From: geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 15:35:25 GMT
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Subject: Re: A simulated coaster ride
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct6.200511.11142@sei.cmu.edu>, mapike@sei.cmu.edu
|> (Mary Ann Pike) writes:
|> While at the mall the other day, I noticed that they had one of those
|> simulators that looks like a miniature version of a shuttle from
|> Star Trek. They were running a simulation of the Beast, but,
|> unfortunately, I didn't have the time to try it out (we were late
|> for my neices' birthday party).
[Then she asks if it's any good]

Short answer: No.

Now, wjf@controls.ccd.harris.com (Bill ``Make mine wood'' Figie) writes:

>I have ridden several different types of simulators in many different
>years.  The IAAPA convention last year had 5 simulators you could try. 
>The one you are talking about sounds like the Doran. 

It sounds like the ``SR2'' that I've seen around.  Are these just
different names for the same thing?  Like, maybe Doran is the
manufacturer or something?

>It is quite
>popular to put in malls because it is rather inexpensive and doesn't
>take up much space.  It is a fair ride, IMHO.  

You must be kidding.  Or talking about a different simulator!

>It's major drawback is
>its movie screen.  I feel it is rather small and kind of dark.  

The one I rode also *looked* like poor-quality video, rather than the
pristine-quality *film* that you get on Star Tours (the only other
simulator I've ridden).

>Not at
>all like the newer simulator rides like Iwerks Turbo Theater, Body Wars
>and Star Tours at Disney, Questor at Busch Gardens, etc.  

Comparing this simulator to Star Tours or Body Wars is almost unfair. 
This is a small, inexpensive, portable simulator, whereas Star Tours,
for example, is large, extremely expensive, and permanently installed,
with 8 feet to move in all directions.  The SR2 only moves a couple of
feet, max.

>My
>wife, who has ridden hundreds of different coasters around the world
>with me, has a hard time with simulators.  Too much rocking and jerking
>action.  

My wife's comment was that it was too smooth.  She was, of course,
right; it was just interesting to hear her complain that it was too
smooth.  She's not exactly a coaster enthusiast, but she'll ride and
enjoy them all.  Anyway, you're supposed to be on a roller coaster
(neither of us has ridden the Beast, BTW), and you go into what looks
like on the screen like a sharp turn, which should be providing some
lateral g-forces, but you *gently* lean to the inside of the turn. 
There was a left-hand turn heading for the first lift hill that was
completely flat, for example, but the %@^*@ simulator leaned to the
*inside* of the turn.  Give me a break. 

The motion was often not only wrong, but out of sync with the video.

The thing gave me a headache.

I'm with Brian Choplick (bchoplic@pixmap.seas.upenn.edu): about the only
reason to ride this simulator is to get the point-of-view footage of the
Beast.

>	Bill "I like a GOOD simulator" Figie

Agreed.  But I don't think this is one of them!

Geoff ``Should I ride Star Tours or the Matterhorn first?'' Allen

-- 
Geoff Allen          \  <chink> <chink> <chink> <chink> <chink> <chink> <chink>
uunet!pmafire!geoff   \  <chink> <chink> <chink> <chink> <chink> ............
geoff@pmafire.inel.gov \   aaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!