^They're on the verge of getting into the water ride biz, but they haven't released any ride concepts yet other than the splash towers. I'd imagine they're just kinda brining back the old Arrow flume designs, which is totally cool.
Anyone notice the suspended swings coming soon? That could be interesting. I wonder if they could outfit existing models with suspended carriages.
All they'd have to do is remove the footrests, install a moving floor, and the ride would be floorless.
Kennywood's still isn't running that well?
I was thinking about this the other day... if I had to put a number on it, I'd say that the ride has has run two sides without issue less than 50% of the summer. The past month or two, I'd put that number closer to 25%.
They installed the same retrofits that the other rides had, and it seemed to work through May... I was getting hopeful that they finally fixed it. However, the ride started suffering more and more sync issues, as problems kept arising that affected the speed and power of a particular arm. S&S spent almost a week at the park last month... they replaced a bunch of parts, and spent the better part of a weekend running the ride empty and with water dummies. Lo and behold, several of the parts busted no more than 3 days after they left, and the ride hasn't run two sides for more than a day or two at a time ever since.
Back towards topic - S&S is making the effort to improve their site. It isn't necessarily "completed", and the flak they're getting right now seems undeserved to me. If they LEAVE it this way, then sure. Right now, it needs some fixes, but progress is evident. As "enthusiasts", shouldn't we be looking to give them CREDIT for the work done rather than complain about what has yet to be done?
The above was a rhetorical, and I think we already know the "answer"...LOL!
Given my work environment, the "website in progress" thing is something I've had to become accustomed to...it's not like *I* can write code. Granted, ours is a data application instead of a flat front-end kind of thing, but someone who KNOWS their products will have to go in and tell the website programmer "no, this isn't that ride", etc...
I'm not really disagreeing as much as it may seem.....but MY experiences with half-assed programming are virtually infinite, so I've learned a LOT of patience over the last 12-15 years... ;)
*** Edited 7/12/2007 3:58:55 PM UTC by rollergator***
What we're (we being Jeff and myself, apparently) getting at is that S&S's new website was not near ready for prime time. Brand new websites should not have misleading links, "check back soon" placeholders, and 404 errors. It just screams unprofessional.
Speaking of ROI, the state of a company's website can make or break a sale. B&M has the luxury of not needing a website because their work speaks for itself. Aside from drop towers, S&S isn't nearly as established in the industry, and their non-tower attractions don't have a terribly good reputation going for them. Given that S&S's website might be the first impression parks have of the company, parks would want to see something that indicates they have a decent budget and sense of professionalism. The current site has neither of these qualities.
Speaking of errors, apparently I can't spell "error." gomen nasai. *** Edited 7/13/2007 12:42:35 AM UTC by PhantomTails***
You must be logged in to post