What's new

Phantasialand | F. L. Y. | Vekoma Launched Flying Coaster | 2020

The biggest issue with this is that entire concept of an inversion on a flier is ill-defined.

Traditionally, we would class "normal" as being gravity pulling from our heads towards our feet (or arse if you're sitting for the pedants in the audience). To invert us as humans (in this context positionally, not biologically (eugh, messy), sexually (common enough in coaster groups), alignment (lawful good to chaotic evil) - or any other way you can think to argue that my definition of inversion is wrong :p ), gravity should be pulling from our heads to our feet (arses).

On a Flying Coaster (B&M, before anyone starts with the Vekoma monstrosities), gravity pulls from the back (arse) to the front (dick/vag). To invert that you need front (dick/vag) to back (arse).

However, in our "normal" position on a coaster, the track lies under the train, unless it's an invert, then it doesn't. An inversion in this sense occurs when the track rotates through (roughly) 180 degrees to face downwards (or upwards on an invert). With a flier, the track is above and facing down, so an inverted piece of track is below facing up and bollocks to what your body is doing.

I think that is all very clear ;)

So, how do we actually work this out? For that, we need science. And if we have science, we need a spreadsheet.

isitaninversion.png


This simple chart makes everything quite clear. There are only two sources that can assert if a ride contains an inversion or not. The park or the manufacturer. If either of these entities states it is an inversion, then we must also assume it is. They have cleared (probably ride by ride) a range of criteria for a specific ride to meet for it to have an element that is an inversion or not.

So if the park or manufacturer say it's an inversion, then it's an inversion. If the park or manufacturer say yes it isn't an inversion, then it's not an inversion.

This is all very simple and clear so far, no?

Now it starts to get complicated.

The issue is that the above table doesn't take into account all of the variables. If you were to ask the manufacturer and the park if it's an inversion and one says yes, but the other doesn't reply - you step out of binary and into quantum inversion mathematics. This is a highly dangerous and understudied field of physics that could have disastrous results for us all. Let me demonstrate with more science and Excel.

Here we have the new narrative
isitaninversion2.png


This gives us the same result as above, only now we can see it expanded to take into account that the Park and Manufacturer may give different responses or no response. As long as both have the same response and their inversions aligned, we don't have an issue. However, what happens if one or the other doesn't respond? Here is where we get into the realms of quantum. If the manufacturer says "Inversion", but the Park stays quiet, then the Park position is both Inversion and Not Inversion at the same time until asked - then it becomes the definitive answer. We can assume a binary multiplication on the answer, so an "Inversion" from the manufacturer, but the park being quiet will result in an automatic positive for Inversion from the park. However, that assumes too much and we can't rely on the assumption of a logical OR in this case.

So we now see the science building below
isitaninversion3.png

Due to abject laziness, I haven't included the options for "not, not an inversion" in the positive. I didn't want to confuse anyone by over complicating this.

We see the impact of quantum inversion mechanic discussion criteria (acronym "QuIMDiC") here with several cases where the park or manufacturer do not confirm if it is an inversion or not, leaving us in a state of "not a bloody clue". QuIMDiC analysis is quite clear on the degree of bollock droppingly bottomless cluelessness on this.

There is, of course, another level to this. There's a chance that (possibly to avoid the quantum confusion), the park and manufacturer both respond, but with opposing statements on if it is an inversion or not.

We can see the results here, once again, using science.
isitaninversion4.png


I think it's worth noting the potential disastrous nature of the park and manufacturer disagreeing. This would lead to a massive universe shattering argument on coaster forums across the world, resulting in the utter destruction of all known life and matter in the universe.

Hopefully, that makes it easier for everyone to understand now. I think I proven that a picture is definitely worth a thousand words ;)
 
All seem fine. I think Hixee can see them all too.

Sent from my E6683 using Tapatalk
 
The biggest issue with this is that entire concept of an inversion on a flier is ill-defined.

Traditionally, we would class "normal" as being gravity pulling from our heads towards our feet (or arse if you're sitting for the pedants in the audience). To invert us as humans (in this context positionally, not biologically (eugh, messy), sexually (common enough in coaster groups), alignment (lawful good to chaotic evil) - or any other way you can think to argue that my definition of inversion is wrong :p ), gravity should be pulling from our heads to our feet (arses).

On a Flying Coaster (B&M, before anyone starts with the Vekoma monstrosities), gravity pulls from the back (arse) to the front (dick/vag). To invert that you need front (dick/vag) to back (arse).

However, in our "normal" position on a coaster, the track lies under the train, unless it's an invert, then it doesn't. An inversion in this sense occurs when the track rotates through (roughly) 180 degrees to face downwards (or upwards on an invert). With a flier, the track is above and facing down, so an inverted piece of track is below facing up and bollocks to what your body is doing.

I think that is all very clear ;)

So, how do we actually work this out? For that, we need science. And if we have science, we need a spreadsheet.

isitaninversion.png


This simple chart makes everything quite clear. There are only two sources that can assert if a ride contains an inversion or not. The park or the manufacturer. If either of these entities states it is an inversion, then we must also assume it is. They have cleared (probably ride by ride) a range of criteria for a specific ride to meet for it to have an element that is an inversion or not.

So if the park or manufacturer say it's an inversion, then it's an inversion. If the park or manufacturer say yes it isn't an inversion, then it's not an inversion.

This is all very simple and clear so far, no?

Now it starts to get complicated.

The issue is that the above table doesn't take into account all of the variables. If you were to ask the manufacturer and the park if it's an inversion and one says yes, but the other doesn't reply - you step out of binary and into quantum inversion mathematics. This is a highly dangerous and understudied field of physics that could have disastrous results for us all. Let me demonstrate with more science and Excel.

Here we have the new narrative
isitaninversion2.png


This gives us the same result as above, only now we can see it expanded to take into account that the Park and Manufacturer may give different responses or no response. As long as both have the same response and their inversions aligned, we don't have an issue. However, what happens if one or the other doesn't respond? Here is where we get into the realms of quantum. If the manufacturer says "Inversion", but the Park stays quiet, then the Park position is both Inversion and Not Inversion at the same time until asked - then it becomes the definitive answer. We can assume a binary multiplication on the answer, so an "Inversion" from the manufacturer, but the park being quiet will result in an automatic positive for Inversion from the park. However, that assumes too much and we can't rely on the assumption of a logical OR in this case.

So we now see the science building below
isitaninversion3.png

Due to abject laziness, I haven't included the options for "not, not an inversion" in the positive. I didn't want to confuse anyone by over complicating this.

We see the impact of quantum inversion mechanic discussion criteria (acronym "QuIMDiC") here with several cases where the park or manufacturer do not confirm if it is an inversion or not, leaving us in a state of "not a bloody clue". QuIMDiC analysis is quite clear on the degree of bollock droppingly bottomless cluelessness on this.

There is, of course, another level to this. There's a chance that (possibly to avoid the quantum confusion), the park and manufacturer both respond, but with opposing statements on if it is an inversion or not.

We can see the results here, once again, using science.
isitaninversion4.png


I think it's worth noting the potential disastrous nature of the park and manufacturer disagreeing. This would lead to a massive universe shattering argument on coaster forums across the world, resulting in the utter destruction of all known life and matter in the universe.

Hopefully, that makes it easier for everyone to understand now. I think I proven that a picture is definitely worth a thousand words ;)
Unfortunately, this whole post relies on dummy arguments. At first it sounds logically, but just because an authority says something, that doesn't mean it's right. If both the manufacturer and the park would for some reason agree that Taron inverts (overbanking), would that mean it's an actual inversion? It would still just be overbanked and not an inversion. "Someone says" is never a valid argument, even if multiple people do. The same thing goes with powered coasters - Manufacturer and Park may say it's a coaster, but many of us still don't count it.
 
Unfortunately, this whole post relies on dummy arguments. At first it sounds logically, but just because an authority says something, that doesn't mean it's right. If both the manufacturer and the park would for some reason agree that Taron inverts (overbanking), would that mean it's an actual inversion? It would still just be overbanked and not an inversion. "Someone says" is never a valid argument, even if multiple people do. The same thing goes with powered coasters - Manufacturer and Park may say it's a coaster, but many of us still don't count it.
furie's whole post is actually a mockery. Even his regular use of The Chart is sarcastic.

We see the impact of quantum inversion mechanic discussion criteria (acronym "QuIMDiC") here with several cases where the park or manufacturer do not confirm if it is an inversion or not, leaving us in a state of "not a bloody clue". QuIMDiC analysis is quite clear on the degree of bollock droppingly bottomless cluelessness on this.
 
furie's whole post is actually a mockery. Even his regular use of The Chart is sarcastic.
I just read parts but I already guessed, but I have been on the internet for so long, I expect everything. Both that people would say something like than, and especially that there are people who would accept arguments like that. So now it's clear at least :D
 
People should accept the argument, because SCIENCE! If it's in a spreadsheet, it has to be true!

To be semi-serious though... "At first it sounds logically, but just because an authority says something, that doesn't mean it's right."

It kind of does. The authority, is by definition, the authority. The experts are the experts. If you have one expert that says the sky is blue and millions of nobodies say "it's yellow", then the sky is blue. 1 million multiplied by nobody is nobody.

You can have your own opinion and posit an argument for your opinion, but at the end of the day the authority is the top rank when it comes to a ruling.

Okay, if B&M said "a vertical loop is NOT an inversion", then you'd be right to question their authority. When it's something a bit "fluffier" though, then they get to decide which side of the fluff things fall onto. Literally, if B&M say "this is an inversion", then they are the only people who can say that.

I don't count powered coasters, but I will never say to somebody who does "you're wrong, it's not a coaster" - simply because they will say "it is, it says so on the box and there is no dictionary definition to say that a coaster can't have power throughout" (in fact the OED defines it as "A fairground attraction that consists of a light railway track which has many tight turns and steep slopes on which people ride in small, fast open carriages.")

I don't count them because of QuIMDiC failures. A lot of powered "coasters" barely fit the definition above and the manufacturer don't always sell them as a coaster - but they fit the definition just enough. So you end up without a bloody clue if it is or not. So I err on the side of "it isn't", which then becomes hardcore and I don't count any.

I'm wrong. I know I'm wrong. I don't care - I'll still argue the case because I'm bloody minded and deliberately antagonising. I know it's an argument I can never win, same the the inversion one - if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck and is sold as a duck (from a reputable duck salesman) - it's a duck. You can argue it's a bit more "swanny" all you like, but it's a bloody duck.

Ireeb said:
this whole post relies on dummy arguments.

Absolutely agree ;)
 
Work continues on the concrete foundations of what will be the station (or possibly a dark ride section as well).
With regards to theming a number of new structures have popped up - that could eventually become roofs, towers and chimneys.
Also one of the supports for the inversion/not inversion element (gotta keep everyone happy) has now been surrounded by a structure for theming.
21753202_1578749762191136_5623844908876262449_o.jpg

 
Steampunk Dragon?
Phantasialand's recent projects have always included their Dragon mascots in the rides. There is a Quetzel animatronic in the Chiapas party cave. Shneck is involved the backstory of Klugheim and is depicted in a couple of places throughout the village. The newly refurbished River Quest has him depicted in the lifts, and the large throne on top of the whirlpool is meant to the throne of Shneck from where he watches over Klugheim.
21994020_1584442804955165_8916235404785433221_o.jpg

Rookburgh is almost certainly going to be a part of the Fantasy area (it is a seperate themed world within the area) so the Dragon for it would be Phenie. The Rookburgh sign features this logo for the 'AirRail company' (presumably in the Rookburgh backstory they are connected to F.L.Y.? Inventors or operators of...)
It looks to me as if the logo is a stylistic version of Phenie's head with large spread out wings (either dragon wings or larger versions of ones on her head). The logo is also on the Flying coaster sign.
17211839_1584443601621752_1200058615789806736_o.jpg

So Phenie will appear in the area in the form of this logo it would seem.

EDIT: Just while typing this it occured to how awesome it'd be if the zero car (assuming this funky new prototype has one) was themed to a steampunk style dragon - like how Flying Dinosaur's car features a pterodactyl...

Also not really F.L.Y. related however of potential interest to those who use Phantasialand's fast pass system when visiting.
A quick pass scanner has been installed in the station for Taron.
050e8561fe10d25ac0a932c7aca9b5ef.jpg

The station, like Chiapas, was built with a dedicated quick pass queue in place, but of course this has not been utilised yet (at the station there is a fourth entry door to the right of the single rider line)
It seems the park are preparing to introduce quick pass to Taron soon.
On PhantaFriends.de people had speculated they'd only introduce it once F.L.Y. opens but it seems it could be sooner; either this winter season or at the start of the 2018 season.
 
Top