Slashdot Mirror
Robocoaster
AnswerIs42 writes "Got the announcement thru work email.. but a German company name Kuka has a very unique ride they are demonstrating. It has all the thrills, chills, loops, twists, puke factor of a rollercoaster.. but it only needs 11x12 meters of space! What they did is take a material handling robot (like you would find in any automotive plant) and put 2 seats on it. They also gave it a clever name: Robocoaster. I have a start of a review here, and will post more once I actually go and ride the sucker next month in Detroit. With everything it can do and more... it could start replacing rollercoasters.. perhaps?"
"11x12 metres of space"?
Is this ride only for 2D people. I'm gonna wait until they invent a 3D version.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
... I know... Disney is evil.
But Downtown Disney (Orlando, FL) has a huge arcade with a RollerCoaster simulator in it that I rode.
It was lots of fun, especially since you got to build your own roller coaster and then ride it...
But it wasn't perfect to be sure. Real rollercoasters have wind and that is the one main thing that this was missing.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
The point of a rollercoaster is to provide visual cues to pump the adrenalin - massively steep inclines to begin, followed by a rush as the coaster drops 100ft. The wind in the hair.
This looks more like a barf-o-ride. No sense of real vertigo.
This could be the beginning of machines enslaving humans. Instead of killing us, they just grab us two at a time and shake us until we're really confused.
How is this any different from the "simulator" rides that already exist at theme parks and in Dave & Buster's locations? Basically, those just move you up and down, and tilt and shake you until you wish you had never gotten on the ride.
The problem I have with these sorts of rides is that they don't even come close to a roller coaster experience, for me. No wind (okay, they could solve that with clever ducted fans), but most importantly, no real G-forces. When you go down a steep hill, you feel lighter. When you go around a tight turn, you're glued to your seat. When you go upside down, you're glued to your seat.
Somehow, I suspect that if RoboCoaster turned the car upside down, you'd fall out. Unless they've created a gravity generator.
Yes. There's nothing walmart employees enjoy more than cleaning up children's vomit hurled around the room from the centripetal forces from a spinning robocoaster.
Instead of a "40 foot" arm, build one with a VERY LARGE arm, with the same degrees-of-freedom (or more). I am thinking something like a 150-200 foot long arm (like a huge, multi-jointed, articulated crane arm).
Such a monster of a machine could be easily built with today's technology (look at coal strip mining machines, for example), would take up less space than a conventional coaster, but most important of all, it could easily simulate forward motion (especially if it was a hybrid cartesian/polar/revolute axis type arm, where the base could move laterally in two perpendicular directions, but the arm could still move in a polar or revolute fashion - anybody who works with robot arms knows what I mean here). The size of the machine would make the riders feel they were riding on a virtual track.
While what I was thinking would use way more space than this machine, it would be a great machine for a themepark...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Simulations like these lack some of the major elements that make coasters so fun. I'm a big enthusiast of coasters, and I've ridden a lot of the simulations. They don't compare, here's why generally.
a m/camera1.cfm that?
There's no wind in your hair, which detracts greatly from your sense of speed.
You know that you're in a simulation. One of the things that makes Millenium Force such an awesome ride is that it scares the shit out of you on the way up- you ARE 300 ft up. A lot of the suspense that goes with riding a ride is waiting in the line and getting strapped in. What's going to be more effective, walking into a room or strapping yourself into a metal behemoth like http://www.cedarpoint.com/public/inside_park/webc
Though simulators are good at playing games with your inner ear etc, the sensation of being upside-down or highly banked has never felt quite right to me- again, this probably has a lot to do with the fact that throughout the whole ride I know it's not really happening.
This thing works mostly off of visual cues. That's not going to make the "ride" a lot of fun, it's going to make many of it's passengers sick. Sure, coasters can do that too, but since what your eyes think is happening is more or less actually happening (I say that because good Coaster designers will mess with you a bit), I (personally) find getting sick generally happens much less compared to sims.
Finally, riding coasters is a bit of a psychological ordeal. You are conquering your fears/challenging yourself/trying to push yourself in some way. Sims don't really offer this aspect.
Worry not, roller coasters of the world- you are in no danger.
They'll never sell unit #1.
Why?
They want $1.5mil for one of these.
A ride that can do 24 riders per hour. In a typical situation that would work out to about 250 rides per day.
For $1.5 million.
For comparison, a Huss Top Spin (http://www.hussrides.com/52ClassicTopSpin.htm), which costs roughly the same, takes 40 passengers per ride, and also does flips and what not. Top Spins can, in ideal circumstances, push through upwards of 800 people per hour, withn a figure of 400-500 pph being much more realistic. That means for the same money, they can have a ride that will run through 250 people in 30 minutes, instead of 10 hours. If you were in the position of buying a ride, which would YOU buy with your money?
Let's look at it from the economic angle. Both simulators and Top Spins command an average per-ride of ~$5/passenger. This puts the Robocoaster at $120 per hour. The Top Spin at $2000-$4000. Still having trouble making up your mind?
Remember that rides need operators (Firgure 2 for the Robocoaster, 4 for the Top Spin). Figure employee costs of $10/hr per employee. The Robocoaster is down to $100/hr now. The Top Spin to $1960-$3960. Now figure insurance and power, and maintaince. Those would knock off another $40 or so from the Robocoaster, bringing it down to $50-$60/hour profit., and the Top Spin to roughly $1500-$3000.
Let's figure our hypotetical park is open 12 hours a day, 180 days a year.
That is to say, 2160 hours per year.
Robocoaster: $1.5million. $60/per hour.
Time to profit: 25,000 hours, or almost 12 years.
Top Spin: $2 million. $1500 per hour (We'll take the low end)
Time to profit: 111 days.
Made up your mind yet?
TODO: Something witty here...
Amongst the features listed are "Microsoft Windows operating system" and "Internet connectivity". A giant industrial robot connected to two helpless humans running Windows connected to the 'net... this cannot be a good thing.
_sig_ is away
From a pure geek perspective, the Robocoaster is mesmerizing. Once I saw it (at IAAPA http://www.iaapa.org ) I just stood there and watched it for about 10 minutes with a huge grin on my face. The attraction is powerful - in multiple ways. Riders who opted for the highest setting would literally have their arms and legs flung about unless they held on tightly. While an avid coaster enthusiast, I have complete respect for this new type of attraction. The robocoaster is capable of generating 1.8Gs. I, of course, chose to ride it at the maximum setting. The ride was smooth, abrupt, unique and .. fun. While being flung from one position to the next, the speed was fast enough to occasionally blur my vision. I thoroughly enjoyed the ride, and would ride multiple times.
This is merely one component that can be integrated with additional media, lighting, sound (themeing, etc). My company is working on a VR center that will feature a Robocoaster with custom themeing/programming, etc. It's not meant to replace a coaster - rather it's something new and unique that can be used as an 'attractor' in certain locations.
ps. Even without the themeing, the ride rocked. It'll make most simulators seem lame in comparison.
ps#2. Someone posted inacurate pricing. Per unit cost is approximately $300k
vlorre
Raises 'blue screen of death' to a whole new level of meaning.
As an aside, though, I'm not sure how effective it will be at replacing rollercoasters for a number of reasons.
First, it takes up an 11x12m space for every two people on the ride at one time; a typical rollercoaster will have twenty to forty people on one train, often with more than one train running at one time. The experience of running the coaster with twenty other people is different from being on a ride with at most one other person, and I believe that the group experience is part of the attraction. Certainly the Robocoaster will be hard-put to simulate being thrown upward into a loop as another coaster train roars through the middle of the loop, or diving into a tunnel and popping back up. The experience of weaving around and through scenery and other parts of the coaster track is going to be almost impossible to duplicate.
Second, it does not look as if the Robocoaster will be able to simulate the sustained G forces that you can experience on a rollercoaster. I would expect that the design limits of an industrial robot would not permit swinging riders at speeds sufficient to produce the same G forces that can be attained with a rollercoaster, and the short moment arm of the robot would contribute significantly to disorientation and nausea compared to a standard coaster.
Third, from the design, it's clear that the Robocoaster will require continuous power delivery throughout the duration of the ride; a rollercoaster uses power in the lift, brakes, and thrust sections, with the train running on momentum after it departs the lift. I suspect that the power usage of the Robocoaster will exceed the power usage for running the same number of people through a conventional coaster, which would raise the operating costs. On the other hand, the Robocoaster would not have to worry that brake failure might allow two trains to collide.
Fourth, operating a group of Robocoasters to achieve a similar rider throughput as a conventional coaster will require many times the personnel. With a conventional coaster, a single dispatcher and one attendant per ten passengers is all that is required to man a coaster station, but with several Robocoasters, the ride's footprint is such that a single attendant would only be able to handle passengers at, at most, two units, and safety regulations would limit the number of units that a single dispatcher could supervise.
I don't think that the Robocoaster is necessarily going to be a failure, but there are enough aspects of a conventional coaster that it can't duplicate would appear to put the Robocoaster into a specialty niche in thrill rides, competing with but not directly against conventional coasters.
According to this
I t costs 160,000UKP not $1.5M. Multiply your figures for the Robocoaster accordingly.a sh/eng lish/flexibilitaet.html
http://www.kuka.co.uk/NewFiles/pr_dd.html
According to this
http://www.kuka-roboter.de/robocoaster/nofl
they can accomidate 2000 rides per hour.
Of course then you're talking configurations of around 18 to 20 machines, I'd guess, so then you're talking closer to your $2M figure for the TopSpin.
Not ridiculing your opinions, just trying to correct a major error in your calculations.
put the what in the where?