Sky Voyager Discussion

[Slick]

Just thought i'd add a little snippet of what's to come, if you can't picture it yet I can almost guarantee it'll be like this:

This is a construction picture of Flyover Canada from Syncra Construction , an almost identical project where an IMAX theatre of a similar size was converted into a 60+ seater i-ride.

If you're curious as to how that happened, InPark Magazine interviewed Rick Rothschild (who worked on Soarin' & Flyover Canada) and had this to say:

Quote

Any challenge one faces, whether a blank piece of paper or a preexisting facility, comes with constraints that you begin to work with. In the case of FlyOver Canada, the constraints started with the facility. This was not just a preexisting facility, but a preexisting facility on a large harbor pier several floors above pilings that also support a full convention center that sits directly below the original theater space. So there were both spatial and structural challenges to integrating our dome and ride system.

The space dictated that we could only have a dome 19m (60ft) in diameter.  For comparison, each of the Soarin’ domes is around 84 ft in diameter, and the capacity of Soarin’ is 87 people. Due to the smaller dome, FlyOver‘s capacity is 61 people. There are nine vehicles (3 tiers, each with 3 vehicles) with both systems.

There are key differences between FlyOver and Soarin’  in how the dome is entered and the size of the vehicles. Soarin’ has single-level boarding, which is proprietary to that attraction. Everything at FlyOver is a bit smaller and our guests first take stairways to one of three levels outside the dome ride experience to board. The FlyOver ride support structure looks a lot like the old Hollywood Squares set, with each of the “squares” containing one of the ride vehicles.

The FlyOver building originally housed an IMAX theater. We removed the concrete floor and support structure of the theater, and drove several new columns below the convention center to support the ride.

The size of the building wasn’t the only constraint on the size of the dome. With current digital video projection technology, we would be unable to do a Soarin’ size ride without tiling multiple projectors. Practically speaking, our 60-ft dome is the maximum size for the state-of-the-art, single-projector  technology we have in place to operate efficiently.

I did some research about both auditorium sizes prior to their respective conversions and updates, and there's a marginal difference of approx. 50 seats or 3m of screen height between the two, with the IMAX theatre in Canada being the slightly larger one.

TLDR, i'd be surprised if they don't go for the 60+ seater version, especially when it's already been done.

[MickeyD]

@Roachie do you think the layout of the Theatre will remain roughly the same?ie Gondolas placed Main st side of the Auditorium facing the dome placed Gold Rush side?

I wonder if excavation and reinforcement would be required to dig down the current seating area to make enough room for the ride and machinery?

Will the gap between the seating angle and the first row to the screen at 90 degrees be enough to fit all that in? Or would it be easier/cheaper to turn the whole Theatre around and place the Dome screen facing Gold Rush and the ride itself on the current Screen side of the building?

[Slick]

15 minutes ago, MickeyD said:

@Roachie do you think the layout of the Theatre will remain roughly the same?ie Gondolas placed Main st side of the Auditorium facing the dome placed Gold Rush side?

I wonder if excavation and reinforcement would be required to dig down the current seating area to make enough room for the ride and machinery?

Will the gap between the seating angle and the first row to the screen at 90 degrees be enough to fit all that in? Or would it be easier/cheaper to turn the whole Theatre around and place the Dome screen facing Gold Rush and the ride itself on the current Screen side of the building?

All solid questions I’ve been wondering too. If you look at the picture above, Canada’s variant has a lot of space between the gondolas and the floor, so in the mindset of keeping the project cost as low as possible, you’d have to presume to avoid un-necessary digging and building changes that the orientation is staying the same. But I dunno, this is all guess work until something more concrete comes out. 

[MickeyD]

Thanks @RoachieLooking at the Picture above made me think of this as it looks as though Canada's Theatre has greater width for the vehicles in the existing seating area? 

It's been years since I set foot in the DW Theatre but I recall the screen being quite close and seating area steep? It'll be a tight fit and I am glad that DW themselves are not designing it!

[themagician]

I never actually went into the DW Cinema, so would people say it is roughly the same average size as any normal cinema?

[pushbutton]

19 minutes ago, themagician said:

I never actually went into the DW Cinema, so would people say it is roughly the same average size as any normal cinema?

Roughly yes, although normal cinemas do vary.

It's a full size cinema though. 

[Slick]

1 hour ago, MickeyD said:

Thanks @RoachieLooking at the Picture above made me think of this as it looks as though Canada's Theatre has greater width for the vehicles in the existing seating area? 

It's been years since I set foot in the DW Theatre but I recall the screen being quite close and seating area steep? It'll be a tight fit and I am glad that DW themselves are not designing it!

Yeah there's about a 50 seat difference between the theatres so Canada you're spot on that Canada's auditorium was slightly larger, however Dreamworld also have some breathing space (lobby, the now closed Boost Juice shop etc.) to fit queues etc.

Interesting thought - folks just queued for Imax sessions out in Main Street, although I don't see this ride eating up hundreds of people at a time.

1 hour ago, themagician said:

I never actually went into the DW Cinema, so would people say it is roughly the same average size as any normal cinema?

Not even close. Here's a great comparison:

(Being real super nerdy, Dreamworld's IMAX was the first in the country and had an old school GT projector.)

The Dreamworld Cinema was originally an IMAX Theatre. If you've never been to an IMAX Theatre showing something on its unique 15/70mm film, you're missing out. Still to this day nothing comes close.

Back in the day, traditional IMAX (by comparison to a traditional theatre) meant a giant picture in a deep auditorium, 15/70mm film (compared to 35mm film that also contained the audio waveform on it) & impressively powerful sound inside the theatre. However, because of the insane costs to running IMAX theatres, from the physical cost of huge platters of film, or the licensing fees to the super delicate consumables like lamps, the landscape of what makes IMAX has changed over the years, especially with digital IMAX (2x 4K dithered laser projects which is still arguably not as good as 15/70mm showings) superseding or taking over the majority of IMAX showings in cinemas globally.

If you're in Melbourne, go to the IMAX theatre there and see something on film. It's just incredible. Quoting John,

Quote

We never had one moment's trouble with it, it just operated perfectly. I used to probably go and, maybe once a week or maybe twice a week, just sit and watch it and that was a bit boring, you might think. But it wasn't. And I used to sit right at the back by myself. There was a seat right against the back wall, and I used to sit there like this and watch that film, and it was interesting to watch all the heads of the people in there, and there was one area when a steam train come along a track going along like that, and, all of a sudden, it turned and it was coming straight at you, and it’s coming straight at you like this and [everyone] ducks! I couldn’t help but laugh. It was good stuff.

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Roachie

[Gold Coast Amusement Force]

 

[YaBoySlam]

On 3/28/2018 at 10:35 AM, Roachie said:

If you're in Melbourne, go to the IMAX theatre there and see something on film. It's just incredible

Sorry to burst your bubble but IMAX Melbourne is entirely digital now, uses IMAX Laser projectors instead but I heard it is still pretty good, last time I heard that the 15/70 projectors were used were for Dunkirk 

[Slick]

1 minute ago, YaBoySlam said:

Sorry to burst your bubble but IMAX Melbourne is entirely digital now, uses IMAX Laser projectors instead but I heard it is still pretty good, last time I heard that the 15/70 projectors were used were for Dunkirk 

The sentence I wrote that comes before what you quoted says that - places like Melbourne have their GT projector alongside their new laser systems, and listings that use it clearly point out that it’s on film which is really nice. In fairness, the digital system there is still far superior than smaller Liemax cinemas found at places like Hoyts, which have complicated the IMAX difference in recent years. 

[New display name]

1 hour ago, themeparkaddict said:

Got that one wrong.

Sorry about that.

Won't happen again.

Skeet forgives you.  If you want to make news headlines why don't you talk about the approvals for I-Ride.  I normally would talk about them myself but that would be a conflict of interest, this time around.

 

[themagician]

The attraction is now listed under Family rides on the DW website 

[New display name]

On 29/05/2018 at 11:45 AM, Skeeta said:

 

 

@themeparkaddictI've been waiting for you to come back and correct me but Skeet can wait no longer.  😀

BLD20186075 is for a "post assessment" for a new Funhouse being built within an existing building.

BLD201805920 Is an "post assessment" for the removal of RMS.

 

 

[pushbutton]

RMS?

[Brad2912]

Rooms would be my guess...

as for the funhouse, my guess on that would be a retheme of Kevil Hill

[MickeyD]

Rocky Mouldy Slug ride?

[MickeyD]

DW seems to be running with the attraction name as "i-ride". A bit like calling JL "Sally Dark Ride" or Green Lantern "El Loco"... It means nothing to the Lamen.

I hope their marketing department is smarter than this because it is a huge investment for DW and a big change in direction for the Park.

Most People have no idea what to expect when they experience this kind of attraction, but when they do they are absolutely blown away by it. It's difficult to convey on any medium just how good it is except maybe word of mouth/experiencing for yourself.

[pushbutton]

How about "Blown Away" as a better name for the ride.

That's a freebie, in case anyone at Dreamworld is looking, (although I wouldn't say no to a free annual pass, and one for MickeyD too for the inspiration)!

Edited June 1, 2018 by pushbutton

[themagician]

On the attractions page they refer to it as I-Ride, but all the new pass marketing, billboards, posters, etc refer to it as a Flying Theatre, which is a much more interesting name to call it.

[New display name]

What's your marketing campaign slogan going to be? @pushbutton

Don’t say one day that day will never come.

Get blown by Dreamworld and come today.

 

Or maybe -

"You talking to me ?"

Get blown away by Dreamworld today.

 

 

Or maybe you're thinking DW will team up with Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

 Stuff the yearly pass push.  You deserve a lifetime pass.

 

 

(this one I couldn't think of a slogan, but it deserves a mention)

Edited June 1, 2018 by Skeeta

[webslave]

Today on the radio I heard them referring to it as Australia's only "flight simulator".  Where the fuck do they even find staff for their marketing department?

[themeparkaddict]

It's very clear that they are doing this whole thing wrong.

There should be a decent amount of construction going on before they even announce the thing. This creates initial speculation and hype. Then when they do, they really should have had some decent marketing behind it. The essentials are a theme-based ride name, and lots of advertising based on that theme. In my opinion, the ride shouldn't have even been announced yet. We all know why they did it, but they did it wrong. 

Take the Claw for example.  This one they did an awesome job of. The slogan "Tearing into dreamworld" which was pushed out to the TV and the media well before the name "The Claw" was even announced created immense hype. They weren't advertising it as a "Yet-to-be-named Intamin Gyro-Swing"

Clearly this is some sort of commission based ride with most of the (only) marketing being done by Brogent, because Dreamworld definitely couldn't afford to buy their own ride, right? 

This attraction will likely be pretty average. It will probably lack theming significantly, and will have a lot of Brogent marketing.

Their marketing department needs a serious look at. It seems most of the stuff that's coming from them is pretty bad. While they are at it, take a look at management too.

[pushbutton]

20 minutes ago, themeparkaddict said:

It's very clear that they are doing this whole thing wrong.

There should be a decent amount of construction going on before they even announce the thing. This creates initial speculation and hype. Then when they do, they really should have had some decent marketing behind it. The essentials are a theme-based ride name, and lots of advertising based on that theme. In my opinion, the ride shouldn't have even been announced yet. We all know why they did it, but they did it wrong. 

Take the Claw for example.  This one they did an awesome job of. The slogan "Tearing into dreamworld" which was pushed out to the TV and the media well before the name "The Claw" was even announced created immense hype. They weren't advertising it as a "Yet-to-be-named Intamin Gyro-Swing"

Clearly this is some sort of commission based ride with most of the (only) marketing being done by Brogent, because Dreamworld definitely couldn't afford to buy their own ride, right? 

This attraction will likely be pretty average. It will probably lack theming significantly, and will have a lot of Brogent marketing.

Their marketing department needs a serious look at. It seems most of the stuff that's coming from them is pretty bad. While they are at it, take a look at management too.

Agreed 100%.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

3 hours ago, themeparkaddict said:

It's very clear that they are doing this whole thing wrong.

There should be a decent amount of construction going on before they even announce the thing.

For fucks sake. Movie World did just that with Rivals and they were lambasted for it. 

Most overseas parks announce rides before ground is broken, with full 3D renderings and artists impressions and such.

Fuck me enthusiasts can never be happy.

[MickeyD]

Hey @pushbutton this one is for you