12 hours ago, XxMrYoshixX said:

GL wouldnt itself fit the bill of a prototype, however its cars would.

Prototype cars would still fit the bill of a prototype attraction, which negates your previous statement

On 24/11/2015 3:14:52, XxMrYoshixX said:

As cool as that may be, I'd doubt VRTP would invest in a prototype attraction.

 

8 hours ago, djrappa said:

Green lantern definitely us up there as a unique ride done very well. 

However I definitely feel the Magic Mountain version gives a far superior ride experience.

I've done SFMM's Green Lantern once, and it was enough! I don't think I'll ever ride it again. The forces are extreme, and it's one hell of a unique ride, but I just don't like the experience.

It did give me the chance to see first hand why our parks loose item policies aren't that strict, and clearly are for safety - on the final drop before plunging into the station - the folks on the other side of the carriage to us lost both of their phones, which were slammed with considerable force into the concrete below, shattering into many pieces. (And those pieces weren't the only ones down there...)

I rode GL once at MW and that was enough for me.  The audio wasn't working, but I'm told it doesn't add much.  I'm normally all on-board for a coaster, but it just did nothing for me.  If anything it was just uncomfortable to ride; no sensation of speed, just slow inversions to slam you around a bunch.

I think of our group of ten only one was interested in riding it again.  It could go some way to explaining why there was basically no line.

Weird to hear you say it slammed you around as I generally think GL at Movie World has quite smoothe transitions. 

 

And yes it was the huge forces and 'holy shit' factor that did it for me on the Magic Mountain version. I thought the coaster would involve heaps of spinning which I wouldn't like but it's surprisingly nothing like that. 

I really like GL and think the forces and angles are good. And I'm glad that it is slow, because otherwise the turns and inversions wouldn't be as intense. i haven't been on other versions of this ride anywhere else, so I can't compare. And I wouldn't say it's world class, but i see it as a must when you visit MW.

1 hour ago, djrappa said:

Weird to hear you say it slammed you around as I generally think GL at Movie World has quite smoothe transitions. 

Probably an inelegant choice of wording.  It wasn't rough in transitions so much as there was little to no attempt to keep you in your seat.  I guess a close analogy would be that experience-wise it was probably no different to riding a Ranger.

I really like GL. Much better than Arkham which now destroys my thighs instead of my head.

I'm definitely in the boat of being a fan of Green Lantern. Firstly, not every coaster is going to be a high-speed, top-ten thrill machine because I just don't believe you can build a well rounded park by essentially just doing the same thing over and over again. You only need to look at the comments inside this very forum when Dreamworld started building Buzzsaw or when Hersheypark broke ground on Skyrush to see the proof. Sure, it's a different story if you have five local competitors and money to burn, but most parks don't have either and so building a well-rounded park with some genuinely fun different attractions is far more important in terms of actually generating a return.

With that in mind, Green Lantern ticks that box easily. It has unique selling points (beyond vertical drop and manoeuvres that are uncommon on large steel coasters) and it's pacing for a thrill ride defines it as an experience the park didn't have previously. I'd take that any day over a park that had double the amount of same-same coasters.

Could this development application have anything to do with the roller coaster?

http://pdonline.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/masterview/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=224930#

If it is, the document isn't really describing anything

31 minutes ago, ThemeTendo said:

Could this development application have anything to do with the roller coaster?

http://pdonline.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/masterview/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=224930#

Given it talks about changes to car parking, it's unlikely. Any Works relating to the roller coaster development would generally be included in the DA, not a seperate OPW. There is also no related applications attached or linked to it, a further indicator that it is likely unrelated 

8 hours ago, ThemeTendo said:

Could this development application have anything to do with the roller coaster?

http://pdonline.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/masterview/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=224930#

Don't know about anyone else but that link is taking me to a DA for somebodies place who is adding a carport and garage extension so I am going to say based on what I am seeing good chance it isn't related to the coaster.

Edited November 26, 201510 yr by pin142

11 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

Given it talks about changes to car parking, it's unlikely. Any Works relating to the roller coaster development would generally be included in the DA, not a seperate OPW. There is also no related applications attached or linked to it, a further indicator that it is likely unrelated 

I would say that it is not part of the new attraction at this stage, but not for your reasons. 

The approval for the roller coaster was a BA not a DA but a DA would be included under the BA.

 The BA that you are talking about is the final process before you can build something.   An OPW is always done separately to a BA.   OPW are completed by the council where the DA is completed by a private certifier.   Within the council PD online system it would not show that it is for the same job.  The same thing goes for a MCU. 

If an OPW was required for this job then under normal practice it would have to be completed before a BA was issued because if one was required then the private certifier would require a copy of it before they could sign off on the job. 

An OPW covers things like tree removal and changing levels of a site which most of the time is covered under a building approval unless they are moving a crap load of soil.   For example if you built a house and had to remove some trees to do it you would not have lodge a OPW because under the code you can most of the time remove trees as of right within a distance of the new dwelling.  You would have to get an OPW if the dwelling was existing and you wanted to remove trees at a later date. 

Another example would be my old faithful The Coomera Town Centre.   The centre approval had a clause in it that work could not begin work before someone paid for the new road network, to sum it up. 

The Coomera Centre wanted to start some work before this was finalised.   They lodged an OPW so they could start to remove the trees even thou the BA said they could not start.  The Coomera Town Centre lodged the OPW to at least get the block cleared, probably thinking working with the Queensland government would take forever and they wanted to get a head start.  We had a change of government and it ended up getting sorted quickly in the end.

 

I know you already understand what I am saying but I just went into a little detail so others who aren’t as clued up as you to the process might understand my ramblings. 

 

Thats the right link for the application.

http://pdonline.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/masterview/Modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=225287

Application to change something in relation to the carpark area. Maybe a change to the shape of the existing carpark and access road with an extension into the land next to green lantern? I know it's a bit of a lake, but it could have large drainage works performed to continue the creek down the side like it currently does, while utilising land for building on.

Edit: Reading into the receipt of payment, it looks like its pretty large scale earth works. Remember it's just an application for operational works, not building. The application says the cost of the project exceeds $80,000. Puts it in a pretty large scale as far as earth works go.

As far as building goes. You can submit a development application and have approval before any capital works are approved or started.

Edited November 28, 201510 yr by Levithian

A couple of minor things I noticed today (sorry, but no photos).

New signage is up on the Dirty Harry bar and grill extension.

The bar that was at the front of the park (I believe it was called "Stars Bar" or something similar) is now a clearance shop. If you spent $50 in the other retail outlets around the park, you can get 50% off everything in the clearance shop.

This is pure speculation, but I'm assuming this is only going to be temporary. I hope so as it cheapens the feel of the park a bit.

I'm wondering if maybe, the plan is to demolish that building, and it will perhaps form part of the land for this new "World's best attraction" next year.

Obviously, any decent attraction would need more land than that, but there is a reasonable size area of grass behind that building, and as we know, there is a planning application in for changes to the carpark layout.

Potentially, the new attraction could use all the area highlighted in red, or even more if more of the carpark was taken (with staff parking relocated, and potentially some of the grassed area at the front of the carpark used to replace the lost parking spaces.

Edited November 29, 201510 yr by pushbutton

Push, the area you've mapped out would remove the coach parking, so unless they were going go rejigg the entire car park to move that it would be seem unlikely. 

plus it cuts awfully close to the staff entrance bridge, which would mean large delivery vehicles and machinery would struggle to access it. 

I already mentioned wiping out Stars Cafe and using the land in front of the gate, but I didn't think of going out into the carpark. It would massively affect the flow of traffic, that is one way all the way down to the bottom... but a 'tunnel' under the ride such as GhostRider at Knotts would be cool... so long as the 'first portion' of the ride was well done (like SE) i'd be happy to see a 'carpark coaster' fill out the rest of the layout.

Getting rid of that bus station would mean cutting off around 25% of the park's visitors, including me since I've only just got my L's

 

Im pretty sure the space behind the show stage beween Scooby Doo and Wild West is where the new roller coaster will be built

Edited November 30, 201510 yr by coasterdude44

The clearance shop will probably be temporary. I remember at one stage last year it was a candy store for a short period then it disappeared. Not sure what the building is anymore really. Other than the Terror Lounge it has no real purpose anymore.

I think some of that section of grass land in front of the staff car park that is fenced off is cleared for helicopter landing zone as the car parks aren't always vacant to land. If that is the case, might not be able to build tall structures within a certain distance of the landing area. So might cause problems.

Edited November 30, 201510 yr by Levithian

I'm definitely excited for this new coaster. But just saying here, does anyone else think Australia needs a good simulator ride. Ever since Batman Adventure closed in 2011 I feel like it's a type of ride that has been missing for a while now

35 minutes ago, coasterdude44 said:

I'm definitely excited for this new coaster. But just saying here, does anyone else think Australia needs a good simulator ride. Ever since Batman Adventure closed in 2011 I feel like it's a type of ride that has been missing for a while now

If done well, that could be awesome!

I always thought that they should do a well themed simulator experience to the Lego Movie... (The Lego Ride)

That sounds good. It would be really cool if they made a Mad Max simulator which would be popular by the new movie, but they would have to tone it down a bit. I guess you just can't have MA15 violence in your family theme park 

My dream Mad Max ride would be Test Track system, That would be a perfect ride!

Yeah... But then the car wouldn't be able to be knocked around, and you would have to limit all the crazy action since it's all happening in real time with scenery and AAs instead of being on film