Social Media Team
It's literally nothing like Leviathan. This has more of a focus on airtime hills, and twister elements. Don't get me wrong, Leviathan is really fun, but Orion's layout is what I wish the former was.Yeah it literally is Leviathan 2.0. Knowing what it could have been, it is very underwhelming.
They couldn't even be arsed giving the track an underbelly.
Are we talking about the same Leviathan? Considering that Leviathan has more airtime hills and has more or less the same amount of twistiness, I don't think your statement holds much water.It's literally nothing like Leviathan. This has more of a focus on airtime hills, and twister elements. Don't get me wrong, Leviathan is really fun, but Orion's layout is what I wish the former was.
Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk
If that were the case, we'd see a lot more big airtime hills... and honestly that'd be more exciting for me.It's true, knowing what Fury is/what a B&M giga can be...to go back to "standard B&M hyper" but faster and taller
If that were the case, we'd see a lot more big airtime hills... and honestly that'd be more exciting for me.
I'd easily prefer several old school camelbacks on a giga rather than a couple airtime hills and lots of turns and corners. That's kind of why I don't rate Fury as high as some of the other B&M hypers I've done. The big camelbacks are more my style.
I will say, I'm more excited for Candymonium than Orion. I just looked at Candy's layout again and that ride honestly looks more fun. More airtime hills, a wild exit on the helix, plus that whole area will likely look much nicer than Orion's.
Orion is certainly not a bad addition by any means, but the fact that Cedar Fair didn't use the long piece of land occupied merely by trees in between Racer and Beast (see: photo 1) as well as the opportunity to go deeper into the woods where Beast lurks (see: photo 2) is a bit disappointing. If this was due to the increased cost of having the coaster swoop into steep slopes of the latter plot and also to not ruin the isolated Beast experience, that's quite understandable; however, I feel that had King's Island utilized at least the area behind Racer for some sort of turnaround (see: photo 1) this would have allowed for a taller, faster and longer ride. I've heard rumors that the reasoning behind Orion's shorter layout is due to the rougher terrain that Beast weaves through - according to some data from Google Earth, it seems to be quite a steep drop-off of around 50 feet downhill from Racer's turnarounds all the way back to Beast's 2nd lift hill. That being said, though, there's still some flat land directly behind Racer and that abandoned theater - however, Beast's covered mid course brake run is quite close by. To wrap this rather long post up, I can't help but feel a little underwhelmed when a park has the chance to do something truly spectacular that deviates from the norm, yet doesn't embrace it. Was King's Island in the wrong by choosing to go with the smallest giga coaster yet, rather than a humongous Fury-beater that zips through the treetops? Certainly not! Though many other enthusiasts, including myself, would have gone wild over a giga that uses the unique terrain and forested setting that King's Island has on offer, and one even larger than Fury would've enticed us even further.@Antinos knocks it out of the park again. Agree with every bit of that.
It just looks incredibly bland, especially with the far turnaround and the big speed-bleeding helix. No spice whatsoever, just B&M being "safe" again. I'm sure the speed hill and the large hill will be pretty good, but man. I can't help but think how much more this could have been.