if King Claw was as tall as the beast (a bar you set) it still wouldn't be good because Booster Maxxx and Sky Flyer XXL are still taller Proceeded to shit on Claw on the basis that Doomsday was a lemon On the subject of manufacturer issues - remind me again why The Beast no longer appears in the Adelaide Show?

oh dude, too soon!

Giant Drop would like a word. No reason that you know of. For all you know Intamin offered them a sizeable discount on a new model because they couldn't provide support to the existing attraction and they got it dirt cheap. All the rides are popular at the shows. it's why many folk go to the shows these days - it's certainly not to see the prizewinner of the hoof and hook competition for the vast majority... but for most punters they probably don't even know it's name. Is it 'the beast' ? is it 'jungle action' ? "XXL" ? Or is it "that tall swing ride a bit like the claw we went on last year at Adelaide" ? Quit moving the bar. Beast was your definition, now you're gonna raise the height requirement? Does that mean Beast isn't good now? YOU think it's a missed opportunity, but we're all well aware that you have certain biases. To repeat the same success they've had with Claw for the past 20 years with a bigger model, more energy efficient, more capacity, less restrictive restraints, a floor that is less prone to errors, more airtime... all of these sound like wins. I posted pretty much all of the press-kit, other than the videos. The videos were: B-roll (non moving) of the current The Claw Interview with Greg Yong in front of The Claw, talking about the history of the ride and why it is being retired Liseberg show reel of the same model in operation.

Looks like the new restraint system will be more accommodating - looks like a waist only harness....

In the same vein as Dreamworld covering the park in solar panels, the Intamin press call also mentioned that King Claw will actually return power to the grid during operation - I'm assuming the ride uses some sort of regenerative braking system (similar to electric cars) - so the ride is going to be more energy efficient to operate and potentially offset its (electrical) operating costs to a great degree - this is a huge cost saving to the park as well...

Not sure how it happened but I missed the front page of the press release - (actually dated tomorrow.)

Claw is end of life. King Claw will be 50% faster and 50% higher than Claw - will be the tallest in the southern hemisphere 42 metres high, will reach 100km/h. -0.5g and +4.5g Construction starting in February, open by end of 2025. Full collection here

I mean it's not like it's the first time Gumbuya and Dreamworld have made a deal. If Dreamworld are building 'King Claw' maybe they've bought the original claw? (Maybe they can call it Project 1?)

I've seen tailspin do an E-stop mid-cycle, and while it does come low, any invader into the ride envelope would have to be very tall and very unlucky to be hit. Any half decent operator on that ride would be on the e-stop before they entered the ride area and would never be in any danger, so a low enough but unclimbable pool-type fence is sufficient. The fence in the Snoopy attraction looks just as high as the WOZ fence, it's just painted brown. I'm quite sure an electric fence isn't allowed as a primary exclusion device for the public. too many idiots touch them to "see if they're real". Would it have been nice if they'd come up with a custom designed lightpost to fit the theme? Yes. Would it have cost a stupid amount of money for a totally custom fixture? also yes. Is this required for a theme park? No. Is this required for safety and security at night? Yes. Ergo - ordinary streetlights are in, and my bet is people won't notice that they're unthemed anymore than they notice the chain wire fence, the giant joker face or superman flying over top of 'Oz' either. Chain wire poses enough of a deterrent that sane people will recognise the fence as 'you shouldn't be in here' and it takes a really determined knucklehead to think going over it is a good idea. You could install a 100% unclimbable wall at great additional expense but it's just not necessary. Vigilant operators can e-stop an attraction if someone is seen climbing the envelope, likely well before they get near a moving vehicle. And if they don't - well, Darwin was right!

You're thinking about this development and it's impact on you, and that's ok, we're all a bit selfish over what we want the parks to build. The reality is that a park full of headlining thrill coasters doesn't survive. The coasters are extremely expensive to build and maintain, and they alienate a large portion of the population that are either under the height requirement, don't like the thrill\upside down\G-forces associated or have medical conditions that prevent them from riding. While this doesn't in and of itself mean the coasters wouldn't have a bunch of people queuing to ride them - it's the rest of their family group that aren't interested in visiting. Even the big thrill parks Stateside with the most coasters in the world still have smaller attractions, kids rides, family rides, flat rides, small fun coasters with minimal thrills, and honestly - this is the gap Movie World is filling. Magic Mountain and Cedar Point both have well rounded rosters and not everything has to be a record breaker. Road Runner can't be ridden solo under 120cm. it's 110cm with an adult. Spongebob solo is 110cm, 90cm with an adult. I think Kansas Twister is going to fall somewhere in between those two and it lowers the bar for kids at Movie World, plus it offers a "less thrilling" rollercoaster experience for the adults who don't like being balls to the wall. Unfortunately too many people have lost their heads (literally) entering a ride envelope when they shouldn't. Our safety rules require fences that prevent opportunistic entry. Wild West Falls used to have a gorgeous themed timber post and rail fence but too many people were climbing the fence to retrieve hats and what-not and so the big pool fence got put up instead. I don't see that there's much difference between these fences and the ones at Jet Rescue or Storm... if anything this mesh is a tight diamond rather than the standard 'cyclone' mesh at Sea World, which IMO looks nicer (though it probably makes it harder for the die-hard photographers to fit their lens through the gaps). We're also seeing the view from the back of the land, and i'm sure there is more attention paid to the optics from the 'front approach'.

This is just embarrassing. You close the park for half the year, and you can't even reopen with everything open? Temple of Huey and Little Rippers are both down for the same dates, so its the entire slide tower. If it's maintenance, there's no excuse - which is why I said it can't just be maintenance - because its unbelieveable that they could be in this position without something else playing a factor. I understand why fully six has slides down. and triple vortex has ongoing issues. we all know this. But with temple and rippers down, they've opened for the season with 8 slides offline. *facepalm*

Because you don't have a white card? no. Because clause 25.0-25.4 of the standard HIA contract you signed with the builder prevents you from accessing the site without providing 24 hours' written notice to the builder and complying with the builder's WH&S requirements means you can't just decide to 'look things over' without clearing it with the site manager \ builder's representative first? yes. And yes, I know many home buyers love to go and walk through and take photos of their new home under construction, and most of the time, it's no skin of the builder's nose to look the other way, as long as they're passive observers and not obstructing the works or causing issues while on site - but the clause is there, and enforceable, and pernickety clients can be breached if they're making the builder's task difficult, not to mention people allowing their kids to go running around the unfinished house in thongs or barefoot is just asking for trouble and is precisely why owners aren't allowed to just waltz onto the site whenever they feel like it. (To be clear, for the avoidance of doubt, i'm referring to residential construction, which of course has several differences to commercial works, but the text quoted at the top of this reply specifically asked about building a home, and that is what I have responded to) the site says that people who need a white card 'include'. it does not limit the list to only those dot points. it does not exclude all others. the fact that the site gives a few examples doesn't mean that others don't need it, it only outlines those who specifically do. A builder could require that all persons on site hold one. while not legislatively required, the builder can set their own WH&S requirements if they've conducted a risk assessment and reasonably concluded a risk mitigation is required. I've seen sites that don't allow Orange hi-vis and specifically requires everyone to wear yellow hi-vis. Turned out many vehicles occupying the site were a similar colour and the orange hi-vis didn't stand out. There's a lot of complexity involved and some things are unique to sites - which is why i was asking what point was being made - but I guess we'll all just have to accept on blind faith the suggestion new display name is implying because he knows something we don't...

I really applaud your self awareness. I didn't want to name names but your honesty is admirable.

I didn't claim she wasn't in the building. it's clear several shots are within, but they all appear to have been *just* inside the doors \ walls. the edge of the building could be defined, really, as being in a room that has an external wall, or on the outside of the same room adjacent to the wall. Would you get to an actual point? have they breached something in your mind? did they do something wrong? or are you making a lot of assumptions and mudslinging because you've got nothing better to do when you're not staring at yourself in a mirror?

I see plenty of jokes daily.