AVATAR land - the specifics

Fox&Hound

Fox&Hound

Well-Known Member
Next Big Thing said:
Hopefully we see another project for DAK not too far down the road, whether it be an expansion and a new continent (Australia?... or they could really stick it to Sea World and do Antarctica right...) or re-doing the Chester/Hester area into something that fits the quality of the rest of the park.

Epcot definitely needs help after DHS, but DAK is still gonna need some love in the meantime if they really plan on keeping this park open at night.
Click to expand...

If you ask me, Chester and Hester's is now prime real estate being located right in front of the Rivers of Light show. I hope and pray they tear it down to build something worthwhile (maybe themed to The Good Dinosaur) and give us a restaurant with beautiful view of the lake. I picture something like the volcanoe themed Rainforest Cafe in Downtown.
 
djkidkaz

djkidkaz

Well-Known Member
I would guess Africa will be the next area to get an attraction since it's the only land in the park that won't have two rides.

Africa:,Safari
Dinoland: primeval whirl / dinosaur
Asia: Everest / Kali
Avatar: Pandora soarin / boat ride
 
180º

180º

Well-Known Member
veritas55 said:
Good point about the Mine Train - that's the only real misstep in terms of capacity of new "big" rides I can think of, but, in truth, that was a targeted Fantasyland ride, supposedly for a more limited, kid audience, as opposed to a true E-ticket (and it still can hit 1,500 pph!). The prototype newer E-ticket ride is Radiator Springs Racers, Everest, etc. -- i.e., all people eaters by design.

In terms of a ride's capacity, the ONLY variables that matter are (1) dispatch time and (2) capacity of the vehicle. Consider a great people eater like Pirates. Let's say it dispatches 2 boats at once per 30 seconds carrying an average 30 total people (15 per boat), just to keep the math simple. That means it dispatches 60 people per minute, with an hourly capacity of 3,600 pph (it actually hits closer to 3,000 pph in the real world, I think.) It is entirely irrelevant whether Pirates is a 1/2 mile long, 15-minute circuit with 60 boats that cycle through it OR whether it is an 100-foot long circle with just 6 boats that go in a small circle (assuming they take about 1 minute to navigate it, give or take.) So long as the dispatch interval is every 30 seconds, the capacity of the 1/2 mile circuit ride is identical to that of the 100-foot circuit. Track length and ride time have zero effect on capacity.*

Peter Pan, in contrast, has miserable capacity because its ride vehicle fits so few people -- so, no matter how quick the dispatch interval is of each vehicle (and it's pretty quick), it is necessarily limited by only holding 2 passengers, on average, per dispatch. Peter Pan would need to dispatch 15 vehicles per 30 seconds (1 every two seconds) to match Pirates' hypothetical capacity, which is obviously impossible. Hence the importance of vehicle size. That's why It's A Small World, Pirates, and Indy are such people eaters: (1) relatively quick dispatches coupled with (2) decent sized vehicles. (The interesting exceptions are Haunted House and Spaceship Earth-type rides, with continuous conveyor belt systems but small vehicles -- those are massive people eaters because of virtually no dispatch interval.)

Okay, that should have comfortably put everyone to sleep.

* (There are limited circumstances in which track length could affect dispatch interval, typically with rollercoasters that either don't have block brakes or the blocks brakes are separated by less than the maximum dispatch interval. But that is typically a non-issue with Disney coasters. For instance, it is possible to have a pretty long coaster with a relatively quick lift hill and no block brakes on the circuit, such that the train in the station has to wait until the other train has cleared the circuit (or most of the circuit, if you are using the lift hill chain as a de facto block brake), before you can dispatch the loaded train from the station. But, in those instances, that is an example of where a more lengthy track actually decreases capacity, versus the opposite. Conversely, there may be situations in which the track length is so short that it is not pragmatic to put in a block brakes, and therefore a loaded train might have to wait for dispatch until the other train clears the circuit. So, in this ways, it is possible for track length to have some indirect relationship to dispatch intervals. However, Disney has so many block brakes on its coasters like Space Mountain and Matterhorn, and even Big Thunder, that there is virtually no delay in dispatch driven by the need to clear blocks -- the rate-limiting factor is pretty much solely how quick they can load guests into the vehicle.)
Click to expand...
Unless you're simply talking about throughput, as Master Yoda was, there's a lot more to capacity than just speed. Speed of getting guests through an attraction is important to the operation of the attraction itself, but the amount of guests an attraction can contain is worth everything to the rest of the park. Like I said earlier, it's not exactly about how long the ride is, it's about how many guests an ride can hold at any given time. A longer track may hold more ride vehicles, but if you have a really short ride operating as many vehicles simultaneously as, say, POTC, it can hold just as many people at any given time and therefore be just as useful. This is very important because anyone within the confines of an attraction is anyone who could potentially be clogging up pathways or other attractions. That is why it is extremely helpful for the rest of the park when a ride like POTC or Universe of Energy can trap so many guests inside their walls at the same time.

Using your example, if Pirates loaded the same number of guests per hour and had 60 boats cycling, it could hold up to 1,080 guests at any given time. If it had 6 boats cycling, 108. Now imagine multiplying this example by twenty for a hypothetical well-rounded park. Let's say there are 40,000 guests in the park. In a park of twenty of the higher volume examples, there are 21,600 guests within the attractions at any given time, with the remaining 18,400 in the pathways or queues. In a park of twenty of the lower volume examples, there are 2,160 guests within the attractions at any given time with the remaining 37,840 in the pathways or queues.

Capacity is not just time, it's volume. You are absolutely right that volume is inconsequential to the rate at which an attraction loads. But volume is relevant to the topic of capacity, especially the capacity of the park as a whole.
 
Master Yoda

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
Cesar R M said:
you know, if they could fill the "ships" fully instead of just separating guests (seen this many times, I mean.. leaving single riders in their own ship?).. imho.. the capacity of Peter Pan would improve dramatically.

also, how hard would be if they squeezed an extra row?
Click to expand...
It would depend on a couple of factors.

1. Can the track support the additional weight. If it can't, game over.
2. Sight lines. If the site lines from the additional row are going to be crap, again, game over.
 
Last edited:
V

veritas55

Member
180º said:
Unless you're simply talking about throughput, as Master Yoda was, there's a lot more to capacity than just speed. Speed of getting guests through an attraction is important to the operation of the attraction itself, but the amount of guests an attraction can contain is worth everything to the rest of the park. Like I said earlier, it's not exactly about how long the ride is, it's about how many guests an ride can hold at any given time. A longer track may hold more ride vehicles, but if you have a really short ride operating as many vehicles simultaneously as, say, POTC, it can hold just as many people at any given time and therefore be just as useful. This is very important because anyone within the confines of an attraction is anyone who could potentially be clogging up pathways or other attractions. That is why it is extremely helpful for the rest of the park when a ride like POTC or Universe of Energy can trap so many guests inside their walls at the same time.

Using your example, if Pirates loaded the same number of guests per hour and had 60 boats cycling, it could hold up to 1,080 guests at any given time. If it had 6 boats cycling, 108. Now imagine multiplying this example by twenty for a hypothetical well-rounded park. Let's say there are 40,000 guests in the park. In a park of twenty of the higher volume examples, there are 21,600 guests within the attractions at any given time, with the remaining 18,400 in the pathways or queues. In a park of twenty of the lower volume examples, there are 2,160 guests within the attractions at any given time with the remaining 37,840 in the pathways or queues.

Capacity is not just time, it's volume. You are absolutely right that volume is inconsequential to the rate at which an attraction loads. But volume is relevant to the topic of capacity, especially the capacity of the park as a whole.
Click to expand...

I get your points, but I have never heard of a ride manufacturer (or a park) think of a ride's capacity in any other way than the way I described it: how many people per hour can the ride load/unload. After all, parks don't want guests to be trapped in lines (or in the attractions) for lengthy periods of time because that keeps them from other more profitable activities for the park, namely buying concessions and merchandise.

With respect to your hypothetical above, in the real world, the difference that long versus short rides have in terms of keeping guests off of the pathways because they are on a ride is negligible. The numbers I used above about the Pirate ride (which you used) were intended to be ludicrous to make the point that a 100 foot ride length could have the same theoretical capacity as a 1/4 mile track length. That's obviously not even close to a real world-comparison: if you compared the number of people on the longer Pirates of Caribbean ride at any given moment compared to the number of people on a shorter log flume ride at Six Flags (which is a more apples-to-apples comparison), you wouldn't find anything near a 10:1 ratio of guests on the ride on Pirates vs. a log flume.
 
B

Brian Swan

Well-Known Member
Eoghann said:
I get that not everybody does that, and on our last 10 day trip we didn't either. But in this context it's about how Disney views it, not how we view it.

My thought is that Disney doesn't feel the need to pack the "secondary" parks with rides because they don't see them as stand alone parks. Yes they want to spread the people around, but the draw remains the Magic Kingdom.
Click to expand...
I would be perfectly happy if 90% of the people in WDW all went to the MK - that would make the other parks, which I generally enjoy more, much less crowded... :)
 
B

Brian Swan

Well-Known Member
Siren said:
Disney should really adjust the secondary parks with secondary admission fees. It is not fair to charge MK prices at the other parks, with only a fraction of the rides.

With FP+, Disney needs to add more rides and attractions to eliminate the tiering imposed at DHS and Epcot. I was surprised that AK didn't require tiering but the park really needed some more rides, anyway.

We used to buy park hoppers all the time as part of the package and never use them. When I discovered that you could add park hoppers anytime during the trip, I haven't purchased them since. My trips to Disney are always short -- I just want one full day in each park and no park hoppers.

ETA: I think Disney should add a modern table service restaurant that spins around Avatarland like that one at The Land or at least offer up some awesome views like Sanaa. Or even a themed interactive restaurant like Dinosaur at DTD.
Click to expand...
If, in fact a TS is going to be just outside of Pandora, I could see it being themed as an "embarkation lounge"; a place where people gather awaiting "the trip" to Pandora, and where they gather after having been there. The theming could be "Pandora chic" (whatever that might mean), with hints of Na'vi culture, perhaps posters advertising the various "tours" available, and screens showing scenes from Pandora. The BoG service model could be used to get more people through during the crowded lunch hours, but give a more "upscale" dining experience for those who stay late.
 
HauntedMansionFLA

HauntedMansionFLA

Well-Known Member
Brian Swan said:
I would be perfectly happy if 90% of the people in WDW all went to the MK - that would make the other parks, which I generally enjoy more, much less crowded... :)
Click to expand...
DAK is the best park of the bunch but that will change when the Star Wars Land come along. DAK and DHS will give MK a run for its money. Poor EPCOT, so much pòtential there - no vision.
 
B

Brian Swan

Well-Known Member
Coaster Lover said:
And it's not like they don't have easy material to work with! Who wouldn't love a Snuggly Duckling restaurant with all the waiters dressed as ruffians and thugs? Who wouldn't want to dine at Tiana's Place with the fun pop and flair of the 20's? Even Gusteau's seems like it could be a fun and amazing restaurant... the Disney universe is full of fun and interesting chefs/restaurants/food...
Click to expand...
I would love to see a Tiana's Place, but without REALLY stretching the theming/backstory, the only place it could really "fit" would be at POFQ - and the likelihood of an upscale TS showing up at a moderate is slim to none. Although I would never want to see it "branded" as such, Monsieur Paul (in my opinion, one of the most underrated restaurants in WDW) is really a "Gusteau's experience".
 
180º

180º

Well-Known Member
veritas55 said:
I get your points, but I have never heard of a ride manufacturer (or a park) think of a ride's capacity in any other way than the way I described it: how many people per hour can the ride load/unload.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, Disneyland does. It factors into the capacity of the park, which dictates when they must stop selling tickets on extremely busy days. We don't often talk about volume of guests a ride can contain, but I'm sure you've heard that closing or opening an attraction does make a difference to the capacity of the park as a whole, and that in particular has everything to with volume and secondly to do with throughput.

veritas55 said:
After all, parks don't want guests to be trapped in lines (or in the attractions) for lengthy periods of time because that keeps them from other more profitable activities for the park, namely buying concessions and merchandise.
Click to expand...
It's not about time, it's about space. Like I said, great volume doesn't depend on long attraction duration, just how many guests an attraction can hold at once. A long ride track can fit lots of vehicles, but so can four short ride tracks side by side.

veritas55 said:
With respect to your hypothetical above, in the real world, the difference that long versus short rides have in terms of keeping guests off of the pathways because they are on a ride is negligible. The numbers I used above about the Pirate ride (which you used) were intended to be ludicrous to make the point that a 100 foot ride length could have the same theoretical capacity as a 1/4 mile track length. That's obviously not even close to a real world-comparison: if you compared the number of people on the longer Pirates of Caribbean ride at any given moment compared to the number of people on a shorter log flume ride at Six Flags (which is a more apples-to-apples comparison), you wouldn't find anything near a 10:1 ratio of guests on the ride on Pirates vs. a log flume.
Click to expand...
I'm aware that it was an exaggeration used to amplify a point. So was mine. So I think we were on the same page.

If you do want a more accurate example, consider closing Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean for refurbishment. That ride runs around fifty vehicles, and each can hold up to 21 guests. Let's say there's an average of 17 guests per boat. Pirates would hold 850 guests. Adding to that a reasonable fifteen minute wait for the fifteen minute ride, that would double the number to 1,700. That is a fair guess of the number of guests in the pathways or other attractions when Pirates is down. That's also roughly by how much the park capacity decreases when Pirates is down.

Don't get me wrong, throughput is important. It's the thing that guests are most aware of. They want to get on the ride, and they don't want to wait long. In fact, if Flight of Passage has demand high enough, throughput will make a difference in how many guests will be able to enjoy the attraction in a day. Throughput is extremely important. Whereas volume is about making room for more people in a park, throughput is about moving people along so that more of those people can enjoy the ride.

So that brings me back to why I take issue with the assertion that volume has nothing to do with capacity. It may have little to do with throughput, but it is a huge factor in capacity.

Whew! Sorry for the long-winded posts. I really appreciate the discussion and your points, so thanks for taking the time. :)
 
V

veritas55

Member
180º said:
Nevertheless, Disneyland does. It factors into the capacity of the park, which dictates when they must stop selling tickets on extremely busy days. We don't often talk about volume of guests a ride can contain, but I'm sure you've heard that closing or opening an attraction does make a difference to the capacity of the park as a whole, and that in particular has everything to with volume and secondly to do with throughput.


It's not about time, it's about space. Like I said, great volume doesn't depend on long attraction duration, just how many guests an attraction can hold at once. A long ride track can fit lots of vehicles, but so can four short ride tracks side by side.


I'm aware that it was an exaggeration used to amplify a point. So was mine. So I think we were on the same page.

If you do want a more accurate example, consider closing Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean for refurbishment. That ride runs around fifty vehicles, and each can hold up to 21 guests. Let's say there's an average of 17 guests per boat. Pirates would hold 850 guests. Adding to that a reasonable fifteen minute wait for the fifteen minute ride, that would double the number to 1,700. That is a fair guess of the number of guests in the pathways or other attractions when Pirates is down. That's also roughly by how much the park capacity decreases when Pirates is down.

Don't get me wrong, throughput is important. It's the thing that guests are most aware of. They want to get on the ride, and they don't want to wait long. In fact, if Flight of Passage has demand high enough, throughput will make a difference in how many guests will be able to enjoy the attraction in a day. Throughput is extremely important. Whereas volume is about making room for more people in a park, throughput is about moving people along so that more of those people can enjoy the ride.

So that brings me back to why I take issue with the assertion that volume has nothing to do with capacity. It may have little to do with throughput, but it is a huge factor in capacity.

Whew! Sorry for the long-winded posts. I really appreciate the discussion and your points, so thanks for taking the time. :)
Click to expand...

I enjoyed your posts as well (and I understand and agree with your points). Good discussion.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom