Fast & Furious: Supercharged - General Discussion

[Mad Dog]

The original vehicles were just a bit smaller than Kong, apx. 48 seats instead of 72. Don't know if they changed it though, since they reportedly abandoned the trackless system after the Kong issues with it.

 

[JoeCamel]

I keep wondering why that building is so big for this ride... the tram tunnel isn't that big.

Sometimes a refresher is needed. This is one of several showing the layout

ok fine.. i found them..















View attachment 2716

@Teebin confirmed the following was mostly correct, although he initially said yellow is maintenance and not gift shop?

Cobalt Blue: The Ride Building itself which looks big enough for a good sized attraction with a few extra scenes
Aqua: Possibly exit?
Yellow: The Gift shop
Orange: The second half of the line that Teebin mentioned plus a preshow in that area?
Red: All of the outdoor line space that Teebin also said
Purple: Marquee
Green: Facades/Restrooms

And this. I can't find the one aerial image of construction where they had some of the foundation and the swimming pool (motion base) showing. That really says the size of the ride in the building. It won't let me add another quote here so sorry but next post

 

[JoeCamel]

The ride path

lol

 

[Teebin]

The original vehicles were just a bit smaller than Kong, apx. 48 seats instead of 72. Don't know if they changed it though, since they reportedly abandoned the trackless system after the Kong issues with it.

Yes, it was to be trackless and send two smaller vehicles at one time. That idea went somewhat out the window as kong encountered so many autonomous issues. Will it still be two smaller vehicles at once? I have no idea...

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Just here to do some more meta commentary.

Hang around for a bit, and you'll begin to understand why IU forum users (forum-ers?) do that. There are some very, very informed people on here, who hint as much as they can but cannot reveal everything in order to protect their sources.

You might think this is a "wait and see" situation but by all, very informed, accounts it is not. We know exactly what this is going to be, thanks to these insiders.

We see things. We hear things. It's a small community with lots of overlap. F&F will likely be bad because the attraction was planned as a semi-copy of the USH tram tour stop before anyone got to see it. So now that we know F&F isn't well received at USH there's only so much UC can do to improve the attraction (change films, clarify plot, etc).

I also don't necessarily buy into "it must actually go fast for it to work" mentality. Airplanes go hundreds of miles an hour but would that make an exciting attraction? Not really. Theme parks about about illusions and visual tricks since day one and Universal is known for its cinematic attractions. I think there would be fewer complaints about this if the writing, directing, and design of the attraction wasn't so bad.

All I can really say is that Kong was to be the "best ride ever" and gringotts was to be the "best ride ever" and Fallon was to be the "worst ride ever". I don't have high hopes for F&F either, but the track record of insiders is not exactly flawless on how good the rides end up being.

You're completely right, even seeing blueprints and concepts it's only after the pieces are together that one can judge an attraction. We hear from one friend about the AAs, another about it being trackless, and someone else chimes in about other elements. All good and well but until all the parts are together it's unknown if it would work together. If anything I should change my verbiage to "shaping up to be fantastic".

A rough development process (or poor elements) doesn't doom an attraction but it is a strong indicator on quality. Like movies, if there is a rough development process and massive reshoots then it's likely the movie will not be "good", but it's not for sure. For every WaterWorld there's a Titanic. For every Stitch there's a Haunted Mansion.

 

[Cheezbat]

All I currently hope for is if this ends up bombing badly, that UC gets sent in to do a complete overhaul of the attraction, instead of letting this huge thing sit there for 20 years.

 

[Nick]

All I currently hope for is if this ends up bombing badly, that UC gets sent in to do a complete overhaul of the attraction, instead of letting this huge thing sit there for 20 years.

If they didn't redo Hollywood's after it bombed, they won't redo USF.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

If they didn't redo Hollywood's after it bombed, they won't redo USF.

Also *points at Stitch*

 

[Blaw923]

I find trackless such an unnecessary cost expense for an indoor attraction.

Sure its nice for the exterior loop in Kong, but based off the vehicle set up and majority of the ride its barely noticeable..

 

[captainmoch]

Vin Deisel's DISASTER Character Greeting, coming in 14 years?

 

[Alicia]

I find trackless such an unnecessary cost expense for an indoor attraction.

Sure its nice for the exterior loop in Kong, but based off the vehicle set up and majority of the ride its barely noticeable..

Trackless works best for rides like Pooh's Hunny Hunt or Mystic Manor, where there are segments where the cars dance around one another unrestrained by tracks. Computers also decide where to park trackless vehicles at load/unload based on which bay is open on rides like Antarctica and Ratatouille. So, they have merit, but not for big tram-like indoor rides like this no.

I do agree it's cool that you don't see any track on the outdoor portion of Kong, but if it was all inside that wouldn't even matter.

 

[Nick]

I find trackless such an unnecessary cost expense for an indoor attraction.

Sure its nice for the exterior loop in Kong, but based off the vehicle set up and majority of the ride its barely noticeable..

Trackless on what is essentially a tracked circle, I agree with.

However, some of the best attractions in the world are indoor trackless rides.

 

[Jwhee]

So are we expecting AA drivers? No drivers? Human drivers?

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Trackless works best for rides like Pooh's Hunny Hunt or Mystic Manor, where there are segments where the cars dance around one another unrestrained by tracks. Computers also decide where to park trackless vehicles at load/unload based on which bay is open on rides like Antarctica and Ratatouille. So, they have merit, but not for big tram-like indoor rides like this no.

I do agree it's cool that you don't see any track on the outdoor portion of Kong, but if it was all inside that wouldn't even matter.

Part of the reason trackless is pushed for Kong was a sort of future technology standpoint. Being able to build concrete floors with sensors for dark rides and not large complicated ride systems is seen as the future.

 

[shiekra38]

If they didn't redo Hollywood's after it bombed, they won't redo USF.

Unfortunately this will reside in the "meh" category, therefore it will be looked at as a non priority for redo for a while

 

[Steptwice]

This seems like a huge assumption. Do we even know what the ride vehicles are yet? Multi level track? Banked track? Anything about it?

If you looked at the construction photos whent he showbuilding had no roof, you can clearly see the 360 room and track setup. Also you can see the pre-room and even the basement that house the truck that comes up from underground.

 

[Andysol]

We got Mario Kart on the horizon, so no need to dwell on the past... Which is where Universal will be leaving the screenz attractions for awhile after this. The past.

You guys are already praising Mario Kart. The attraction can disappointment as well. Never judge a book by its cover people. That's all I'm saying. As for inside sources. They haven't been on the ride either.

Webhead isn't totally off-base here. On one hand- I don't need to ride F&F to know that I'm upset it's another screen based attraction. It will be screen based- no argument there. And the screen reliance and our disdain of it is well documented in this community.

Where he isn't off-base is talking about the praise for Mario Kart. Our very few insiders (see- 2 people IMO), while often accurate, plans change and red herrings are thrown to them as well. They certainly aren't infallible. Heck, look no further than Kong and all the animatronics and things that were rumored to originally be a part of the plan. We got some AAs- but not nearly what we heard initially- and ultimately ended on an almost exclusively screen-based attraction (which I thoroughly enjoy for the record).

So forgive me if I reserve judgement for SLoP or Mario Kart or other attractions until they are built. As much as people are questioning @WebHead1138 's enthusiasm for F&F- I can equally question everyone else's enthusiasm for MK or SLoP. Lest we forget that Mark Woodbury is still at the helm in Orlando- so until he is gone, I'll temper any enthusiasm until something is built. "Rumors" of AAs, regardless of the source and their track record, are just that- Rumors. UC has shown us nothing in the recent past that has shown us any sort of departure from screen reliance. So I'd toss a banana peel and throw a green turtle shell on that enthusiasm until they do.

 

[Alicia]

Webhead isn't totally off-base here. On one hand- I don't need to ride F&F to know that I'm upset it's another screen based attraction. It will be screen based- no argument there. And the screen reliance and our disdain of it is well documented in this community.

Where he isn't off-base is talking about the praise for Mario Kart. Our very few insiders (see- 2 people IMO), while often accurate, plans change and red herrings are thrown to them as well. They certainly aren't infallible. Heck, look no further than Kong and all the animatronics and things that were rumored to originally be a part of the plan. We got some AAs- but not nearly what we heard initially- and ultimately ended on an almost exclusively screen-based attraction (which I thoroughly enjoy for the record).

So forgive me if I reserve judgement for SLoP or Mario Kart or other attractions until they are built. As much as people are questioning @WebHead1138 's enthusiasm for F&F- I can equally question everyone else's enthusiasm for MK or SLoP. Lest we forget that Mark Woodbury is still at the helm in Orlando- so until he is gone, I'll temper any enthusiasm until something is built. "Rumors" of AAs, regardless of the source and their track record, are just that- Rumors. UC has shown us nothing in the recent past that has shown us any sort of departure from screen reliance. So I'd toss a banana peel and throw a green turtle shell on that enthusiasm until they do.

My excitement for MK over FF is solely on the fact that I'll know I'm moving on MK. Even if there's no AAs, being on a ride that I know is going somewhere, rather than a 3D tunnel with mostly simulated movement, will be awesome to me. It's why I like Transformers more than Kong, even though it doesn't have AAs, it has a real sensation of movement most of the time. My favorite part of Kong may very well be the outside scene, because I can tell we're going somewhere, and that's a nice sensation to me. The 3D tunnel effect is cool, but I don't think we need another one already.

 

[HalfGlass]

I saw some people suggest a 1 for 1 clone of USH. I've been on the USH ride at least 20 times. It spends (like Kong) only about 2 min in the showroom/ride tunnel. 2-3 min of pre-show stuff before that, but it's only because they don't have a queue for it and need backstory.

They will most likely add more to it (like RoK did with the cave scene, kong AA, etc) to at least round it out to 4 min to justify the wait. It's not a coaster, so people will compare it to other screen-based rides, and even the GP will expect something in that time range. Just a thought!

 

[Brian G.]

Webhead isn't totally off-base here. On one hand- I don't need to ride F&F to know that I'm upset it's another screen based attraction. It will be screen based- no argument there. And the screen reliance and our disdain of it is well documented in this community.

Where he isn't off-base is talking about the praise for Mario Kart. Our very few insiders (see- 2 people IMO), while often accurate, plans change and red herrings are thrown to them as well. They certainly aren't infallible. Heck, look no further than Kong and all the animatronics and things that were rumored to originally be a part of the plan. We got some AAs- but not nearly what we heard initially- and ultimately ended on an almost exclusively screen-based attraction (which I thoroughly enjoy for the record).

So forgive me if I reserve judgement for SLoP or Mario Kart or other attractions until they are built. As much as people are questioning @WebHead1138 's enthusiasm for F&F- I can equally question everyone else's enthusiasm for MK or SLoP. Lest we forget that Mark Woodbury is still at the helm in Orlando- so until he is gone, I'll temper any enthusiasm until something is built. "Rumors" of AAs, regardless of the source and their track record, are just that- Rumors. UC has shown us nothing in the recent past that has shown us any sort of departure from screen reliance. So I'd toss a banana peel and throw a green turtle shell on that enthusiasm until they do.

To be fair, Kong was always going to rely on screens, but it was going to be bolstered by having a strong supporting cast of AA's. That changed and we got what we got.

SLoP has had some changes, but the ride we will get is not screen-reliant.