New Fanstasy Land - effects not working.

hpyhnt 1000

hpyhnt 1000

Well-Known Member
F and J were still motionless on Christmas Day. That's on top of a number of figures in the Under the Sea room that were broken/not moving. And the movement of the first Ariel (just before the Under the Sea room) was on about a five second delay to her audio.

As an extra aside, after riding for the first time yesterday, I found the Under the Sea room a total letdown. Plastic figures, limited/simple motions, and all kinds of lighting, wiring, A/C ducts, catwalks plainly visible on the ceiling. Its like they didnt even try to hide it. I guess the kiddies love the ride, but Disney's best effort it is not. The queue is gorgeous, though.
 
Patricia Melton

Patricia Melton

Well-Known Member
I am really disappointed in the Madame Wardrobe thing. I will go to bat for Disney on just about anything and I think that 80% of the complaints about the parks are a little hyperbolic...but there is NO EXCUSE possible for the Wardrobe not working properly, less than one month after the official opening. NO EXCUSE.

What I think happens is that the Imagineers don't fully understand the wear of having something actually run every day for however many times a day it needs to run. I think they build something, test it a few times, and then rely on computers to tell them that it "should" work okay in daily use.

I think generationally we're seeing more and more people who have spent their young careers relying on what computer models tell them should happen...only real life doesn't work that way. Real life is much harder on equipment.

I am actually very angry hearing that the Wardrobe is broken and is being covered with a hat or something. I'm going to write a few letters about this today to TDO to voice my displeasure.
 
ExtinctJenn

ExtinctJenn

Well-Known Member
Ok so I'll agree that F&J are supposed to have each one eye lit... that one we can check off.

The wardrobe thing just blows me away but not for many of the reasons you'd expect. My reason is... the OP said it was because "the eyes were frozen." Ok... but... aren't the eyes just a projection? They weren't actually animatronic at all I thought. One would think you could "reboot" her or something. Then of course my next question is, if it was just that her eyes weren't moving, so what? So she stares into space... that's better than covering her head and changing the "show" right? Poor design?
 
mikenatcity1

mikenatcity1

Well-Known Member
I was in DCA 12/6-12/9 and WDW 12/12-12/16 and noticed a ton of differences with The Little Mermaid. While the exterior and the queue is far superior in WDW, the ride and componets seemed newer and in better shape in DCA. You can see a lot of the show building through the sets in WDW and in the final scene with Eric, Ariel, Triton and the fireworks, the catwalk is directly above the show figures. In addition there appears to be a window or vent in the fireworks- all of these are not in DCA. This along with several figures no longer moving (and dust coating several figures) made me really sad that the ride is in this shape since it's grand opening was only days before.

I love what they have done with the FLE but was a little let down seeing the quality of the ride knowing that the ride is very cute and can be entertaining when done elsewhere.
 
danlb_2000

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Patricia Melton said:
I am really disappointed in the Madame Wardrobe thing. I will go to bat for Disney on just about anything and I think that 80% of the complaints about the parks are a little hyperbolic...but there is NO EXCUSE possible for the Wardrobe not working properly, less than one month after the official opening. NO EXCUSE.

What I think happens is that the Imagineers don't fully understand the wear of having something actually run every day for however many times a day it needs to run. I think they build something, test it a few times, and then rely on computers to tell them that it "should" work okay in daily use.

I think generationally we're seeing more and more people who have spent their young careers relying on what computer models tell them should happen...only real life doesn't work that way. Real life is much harder on equipment.

I am actually very angry hearing that the Wardrobe is broken and is being covered with a hat or something. I'm going to write a few letters about this today to TDO to voice my displeasure.
Click to expand...

You make some goof points about wear testing, but I wouldn't be to hard on the Imagineers for that, reliability testing is an extremely hard thing to do. For anyone who is interested there was a great article in Wired about this recently (mainly focused on the auto industry) that shows just how hard this sort of this is.

http://www.wired.com/design/2012/10/ff-why-products-fail/
 
GeorgiaPinesRJB

GeorgiaPinesRJB

Well-Known Member
Patricia Melton said:
I am really disappointed in the Madame Wardrobe thing. I will go to bat for Disney on just about anything and I think that 80% of the complaints about the parks are a little hyperbolic...but there is NO EXCUSE possible for the Wardrobe not working properly, less than one month after the official opening. NO EXCUSE.

What I think happens is that the Imagineers don't fully understand the wear of having something actually run every day for however many times a day it needs to run. I think they build something, test it a few times, and then rely on computers to tell them that it "should" work okay in daily use.

I think generationally we're seeing more and more people who have spent their young careers relying on what computer models tell them should happen...only real life doesn't work that way. Real life is much harder on equipment.

I am actually very angry hearing that the Wardrobe is broken and is being covered with a hat or something. I'm going to write a few letters about this today to TDO to voice my displeasure.
Click to expand...

Then what would you expect them to do instead of some testing? Test the AA for YEARS working out the bugs? I assure you, nothing mechanical is tested out that long, especially when it needs to get to "market" and quickly. Yes its a shame it isn't working but we don't know why it isn't, either... Mechanical failures happen, even with brand new machines. I don't think this is something that needs a letter...especially since you haven't even experienced it in person... You were saying about hyperbole?
 
Patricia Melton

Patricia Melton

Well-Known Member
ExtinctJenn said:
Ok so I'll agree that F&J are supposed to have each one eye lit... that one we can check off.

The wardrobe thing just blows me away but not for many of the reasons you'd expect. My reason is... the OP said it was because "the eyes were frozen." Ok... but... aren't the eyes just a projection? They weren't actually animatronic at all I thought. One would think you could "reboot" her or something. Then of course my next question is, if it was just that her eyes weren't moving, so what? So she stares into space... that's better than covering her head and changing the "show" right? Poor design?
Click to expand...

Very smart comment.

This WAS supposed to be a projector thing on the eyes, so you are right on. I don't know what the problem is with this then.
 
TalkingHead

TalkingHead

Well-Known Member
I used to think you had to get to an attraction within its first six months to see it fully functioning.

Apparently, you have to get there the first week of soft opening and even then there's no guarantee
 
Patricia Melton

Patricia Melton

Well-Known Member
GeorgiaPinesRJB said:
Then what would you expect them to do instead of some testing? Test the AA for YEARS working out the bugs? I assure you, nothing mechanical is tested out that long, especially when it needs to get to "market" and quickly. Yes its a shame it isn't working but we don't know why it isn't, either... Mechanical failures happen, even with brand new machines. I don't think this is something that needs a letter...especially since you haven't even experienced it in person... You were saying about hyperbole?
Click to expand...

I can write a letter to whomever I wish, thank you very much.

it sure doesn't seem like this was practical-testing or fatigue-tested enough. I would have run it 24/7 for a week to see how it took that sort of stress. That would have been much more than what it would have gone through during its daily usage in the park.

You're very melodramatic to be going on about "years" of testing. No one said anything about that, sweetie. But clearly if the Wardrobe is having technical problems this early on then it was not tested and/or built properly to handle the rigors its being put through now.

Only someone in Imagineering can answer this, but I bet these guys relied too much on computer models predicting what would happen...and not enough on old-fashioned practical testing. Car companies have been experiencing the same problems in recent decades...too much emphasis on what the computers say "should" happen instead of running exhaustive practical tests using real-world equipment.

What's also sad is that the Imagineers didn't have a "Plan B" apart from "put a cover over the head and pretend it's not there".
 
SkipperButler

SkipperButler

Active Member
Fortunately Madame Wardrobe usually isn't down permanently, but right now there is only 4 hours of turn-around between park close and park open, so engineering often doesn't have enough time to really workout the problem. Unfortunately, Madame isn't a 101 figure, meaning that she doesn't have to be working in order for the attraction to be opened.

I've checked with my friends who worked there, and on the day she had eye problems it wasn't that they weren't moving, they were projecting "no signal." :confused: They also said she is her old self again today! No need to crack out the disco ball yet!
 
Patricia Melton

Patricia Melton

Well-Known Member
TalkingHead said:
I used to think you had to get to an attraction within its first six months to see it fully functioning.

Apparently, you have to get there the first week of soft opening and even then there's no guarantee
Click to expand...

I really wonder sometimes: is it better if Imagineers don't even bother designing anything that would break easily?

As in, let's not try to be too ambitious with these effects because everyone knows that maintenance will not be done on them.

Is it better to have things work for three weeks and then break and never be fixed...or to have never tried anything ambitious to start with?

It reminds me of the things my husband starts up but then doesn't finish or take care of. Like the time he tried to make a salt water fish tank, and it was pretty for about a month before he moved on to the next hobby and the thing turned green with algae and all the fish died. It really was pretty for a month, but all that money and time and it was never fixed when it started to go south.

I really thought things in Carsland would break down/fall apart before the New Fantasyland stuff. I actually thought that the flying tires would be closed by now, so I'm surprised it's the Enchanted Tales attraction that has been the first failure in terms of maintenance.
 
Patricia Melton

Patricia Melton

Well-Known Member
SkipperButler said:
Fortunately Madame Wardrobe usually isn't down permanently, but right now there is only 4 hours of turn-around between park close and park open, so engineering often doesn't have enough time to really workout the problem. Unfortunately, Madame isn't a 101 figure, meaning that she doesn't have to be working in order for the attraction to be opened.

I've checked with my friends who worked there, and on the day she had eye problems it wasn't that they weren't moving, they were projecting "no signal." :confused: They also said she is her old self again today! No need to crack out the disco ball yet!
Click to expand...

What does it mean "no signal"?
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Patricia Melton said:
I can write a letter to whomever I wish, thank you very much.

it sure doesn't seem like this was practical-testing or fatigue-tested enough. I would have run it 24/7 for a week to see how it took that sort of stress. That would have been much more than what it would have gone through during its daily usage in the park.

You're very melodramatic to be going on about "years" of testing. No one said anything about that, sweetie. But clearly if the Wardrobe is having technical problems this early on then it was not tested and/or built properly to handle the rigors its being put through now.

Only someone in Imagineering can answer this, but I bet these guys relied too much on computer models predicting what would happen...and not enough on old-fashioned practical testing. Car companies have been experiencing the same problems in recent decades...too much emphasis on what the computers say "should" happen instead of running exhaustive practical tests using real-world equipment.

What's also sad is that the Imagineers didn't have a "Plan B" apart from "put a cover over the head and pretend it's not there".
Click to expand...
Walt Disney Imagineering is not responsible for day-to-day operations and maintenance. You don't know what sort of problems exist or how they came to be, much less jumping to the conclusion that it was a design fault at Imagineering, which is another assumption since most of that work is now handled by Garner Holt. This could be anything from a design shortcoming all the way to Magic Kingdom operations not wanting to shut down the attraction for a bit while the issue is resolved, even if it could be done quickly.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom