99 replies to this topic

[Woodpecker]

v7 made it through 10 years without accident and carried nearly 35,000 peeps. I should say that inspections and repairs seem to happen on time even without a dedicated mechanic. Anyway, I did a bit of capacity research on v6:

4 trains, 12 secs wait: 5,424 pph
4 trains, 15 secs wait: 5,304 pph

5 trains 12 secs wait: 5,124 pph
5 trains 15 secs wait: 5,472 pph

As you can see there isn't much in it between the two maximums of 4 trains, 12 secs and 5 trains, 15 secs. It's about 48 guests or £340.80 per hour. Conversly, the difference between these maximums and v7's 5-train maximum is 516 pph /468 pph or an additional £3,663.60 / £3,322.80 per hour respectively. That's a huge difference, even considering that these maximums soon fell for lower figures. Perhaps it would be best to release two versions of Shockwave 2: version 6 for those without the extra cash and space and version 7 for those with it. I'm going to do some final tests to see whether moving the lifthill on version 6 to match version 7 is worth it, but other than that I think the two tracks are pretty much perfect.

Oh, and with 4 trains on v6 and 5 trains on v7, there were no trains held on the final chain block before the helix.

Judging by the timimg of your post, I think you were trying to view it just at the time I was editing it because I'd posted the wrong one!

I looked at it several hours later and had no problems.

[Wolfman]

4 trains, 12 secs wait: 5,424 pph
4 trains, 15 secs wait: 5,304 pph

5 trains 12 secs wait: 5,124 pph
5 trains 15 secs wait: 5,472 pph

As you can see there isn't much in it between the two maximums of 4 trains, 12 secs and 5 trains, 15 secs. It's about 48 guests or £340.80 per hour. Conversly, the difference between these maximums and v7's 5-train maximum is 516 pph /468 pph or an additional £3,663.60 / £3,322.80 per hour respectively. That's a huge difference, even considering that these maximums soon fell for lower figures.

WOW! I never really took the time to crunch the numbers. That's enough to add a DECENT assortment of flat rides and food stalls to a park.
No wonder you wanted to keep that fifth train rolling. You can wager that I'm going to remember this little lesson you showed me today.

What cost to build on flat land, are you looking at?

As far as the numbers slipping, there is a sort of "Novelty Personna" that the rides get. After a while, the peeps get used to it, then it's only the diehard fans of the attraction that sustain it's keep. It would be interesting to see how long it takes for this coaster to totally loose it's fanbase. To the point where the coaster costs more to maintain, than it brings in.

[Woodpecker]

WOW! I never really took the time to crunch the numbers. That's enough to add a DECENT assortment of flat rides and food stalls to a park.
No wonder you wanted to keep that fifth train rolling. You can wager that I'm going to remember this little lesson you showed me today.

What cost to build on flat land, are you looking at?

As far as the numbers slipping, there is a sort of "Novelty Personna" that the rides get. After a while, the peeps get used to it, then it's only the diehard fans of the attraction that sustain it's keep. It would be interesting to see how long it takes for this coaster to totally loose it's fanbase. To the point where the coaster costs more to maintain, than it brings in.

Yes, it's impressive isn't it? The money calculations were done on a whim to see if the financial difference would justify the extra cost. Thanks to leaving my memory stick at home (with all the files on it) I redesigned the queue and recreated exactly the larger version from memory. Somehow the difference in the queue layout allowed a much higher maximum: 6,216 pph, and that was in a rainstorm! Now the financial difference is a much bigger 792 pph / 744 pph or an additional £5,623.20 / £5,282.40 per hour respectively. That's a huge amount of cash from one more train and a slightly larger footprint. You could build another coaster for that.

I used a £7.10 ticket price (equal to the ride's excitement level on masterbench v1b) as my reference for these sums. It's a good tactic to set the ticket price like this as guests are always willing to pay and they don't say it's too much money for quite a while, even after the novelty has worn off. However, the test was done on an rct2 version of Arid Heights with lots of other good coasters nearby and a higher excitement level (7.24). This may have skewed the popularity a little, but even so it's encouraging. In addition it stayed at over 6,000 pph for most of the rainstorm - much longer than the previous test. I think it would take many years to lose it's fanbase as after 10 years on last night's soak, v7 still pulled in over 3,300 peeps.

As for the construction costs: for version 6 it's £22,943 with a plot of 27x12, and for version 7 it's £23,389 with a plot of 29x12. The cost difference is £446 for the 2 extra squares and 1 extra block brake (a lot less than I expected) but if you have the space and that extra cash, v7 is a significantly better bet. That said, v6 can generate lots of profit as it is, so both versions are crowd-crunchers and money-makers.

Version 7 is now on the ridex for you to look at. It would be interesting to hear how it gets on financially, setting the initial ticket price as explained above. On masterbench v1b version 6 didn't get many guests for some reason. Maybe I built a bad park. Anyway, I must get to bed now as it's half past 11 at night and I'm tired!

[rcthelp]

Don't forget that those takings per hour equate to a game year in RCT2 terms. 7.5 ride/peep minutes = 1 game month.

[Woodpecker]

I know. But £5282.40 divided by 8 months = £660.30 which is £40 less than two merry-go-rounds, or £140 more than two toilets. You could build a coaster after a year or a new flat ride each month. It's also assuming the ride runs at that capacity for the whole month or year. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so excited. On the other hand Steel Twisters are expensive so the more money you can get from them the better off you'll be, just in terms of recouping your initial outlay. At that capacity (6,216 pph) it earns £5,516.70 per rct month or £44,133.60 per rct year. It's still a lot, no?

Just a reminder: v7 requires a wait time of 15 seconds, otherwise trains 2-5 stop on all the block sections. It's also about right to fully load the trains.

[Woodpecker]

On masterbench v1b the ride finally paid off its building cost in year 2. However, that was when it carried just over 3,600 an hour at its very peak capacity: the peeps seemed to need a lot of encouragement to build any sort of a queue for Shockwave 2. Perhaps it requires careful placing to maximise capacity and profits. One thing I noticed is that the viewing from v7's queue is not good, and here v6 has the visual advantage: the exit platform is almost under the zero-g. It could easily be placed with the offload platform parallel to a pathway, and the queue snaking its way around the side. Plenty of action is then visible fom the midway. With v7, the awkwardness of the corner station requires the ride to be placed more centrally, otherwise most of the action is semi-disguised by the lifthill.

Edited by Woodpecker, 06 May 2009 - 10:26 PM.

[Woodpecker]

Strangely v6 on 4 trains drew a crowd of devoted fans very fast. I think these tracks have at last been perfected.

Any further comments/questions/suggestions or has this topic reached its conclusion?

Edited by Woodpecker, 09 May 2009 - 09:49 PM.

[Woodpecker]

I've completed some overnight soak tests: v6 and v7 have both been tested on a money scenario with 2 mechanics each and also on a moneyless scenario with no mechanics assigned. Neither coaster ever experienced a crash on either scenario. Due to ticket pricing on the money scenario both coasters suddenly lost all custom in year 11, but by this time they had both generated over £200,000 in profits and v7 had garnered an additional £13,000 over v6. Ticket price was set at £7.10 in both cases.

Wolfman: I checked whether it made a difference where I put the station in relation to the train. Because it is only 7 cars long, if I put it on the second square from the front it services 3 cars in front and 4 to the left. If I put it on the third square from the front (in the middle of the station) it services 3 cars in front and 4 to the right, so it's the same either way.

[mushroomer]

I came out of oblivion to search for some good tracks. And I found this. Really good edit...better then the original. Makes tons of $$$ and moves a lot of peeps while it's at it. Well done!

[Woodpecker]

I came out of oblivion to search for some good tracks. And I found this. Really good edit...better then the original. Makes tons of $$$ and moves a lot of peeps while it's at it. Well done!

Thanks! Credit again to Wolfman and rcthelp. Would that be v6 (4 trains) or v7 (5 trains) you were referring to?