EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
I just can't picture that in my head.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Star Wars Land announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios
- Thread starter CheekBoys
- Start date
Money was involved.
disneygeek90
Well-Known Member
Good thing they'll be able to move forward with it now that they have all this extra parking revenue.
Boek68
Member
100% correct. I once had a week-long debate with my boss over the math behind adding track length to a particular ride we had and how that wouldn't add "capacity". More people might be on the ride at a time but that doesn't mean they are getting on any faster.
Ride capacity is directly related dispatch interval.
Not to say there aren't valid reasons to make a ride longer and more enjoyable. Just don't expect the pph to increase if the dispatch interval is already maxed out.
britain
Well-Known Member
True, but the more enjoyable (a subjective term, to be sure) the on-ride experience is, the more 'worth it' a long line might be. Making a ride longer could theoretically make a low capacity ride worth it. Of course, making it too long, and you risk putting guests into Universe of Energy territory. (Which I didn't mind, but short attention span folks didn't.)
nickys
Premium Member
Well that would limit how long and often people would visit and stay. If you go 3 times a year, but you can't book a ride more than 3 times, what's the incentive to squeeze in another short break?
Or if us UKers stay for 2 weeks but they won't let us repeat rides, why would we bother? We might as well head to Universal for a week. Or why do the deal 14 days for the price of 7, or even better 21 days for the price of 14? They're not going to encourage us to buy the longer tickets by stopping us booking whatever FPs we want.
Your limit is the length of ticket you are prepared to buy. That seems fair enough IMO.
And why buy an AP if you can only ride FoP or the Millenium Falcon 3 times. Florida residents have their own AP rate for a reason - they can go every weekend if they want. They limit them as to how many days worth of FPs they can book per month already.
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
Maybe what he was thinking was that the ride would hold more people at one time? I don't know the circumstances but that could be what he might have been trying to say.
JediMasterMatt
Well-Known Member
I'm right there with you; but, looking at the barometer of recent E's, Shanghai Pirates is the exception instead of the norm unfortunately.
In the industry, 1600pph is on the high end of a great capacity thrill ride with 1200pph being closer to the norm. Of course, the "industry" includes the Six Flags/Cedar Fairs/independents and that isn't what a Disney Parks quality attraction should strive for as their operational needs aren't the same as the rest.
With Alcatraz and the Edge in general, the real limiting factor in the design was the space constraints in Anaheim. Budget didn't really drive the design as evidenced in the time it took in the various revisions to get it to the build state. *w/the exception of the beastly transport; but, I'll circle back to that below.
Since physical space was at a premium, the choices in Alcatraz were probably the right ones. It didn't need to be show on dual floors; but, they are making use of the extra vertical space needed for the destroyer's docking bay and walkers (Star Wars's general aesthetic has always featured scale). I think the case can be made that if the footprint for say the docking bay would've been repurposed for another block zone - the impact of the ride would've been diminished as arguably the transition from Batuu>transport>destroyer is going to be one of the biggest wow moments Parks has ever had.
All things considered, 1600pph isn't perfect; but, I'll take it over most of the last decades new attractions. That's how low things have sunk.
Just a reminder that money up front isn't always the determining factor. Once you make your bed (and pay for it), you have to lay in it (and continue to pay for it forever). Many of the choices that get made around TDO tie into the long term costs of staffing and maintenance. That's why unfortunately so many additions to WDW come at the behest of subtraction.
Just a slight addendum to the capacity/number of RVs/ride length discussion: while it is true that longer rides with more people on the circuit don't necessarily yield more hourly capacity - having more guests on a ride at a given time and for longer durations do have impact to two aspects of operational capacity.
Hourly capacity is always the number of guests that "sort of embark" and disembark in 60 minutes.
More guests "on circuit" that have embarked at any given time does impact total capacity for the day (assuming that queue lines aren't closed in advance of the posted park closing time and assuming the ride holds a line for the entire day). So, if let's say DL's Pirates had a full queue all day and then the parks closes. The guests that may have loaded just prior to closing carry over to the next hour and so forth. A short, low guest count per RV and limited number of RVs ride like Pan doesn't benefit from having as many guests that have loaded when the queue is empty as something that is longer and holds more RVs with more guests. So, more guests on circuit at a time (longer rides and/or bigger RVs) does mean more guests per day (than shorter rides and/or smaller RVs).
Of course, this is with the assumption that the lines stay open until closing time and they still hold a queue. Of course you can always discourage people from jumping in a long line just prior to closing - like say those 200 minute waits in Pandora that for some reason always seem to clear the park out within an hour or so where they artificially inflate the wait times.
The other benefit that longer rides with more guests on circuit at a time have for operations is that means less people elsewhere in your park, which is really the biggest problem in Orlando these days. FastPass+ dumped a large percentage of people out of the queues and into the streets and if the trend of low capacity rides with low capacity guest's on circuit continue - the problem will just continue to get worse.
Last edited:
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
They should have made the DHS one bigger.
All that you mentioned.
HauntedMansionFLA
Well-Known Member
Should have used the land for TSL for one big land......
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
This ties into my former life...
https://io9.gizmodo.com/thrawn-alliances-is-sending-darth-vader-and-thrawn-to-1824026522
https://io9.gizmodo.com/thrawn-alliances-is-sending-darth-vader-and-thrawn-to-1824026522
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
I actually agree with the TsL theme. But I don't like the execution. I think if you added the woody attraction from SDL to opposite buzz it would have been nice. Along with more detail to SDD and the little western area. Upgrade the QSR to make it larger and throw in a character meal somewhere and now we're talking. Anyway, they still have plenty of space for SWL to expand. And, in sure they will expand it after some other projects wrap up.
FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
Panel description from the GPU tech conference in a few days about the Falcon ride's game engine.
https://2018gputechconf.smarteventscloud.com/connect/sessionDetail.ww?SESSION_ID=152912
https://2018gputechconf.smarteventscloud.com/connect/sessionDetail.ww?SESSION_ID=152912
trainplane3
Well-Known Member
As someone with SLI (2 980's), hearing that scares me. The wonderfully random instability you get occasionally and the painful troubleshooting you need to carry out when it doesn't work just isn't worth it. Obviously for the ride it'll be fine, but SLI is a technology they either need to invest in or (finally) kill off.
I would laugh if the ride had a microstutter issue though.
On a side-note, I'm ready for the 1180ti so I can throw these cards out the window.
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
Jeez! I "only" have a 970. I overclocked the heck out of it though. But two 980s in SLI? Daaaaaaaaammmmnnnnnn.
trainplane3
Well-Known Member
#GoBigorGoHome (except for SLI, that should go home and never come out again)
The lighting looks obnoxious but in person it's very turned down. Not nearly as bright as it looks in the picture. It's still not as clean as I want it but it all works pretty well.
rocketraccoon
Well-Known Member
So Falcon is actually gonna be running in real time? That sounds neat. I figured it'd be more like an FMV game where you press buttons or whatever and it switches between pre-rendered video.
trainplane3
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I expected some kind of simple user controlled flying but nothing super interactive. This sounds like it's going to be amazing.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
That looks like a mad science experiment.