The theme park geek
TS Member
If you get on it it's good but that's a big if. I don't think VR on rides is a good thing anyway it's generally not good quality leads to low throughputs and is a bit of a one trick pony.
-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
What developments will happen after 2018?
- Thread starter Bert2theSpark
- Start date
Didn"t Ratatouille in Disneyland Paris cost something over €100m? Merlin could build several Legoland Discovery Centres for that.
Atlantis at Legoland Windsor is a good quality dark ride. There is nothing approaching that standard currently in AT.
Last edited:
I agree that we're beginning to have an over reliance on screens and virtual-imagery on rides, and that physical effects are much better, but I don't agree with your above statement. Digital content also has an enormous amount of time and effort put into it, but I do understand your frustration. I think the important thing is that we strike a balance. So that new technologies such as VR and screens add to an experience, rather than become the experience. They should be used as enhancement tools, not a way of avoiding spending money on practical effects that require maintenance.
I think the sudden rush of VR coasters comes purely from the industry not really knowing how best to apply a technology. They need to make mistakes before they realise that VR isn't as exciting as they thought it was, and it only really works well in dark/stationary rides. Coasters do NOT need VR.
FYI. Anything that's an indoor attraction/designed to be in a dark environment can be considered a dark ride. Even an indoor coaster could be called a 'dark ride coaster'.
Yes. DBGT is evidence that Merlin can pull together a really, really good dark ride. Sub Terra wasn't terrible either. These 'walk through' experience (Hex) are on the rise and really give an opportunity to make something awesome. It's only really boat/train rides where we seem to slack, think it's maybe because they know they can get away with less detail/quality because the audience don't really have time to study any of it, and their vision is controlled. Whereas with a walk through experience, the audience has quite a lot more freedom and you've got to put effort into the environment you put the audi
DiogoJ42
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- The Metropolitan Line
Theme park special effects fads tend to lag a good decade or so behind those of cinema. The movie industry has still yet to realise that the early - mid 90's got the balance of CGI vs practical effects right: use the right tool for the right job. (Case study: Terminator 2 or Jurassic Park).
Sadly Hollywood is still convinced that pixels are better than atoms.
With that in mind, I expect we will see a resurgence of animatronics somewhere in the mid 2030s. Until then, I propose we all go down the Winchester, have a nice pint, and wait for all this to blow over.
Sadly Hollywood is still convinced that pixels are better than atoms.
With that in mind, I expect we will see a resurgence of animatronics somewhere in the mid 2030s. Until then, I propose we all go down the Winchester, have a nice pint, and wait for all this to blow over.
ChristmasPud
TS Member
You're vert right about getting a balance and using screens & digital effects only when needed. Though in my experience most tech-based effects will actually require far more maintenance, and likely more complicated maintenance, to keep it going for the same length of time. Computers are notoriously difficult to use long term in attractions, even if doing something basic like turning on a projector every morning. It's very different compared to a domestic environment, and few computers are designed to run for every hour of the day, every day of the year, instantly switching on and off with every E-stop, etc. It's an area the UK park industry is yet to master.
Something such an Derren Brown's Ghost Train which uses multiple computers on moving ride vehicles will be a nightmare to keep going for years at a time. In fact it was put together so badly with such oversights that it's only just got to a stable point, over a year since opening.
So yeah, it makes even less sense for UK parks (which never commit to as large as the US's maintenance budgets) to employ so much tech just for the sake of it.
The theme park industry know well about VR, the difficulties and that it would be probably a lot more effective to use simpler hardware to achieve the intended effects. DBGT for example did not need the VR to be a good attraction (I believe the original train concept was more of a screen-based motion simulator, which can be done very effectively these days). However, Merlin would have only green-lit the project for the sake of the VR. Without VR, the money wouldn't be spent.
It was purely for the gimmick and marketability of having a VR dark ride before anyone else, the attention and status that comes with it both to guests and to others in the industry. Same with converting Air to Galactica to have a token VR coaster. Unfortunately they very much know what they're doing and will only stop when the VR fad dies and they can no longer capitalise on it.
Do they care that the VR footage was of terrible quality and barely made use of the true possibilities of VR? Do they care that DBGT could have made far more logistical sense, been far easier to maintain in the long run and actually been able to open on time every day without the VR? No, they only used it for the status - same as Charlie's token lift simulators in 2006, same as the bad laser gun refits in 2002/03.
The only thing in Grufallo I couldn't recreate (given enough time) is the projection on the mist and the clear screen stuff they have and that is more to do with not having the equipment than anything else, I think you over estimate how difficult digital animation really is, once you have created the animation the computer does the rest and once rendered job done, the timings and triggers are a mere nuisance, there's no maintaince needed and if done right, all anybody has to do is turn it on in the morning (granted you need some knowledge and skill to create the project but it is not rocket science, anybody with a hookey copy of 3DMax and time can learn to do it, all the tools are there), the really difficult stuff is the animatronics that were made back in the 90's, now those took proper skills.
Last edited:
Codswallop, that's exactly what they're designed for, I have a computer that's been on for 7 years, 24/7, 365 days the only time it's ever been off is when we had a power cut. Most set top DVR boxes never get turned off either, I think ours has been on for a similar time, it's the constant tuyrning on/off each day that does electronics damage, not the other way. If the computers looping animations inside something like Grufallo can't cope, then that's poor design by whoever manufactured it, nothing more, it's not like these animations are VR, they're timed video loops triggered from a sensor, or should be.
jon81uk
TS Member
I think as well Merlin have a good amount of experience with walk-through attractions, they'd been running Sea-Life centres and Dungeons for many years before they bought Tussauds. Therefore something like Sub-Terra which is a very Dungeons style attraction is in their "comfort zone".
ChristmasPud
TS Member
Still very different to a domestic or any other environment. I'm not an expert on pure computers and don't pretend to be, but I have worked with tech in attractions and know numerous computer-heavy attractions that have become obsolete or needed significant reverse engineering to keep running.
Your computer running 24/7 will likely be very different to a computer that needs to be E-stopped and reset regularly, turned off at the end of the day, run a large rack of control gear for hours on end, often in a moving ride vehicle, etc.
It's not impossible by any means, but a ride environment is totally different to anything else, and I have not known the UK to accomplish something reliable and long-term when it comes to computers.
Most electronic control is fine, some older rides still run animations or audio off their original solid state electronics, that's been well perfected. The Gruffalo back-end stuff won't be too difficult either I imagine apart from keeping the projectors working - as you know projectors don't have a lamp life of years at a time.
A pneumatic animation needs someone to keep it in time, check for air leaks, repair damage, etc. It can run for years if engineered properly. But a complicated computer based effect does not require any less maintenance, in fact I've only seen them require far more daily maintenance and extremely costly replacement parts.
Then, once parts become obsolete (very quickly), once something fundamental breaks, you have to backwards engineer the whole thing, which results in stuff like Tomb Blaster's awful 2016 laser gun redo, or Lego Racers shutting down prematurely. UK parks do not commit to such things like the US parks do.
I'm not saying one method is better than the other, but just that the idea of VR being easier to maintain in a ride than retro effects is a big mistake. If this sounds ridiculously inefficient or primitive to anyone who knows more about computers than me, then you're not necessarily wrong, but you'd probably be surprised at the real state of back-end control gear in attractions today. They're not built like MI5 computer archive rooms or something... Usually the simpler and more circuitry-based, the better.
Yes these required a lot of prototyping and engineering development. They did the best they could and achieved some fantastic results, but then stopped because - the way the industry changed - it was decided to save costs on development and just work with external companies on trendy tech instead. It's a shame we don't see animatronics and good animations anymore for this reason, and the UK is now extremely far behind Disney and Universal on this.
Last edited:
That's kind of my point, if the computer driven screen effect needs more maintaince than the 1990's pneumatic animation then they are doing something wrong as they are glorified dvr's by comparison.
I don't work in the video industry anymore but when I did I was constantly gobsmacked at the apparent desire by organisations to go for the seriously complicated option over the relatively simple one.
I didn't say VR was easier to maintain, I said the Grufallo screens should be, VR (as in DBGT) would be quiet the opposite, those systems are not designed to be on 24/7 which is why DBGT is so unreliable, VR is a completely different kettle of fish to a looping screen animation, or should be lol
Last edited:
ChristmasPud
TS Member
That was also the point of my original post - that more complex tech systems are not actually easier to maintain in an attraction than other kinds of effects. They arent used for practical purposes, theyre used for superficial purposes and the status of being tech-heavy for the sake of it, even when its not what's best for the ride.
Tech systems 'should' be self-maintaining and reliable in theory (and things like sound systems and animatronic control usually are). But computer-heavy systems aren't, in UK attractions at least, because they are costly to maintain for years of ride operation on end (note, not constantly smooth running) and in the UK are always undercut in the development stage so not designed reliably for application in a ride.
Tech systems 'should' be self-maintaining and reliable in theory (and things like sound systems and animatronic control usually are). But computer-heavy systems aren't, in UK attractions at least, because they are costly to maintain for years of ride operation on end (note, not constantly smooth running) and in the UK are always undercut in the development stage so not designed reliably for application in a ride.
Last edited:
BenTechy66
TS Member
Honestly they can use raspberry pis to control physical effects unless they require something like VR.
Plastic Person
TS Member
This is part of the problem, too. They want to replicate these experiences within their parks, but they quickly become only part of a larger puzzle and operation. Therefore, tech, performance quality and general detail are quickly neglected.
