AVATAR land construction progress

DisneyparkFreak

DisneyparkFreak

Active Member
A foolish mortal said:
MickeyXtreme on twitter posted these 2 days ago :)

View attachment 130159 View attachment 130160 View attachment 130161 View attachment 130162 View attachment 130163 View attachment 130164 View attachment 130165 View attachment 130168 View attachment 130169 View attachment 130170

https://twitter.com/MickeyXtreme/status/697147779836207105
Click to expand...

Just to make sure, the larger part of the building is the "Flight of Passage" attraction right? The boat ride part just doesn't seem to be very big to me. Will it be as long as pirates? Isn't that building a lot bigger?
 
danlb_2000

danlb_2000

Premium Member
DisneyparkFreak said:
Just to make sure, the larger part of the building is the "Flight of Passage" attraction right? The boat ride part just doesn't seem to be very big to me. Will it be as long as pirates? Isn't that building a lot bigger?
Click to expand...

The boat ride section is circled in blue, the rest is Flight of Passage. All indications are that the boat ride will not be as long as Pirates.

Capture.JPG
 
D

doctornick

Well-Known Member
DisneyparkFreak said:
Just to make sure, the larger part of the building is the "Flight of Passage" attraction right? The boat ride part just doesn't seem to be very big to me. Will it be as long as pirates? Isn't that building a lot bigger?
Click to expand...

The current scuttlebutt is that Na'vi River Journey will have a ride time of around 5-6 minutes.
 
dstrawn9889

dstrawn9889

Well-Known Member
DisneyparkFreak said:
Just to make sure, the larger part of the building is the "Flight of Passage" attraction right? The boat ride part just doesn't seem to be very big to me. Will it be as long as pirates? Isn't that building a lot bigger?
Click to expand...
scale scale scale... the FoP building is more than 70 feet tall... take one of those fullsize ford f150's and measure the height of the building by the length of the truck

  1. 2016 Ford F-150/Length

    upload_2016-2-15_15-42-3.jpeg
    209.3 to 250.5″
 
ABQ

ABQ

Well-Known Member
Lilincoln said:
How large is the Flights of Passage building compared to other show buildings? Seems gigantic, especially in its height.
Click to expand...
In area, it's about 48,000 square feet. In comparison, the original Soarin' building, before the new extra threater construction, was about 25,000 square feet. This is purely footprint area I'm speaking of. Cubic size, which would require knowing the exact height, I dunno. I'm sure someone will though.
 
Incomudro

Incomudro

Well-Known Member
flyerjab said:
That bottom picture amazes me as it demonstrates scope and size. To the right of the white crane along the bottom of the photo are two gents with their yellow safety vests on. Just take a moment to appreciate how small they are relative to that vine structure, let alone the floating mountains the rise at least twice as high. Amazing.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but look at the perspective we are viewing this from.
Can you imagine what it'll look like from ground level looking up, and walking within?
 
B

bjm72385

Active Member
I try to keep up with the threads as best I can, so forgive me if this has been asked already. Why is the rock structure not connected to the main show building? And why such a large gap between them?
 
dstrawn9889

dstrawn9889

Well-Known Member
bjm72385 said:
I try to keep up with the threads as best I can, so forgive me if this has been asked already. Why is the rock structure not connected to the main show building? And why such a large gap between them?
Click to expand...
the steel building is made to hold JUST the skin of the building and the roof... all the weight from the rockwork substructure and the concrete itself would require a much more massive wall... easier to do the load calcs i guess on its own foundation
 
danlb_2000

danlb_2000

Premium Member
dstrawn9889 said:
the steel building is made to hold JUST the skin of the building and the roof... all the weight from the rockwork substructure and the concrete itself would require a much more massive wall... easier to do the load calcs i guess on its own foundation
Click to expand...

It may also have to do with the height of the building, which is around 5 stories tall. At that height it may have made more sense to keep the rockwork on a separate structure instead of tying it to the building.
 
B

Brian Swan

Well-Known Member
Could also be geometric perspective and sight lines. With the building set back a bit, the rock wall does not need to be as high to completely obscure it from view.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom