Originally Posted By FerretAfros Just out of curiosity, how is it an omnimover? The trains aren't all connected together, and it's not even moving when you get on it? Does it have something to do with the way the tracks are made (and look similar to a roller coaster)?
Originally Posted By mousermerf I think it's merely a grouping that differentiates "dark rides" "boat rides" "roller coasters" "simulators" and "omnimovers." Of the categories, it's not a dark ride like you have in Fantasyland (not to mention the original ride system was a modified omnimover) so it gets into the omni group - it's certainl not a roller coaster or boat ride. So, comparing it in terms of capacity, scope, and such, it is considered an omnimover. That said, of that group, it's the least attended.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << So, comparing it in terms of capacity, scope, and such, it is considered an omnimover. >> The omnimover ride system has nothing to do with capacity or scope (whatever that is). It describes a very specific ride system that allows a vehicle to continuously pivot and tilt on an axis throughout an attraction to ensure show scenes are presented at the best angle for each vehicle as it passes through the sets. I don't recall if the Journey vehicles pivot to interact with show scenes, but do not believe they have the full range of movement that would describe the classic omnimover.
Originally Posted By MPierce If SSE is not an omni-mover, what is it? The cars are all attached, it rotates for viewing different areas, it is in constant motion for the most part. What is it?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << The cars are all attached, it rotates for viewing different areas, >> It only rotates once at the top of the dome, and movement is limited. It remains oriented with the track throughout the rest of the ride. A true omnimover pivots throughout the ride to direct the viewers attention at specific show elements. SSE does not do this. Buzz Lightyear is capable of this sort of movement.
Originally Posted By danyoung I don't have the time to research as deeply as I'd like, SG. But google OmniMover Spaceship and you'll find many many references from all kinds of sources, including Mouseplanet and Miceage (and maybe even laughingplace) that refer to SSE as an omnimover. You may indeed be right on a technicality, but common usage indicates that SSE is indeed an omnimover attraction. I'd love to hear directly from some imagineers like maybe Bob Gurr to get their opinion.
Originally Posted By Nobody I second danyoung's post. I also understand Sport Goofy's point, however I feel it is misplaced. It seems to me that there are many separate design elements that make up an Omnimover. * The continuous-chain of individual vehicles * The under-floor roller mech. * The under-floor motors (and their locations throughout the circuit * The ability to pivot at pre-determined locations * etc. I think we all agree that the classic version (and image) of the Omnimover is the "Atomobile" or the "Doombuggy" with their clam-shell designs. Things do however evolve, and designs have changed for attractions over the years. These newer transports are still Omnimovers. An analogy I thought of was that of modern passenger jets. They are designed with the ability to do maneuvers that would make most of us sick, or at least very uncomfortable. Just because the airlines CHOOSE not to implement those movements on a regular basis doesn't make the craft something other than a jet airplane. Likewise, just because WDI chooses not to pivot each car toward each scene in SSE, doesn't make the conveyance something other than an Omnimover. One last point to ponder. it's my observation (and I've not been on all Omnimover rides so someone else cane correct me) that usually when one of these rides goes on an incline (or descent) the car is facing directly up the slope. I'm sure this is done for the comfort of the riders. Aside from load/unload, and the top section, SSE's track is on a slope. Turning the cars to face each scene would be awkward because the rider would be shifting from one off-angle perspective to another. I imagine that the designers just decided to leave the upper view-restricting portion of the car off and let the riders view the scenes as they see fit. I hope this makes sense to some of you.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros The original omnimovers had an extra rail that changed places along the track, and it made the cars spin and tilt. I don't know if SSE has that rail, but HM does (which is why the attic door in DL can't be covered up for HMH by turning the vehicles a different way). I believe that is what makes the official difference between a real omnimover, and a fake one. Buzz does not have this rail, as the cars can spin on their own. Horizons didn't have the extra rail, and neither does the new Nemo ride. I would call everything I've listed an omnimover, but technically I guess a lot of them aren't. I have a really tough time calling any version of the Imagination an omnimover (it has as much credence as calling Peter Pan one because it has the moving cars at loading).
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Didn't the cars in SSE originally turn to face the show scenes? I seem to remember reading it somewhere a while ago. Maybe someone with first hand experience can help.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom It would be difficult having the cars pivot to view the scenes while ascending SSE since the riders would be tilted sideways in their cars, which would be an uncomfortable riding position. In HM the Doombuggies do pivot but only while traveling on level track and never while ascending or descending. The cars in Imagination do pivot to view the some of the scenes, I'm not sure about all of the scenes. Meanwhile in SSE, the cars do pivot at the top of the ride ( on level footing ) so that every rider has best viewing of Spaceship Earth. Of course the cars pivot for the descent. The technology used in this ride/ attraction was best when the ride was first opened. The typical theme park visitor would merely find this ride dates with 80s technology. More modern theme part rides/ attraction simply have more updated technology. I don't necessarily view this that a minus of SSE. I happen to like the technology in SSE. However, I think its being downplayed. For example, one technology that SSE uses is "smells", your suppose to be able to smell Rome burning, etc.... I remember that there were a variety of distinctive smells used in the ride. My understand, and I could be wrong, is that Disney toned down the intensity of the smells due to riders complaints ( SSE was very enclosed areas as apposed to HM, PoTC or Soarin ). In terms of improvements. WDW visitors have watched while other trademark Disney rides have gotten tremendious upgrades. PoTC got several of the latest and greatest amintronics and the fake fire in the burning of the town scene is really well done. I think SSE fans waited patiently to see major changes done on SSE ( primarily with a smoother track system if nothing more ), meanwhile it seems all we have seen of improvements to SSE have been window dressing. SSE is a jewel the intentional show piece of EPCOT. Its worth of some money and resources directed its way. Furthermore, I work for a major telecommunication company. I more specifically work with the transport of data along fiberoptic cable. I find the information that one gleems during the descent and conclusion of SSE as "dated". We have come along way from a school child in the USA using a video "call" with another school child in Japan. Honesly, people are doing live cam on AOL and Yahoo messenger. Nothing cutting edge there anymore. Even if Disney just "cleaned off the dust" on the ride and smoothed out the ride track, there is no reason why Disney can't make the area that you are emptied out in at the conclusion of the ride back to its cutting edge technology days. I can remember when they displayed the "video fridge" and when you could actually make calls to other people in Disney parks. I had the opportunity to go into this area on a trip to WDW back in October and although it has nice lights and lots of shiny metal, I did not find the technology to be all that appealing.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN Oh my! Yet another negative report about SSE. Gives me pause to go ride later today... I wonder how long before some pro-Disney puke will criticise pour mousemerf...
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << It seems to me that there are many separate design elements that make up an Omnimover. * The continuous-chain of individual vehicles * The under-floor roller mech. * The under-floor motors (and their locations throughout the circuit * The ability to pivot at pre-determined locations * etc. >> Of the items you listed, only the ability to mechanically pivot vehicles to view show scenes is described in the original 1968 patent for the omnimover design. The other elements are completely irrelevant to the definition of an omnimover. I just find it interesting that a forum for Disney "geeks" isn't geeky enough to know the exact origins of some of these specific terms. Here are the fundamental characteristics of an omnimover: 1. Seat that swivels and tilts forwardly and rearwardly to allow passengers to remain upright on inclines and declines. 2. Seat positions are adjusted mechanically with rails positioned along the track.
Originally Posted By mousermerf By your definition, then Imagination is definately an omnimover (explaining why it's grouped in them) and SSE was built as and intended to be an omnimover - they just found the turning to be odd, and thus the vehicles only rotate at the top to come back down. That's why most SSE scenes are only on one side of the vehicle.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << By your definition, then Imagination is definately an omnimover (explaining why it's grouped in them) and SSE was built as and intended to be an omnimover >> No, because the definition requires that the vehicles be able to tilt forwardly and backwardly on inclines to maintain a level seating platform for guests in the vehicle. SSE does not do this. In fact, the only reason the vehicles rotate at all is so that riders aren't heaved over forward on the descent out of the sphere since the vehicles are not capable of leveling themselves like a true omnimover. Imagination does not fit the definition because the vehicles also don't have any ability to tilt. Also, the rotation of Journey vehicles is accommodated by an electrical signal instead of a mechanical device embedded in the track.
Originally Posted By mousermerf Umm.. HM nor Inner Space vehicles tilt to level themselves. Only the vehicles on World of Motion did that.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Umm.. HM nor Inner Space vehicles tilt to level themselves. >> Check again. HM vehicles do tilt on the less severe inclines.
Originally Posted By Nobody From post 53: "Of the items you listed, only the ability to mechanically pivot vehicles to view show scenes is described in the original 1968 patent for the omnimover design. The other elements are completely irrelevant to the definition of an omnimover." For those interested... <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2zl72r" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/2zl72r</a> The abstract indeed highlights the pivoting functionality, but the remaining portions of the document don't omit many of the other characteristics. I admittedly don't consider myself "geeky enough" to know a lot of this stuff, so please enlighten me (and perhaps others here) as to the names of the ride systems for SSE, Buzz Lightyear, and some of the others mentioned above that are truly set apart from the patented Omnimovers. Thanks in advance.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ Every ride systems isn't required to have a specific name. I'd say that most, particularly at EPCOT, are unique to the attractions they were designed to serve.
Originally Posted By Nobody From post 57: "Check again. HM vehicles do tilt on the less severe inclines." I think that there is a practical limit to the amount of tilt that the vehicles can do. This might be a reason that they don't remain level on the more "severe inclines". This might also have contributed to the designers decision not to implement the "swivel to face the display" feature in SSE. (Disclaimer: It's been awhile since I've been on SSE, so I don't really remember the degree of incline and descent.)
