silver2005

To me, Steel Dragon 2000 is the steel structure equivalent to SOB in terms of massiveness (better designed obviously). Its ridiculous due to the earthquake proofing (which is why it got a nice $50 million price tag, too). I think I prefer the minimalist approach of I-305. Its a radical departure from normal supports which gives it a unique and maybe even an unorthodox look. You don't expect a coaster so tall to have so few support beams. It helps that its color scheme makes it pop more than the other gigas, too.

My 2nd entry.

To add to this, there are several tools on the forums which allows you to look up post history- the search engine on the forum as well as looking up individual members' post history. The later is under every members' profile page under the button to the right just under the cover photo labeled 'See their activity'. And the post history covers everything.

For those not in the know about this ride, this was the first coaster to hit 100 mph (this was built right before Superman: The Escape at SFMM), so its kind of a big milestone coaster coming down here. It also got the Drop Tower attachment before Superman as well. Its kind of weird to see all these high concept rides of the late 90's all coming down together.

^2nd tallest currently (kinda) standing? Yes. Overall? No. That honor went to Great American Scream Machine at Six Flags Great Adventure. I'm assuming you know the tallest is Viper at SFMM.

Think of the dueling coaster possibilities with this ride. You could easily do something where you have one track with 2 sets of running rails on it to have one train run below and one above. You could even make it mobius a la Kennywood's Racer but on steroids with the inversions and such. This as a dueling coaster would be much more compact than your Lightning Racers and Dueling Dragons of the world.

In addition to the terrain issue, Vortex was all welded together, possibly with some last minute adjustments done on site when it was constructed. Cutting it apart would be pretty meticulous. Most of the only Arrows that have been relocated are the smaller ones. Even if Vortex were in working condition enough to sell like that, it's never been done on an Arrow of that size.

I know many including myself attest to the back being the better part of the train to ride it because of that killer air on the first drop, but I was also fond of the front seat, not just because it was the front, but the way the nose is shaped in the front meant it really had a nice breeze to it no matter what time of day/year. It also had the most leg room of any seat as well to boot.

As much as it was a sad event, I felt a lot of good came from that night. I myself got to throw Vortex stories around with a lot of different people and stuff like this is the best of it. I'm glad a lot of people left last night on a high note given what it was, at least that's how I walked away thinking about that day. I know the park took some flak from enthusiasts regarding the timing, but given what they had to work with, I think the park did a great job.

Just out of curiosity @VortexBFForever, did you get to interact with the original Vortex crew at all that night?

I feel like DB has been a slight exception to the rule that B&M's are supposed to be reliable. Outside of their flying coasters, I haven't heard of a B&M with the frequency of problems that DB seems to rack up. Obviously, its not super bad and DB has been a fine ride, but sometimes it does leave you scratching your head.

So I went a bit overboard than I expected and took about 200 photos of Vortex on its last day of operations (and a few of Orion- when in Rome....). I took some of the more typical photos, but I also went around the entire park and took photos from spots we see it and take it for granted. There are some GLORIOUS spots that most people don't think of. I'll post my money shot here, but I will be posting them elsewhere as well. It was a real labor of love to really try to capture the ride in its relation to the park and its incomparable place in the park skyline. I hope you enjoy them and reminisce well in viewing them. Here's my favorite view- looking at Vortex at sunset as a train flies up the 2nd hill.

I stand corrected on the whole park not actually saying what it is issue. I'm going by the call @IndyGuy4KI made to the park, but to me, that was good enough and is still the park going out of their way. The other reason that's good enough for me is because I imagine Brad introduced himself as an admin here thus they knew in that context it would be spread as a kind of official statement. They didn't have to give him an explanation and it obviously isn't important enough to them given what they are working on currently, nor should it be IMO. They're still documenting Orion going up without the webcams which is good enough for me. I mean, if it is incompetence, then that's also a non-issue with me. Every park encounters that in some form. However, its still the case that the park doesn't owe an explanation and we're likely not going to get an explanation for something so insignificant. This whole thing is stopped cold by that fact.

@sixohdieselrage But they aren't telling you the exact reason a ride goes down and, again, aren't obligated to. If you know that's the way its going to be with the webcams and are just going to sit as patiently or impatiently for them to get back up like anyone else, why keep pressing on it? To me, the park went out of their way to say something at all, which, those can still be valid as the problem could be bigger than you're all thinking. Incompetence shows up at any park so that doesn't make KI any more special in this circumstance. Being a private property means they are allowed not to tell you everything. I also think the vast majority of you are blowing this webcam business way, way, way out of proportion in relation to how it affects the park's bottom line. Most people viewing the cams are already KI fans and a slight malfunction won't be enough for them not to come back and continue purchasing tickets/passes/merch, etc. Unless you can prove that correlation in a way that is meaningful to the park's well being, its a non-issue with me.

Then what's the difference between the park not telling people why individual rides get shut down and the park not saying why the webcams are shut down?

^Then you're being upset at the park's lack of tranparency over guessing and things that aren't in your control. EDIT: @PilotDude I also never said I knew anything, you're putting words in my mouth or being very bad at assuming things about my words. You guys aren't even trying to see things from what I've laid out.

But you nor any other member aren't in a position to know if they are potential lies because 1) none of you work for the park and 2) the park really doesn't owe explanations. Don't brush that part aside. The best you guys are doing is guess-timations. I'm guessing we're just simply not getting the explanation for this. You're dropping a huge accusation towards the park for an event that doesn't warrant it. Like, what good does it actually do to know why they're down? What does the park telling people why actually achieve? They don't tell you what's wrong with individual rides when they're down, right? What's the difference with how they don't tell you why the webcams are down? Those 2 are equivalent responses and the park has been consistent on that. They're still documenting the construction of Orion. There's no doubt they won't. I don't get your guys' end goal in going through all this.

There's one big point about the park transparency that keeps bring brought up that I'd like to dissect as well, the whole thing about how the Eiffel Tower is using power to use the elevators and lights and the webcams are off. Most of these people are judging that based off of things they themselves admit to not knowing about, which is how they are using the electricity and stuff going on about electrical engineering. You're basing your whole lack of transparency premise off of things you're guessing on. There's no foundation to that argument coming from people who don't know about electrical engineering and acting like you know the park isn't telling the truth. Why should I believe any of these claims from people who admit to not being entirely knowledgeable about the situation? That's jumping to conclusions and going after the park with an accusation that isn't a light accusation. Saying the park is lying or not being transparent isn't something to brush aside. The act of the accusation and the framing of the argument is what I've been having a problem with. There are other angles to seeing why the webcams are down to be acknowledged and people are posting like they've nailed it and can't accept other reasons no matter how plausible or true. Those members are hammering and relying on those notions without being in a position to be knowledgeable to make those claims in the first place. Unless you can make yourself credible by explaining why you know things and lay it out why (ex. actually being an electrical engineer and fully knowing how the park's and ET's power grid works), the claims of lack of transparency and/or lying hold no water.

I think the problem with how the forums are going, and it particularly pertains to this thread, is that people on the different sides of the issue don't know how to counter argue respectfully, don't know what the counterarguments are, and in general come to their conclusion without stepping back and trying to see others' point of view and don't allow their viewpoints to change when presented with new information. Its easy to come to your own conclusions in your head and rationalized it to be true, but once presented with new points of view, its important to try and see things from those new perspectives. I think there's a growing lack of that in this forum as a whole and its centered right now on this webcam topic. If you really want to see the forums be something productive and engaging, you have to be able to do that. Everyone has different points of view and perspective, even on topics you think are cut and dry, black and white. Saying for people to just not read is pretty poor choice in words. Its been difficult to veer from that as a lot of members continue to post with the mindset of those criticisms and the way they project them onto other threads. Its hard to escape one thread's points because often members still post that on other threads despite other members' and mods' best intentions to 'stay on topic'. The whole webcams thing has become a sort of 'Topic A' right now with how much its being brought up. For those who've been here a while- remember how every thread used to always bring up SOB? Its happening again (albeit more subtle and less widespread) with this webcam thing, and it did when the whole b***** giga thing was brought up, too. Its because tangents can be on topic as well- showing different examples of something happening and looking for similarities and differences in events and theories is natural to see different perspectives. There still needs to be a focus, but going off of tangents is a perfectly normal thing to do in conversations and shouldn't be frowned upon as being 'off topic'. I think a lot of us have different ideas of how far you can go on tangents and be 'on' or 'off' topic. Its also been commonplace here lately to see people brush aside and be dismissive of others' arguments as well, and people overreact in groups to one person having a 'dissenting' viewpoint to where the person having that different viewpoint feels the need to get overly defensive because a lot of unfair and untrue criticisms get flung around (ex. members pointing out that someone is being 'preachy'). And I think the whole term 'argument' has been misunderstood and mischaracterizatized as well. There are different types of 'arguments'. There are the ones that most people know of where they just disagree and don't come to a disagreement, but there is also the way where you see the varying viewpoints, most of the time are in disagreement, but you then take information from those varying sides and come to a conclusion based on the entirety of the viewpoints. Its a very common thing in college writing, especially when it comes to providing counterarguments for criticisms. That's one of the first things you get taught in writing courses.

@sixohdieselrage I think we just agree to disagree what the park's handling of the webcam is and how big it is. I think of all the KI priorities, the webcams are right near the bottom considering they're getting ready to transition from Haunt to Winterfest and I still honestly think you guys wanting transparency and other members' beside yourself making unsubstantiated claims of the park lying are going about it all wrong and perhaps a bit misguided. The park has 0 obligation to be transparent about the webcams. Yes, they happen to be down during a big moment in its construction, but I think you guys harking on the park are out of touch with a lot of other things. I ask to whom this affects because really, how much does this one anecdotal situation have on the grand scheme of things? There's no pattern in what the park has been doing to deserve any of that scorn. One incident, even if it is true, isn't a pattern. I think there's been a lot of jumping to conclusions in all of this as well. And I know a lot of the claims of not being relaxed are aimed at me and to that I ask- when does disagreement equal not being relaxed? I think a lot of you just weren't prepared for counterarguments and overreacted. I think a lot of my claims in defending the park are still quite valid. Don't expect your opinions to be automatically taken at face value and for everyone to agree, no matter how hard you try in rationalizing it in your head.

Here's where I'm gonna blow some of your minds in agreeing with you. With the added evidence of the eyes being lit up, I will partially agree with the notion that the park is taking a bit long to get the web cams back up. There's still no way you will still convince me the park lied, but it is odd that the wait has been lengthy. In that way, I'll give you guys a little ounce of credit. I think the cameras are still on with the messages they're sending when you click on them plus the fact there are stills of previous images.

Based entirely off of how they're handling the webcams? You're kidding, right? There are many other areas that the park could screw up which that would be true. The webcams aren't one of those issues. I think most of you are stuck in the enthusiast social bubble.

What do average customers have to benefit from that information?

I don't get why you think I'm not relaxed. I'm simply building my points of speculation from another side of this and voicing my opinions as well. And don't act like you haven't been tense in your opinions either. You're the one defending building the case with the claims of the park lying in the first place. You can't say that isn't drama.

You keep bringing it up and defending it as if you think I'm just going to take what you say at face value. I don't agree with your stances on this and I am choosing to voice that as I think you guys spreading the park lying notion are in fact spreading the bad information. I don't think you realize how much anyone can pick this stuff apart and find giant logical holes in this. I'm having you spell it out on purpose so I can show how bad this argument is. At this point, I just think we're going to agree to disagree.