shuper
  •  shuper
  • 50.34% (Neutral)
  • Foreman Topic Starter
Tuesday, January 20, 2004 4:11:16 PM
gruelurks
Tuesday, January 20, 2004 4:22:56 PM
I, for one, am glad to see <s>the</s> a news station report a fairly biased report on the incident.

An unfortunate accident, thankfully no fatalities were involved.
daniel
  •  daniel
  • 73.82% (Friendly)
  • Ride Supervisor
Tuesday, January 20, 2004 4:32:12 PM
Did you hear in the report from the kid that it goes 20 to 100 feet in the air i mean i know this is from a kid but does it.Oh and the goodness there ok.
RideMan
Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:58:44 PM
May I just take a moment to express how much I HATE Windows Media?

That said, this is the first report I have seen that even comes close to indicating where things ended up. Looks to me like the tub dropped off while it was coming down the downhill side , slid across the midway and crashed into the bumper car building.

Sounds like the crashed tub held up pretty well. Still, I'm trying to think of where there is a single attachment point on that ride.

Don't you hate it when they say it was last inspected "three days ago"? Sure, the State inspected it three days ago, but I'll bet someone from the show inspected it that morning... Oh, that's right, those daily operational inspections don't mean anything to the news media.........

--Dave Althoff, Jr.
Hoffa
  •  Hoffa
  • 51.98% (Neutral)
  • Ride Supervisor
Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:09:45 PM
Dave,

There isn't a single point suspension on the seat. There is a cable that runs from the left side of the sled, up through the seat hanger yoke, over the top pin hole sleeve in the stem, down the opposite side of the yoke and connecting to the right side of the sled. I went into a little more detail on Ken's site.

M---


A man's legacy isn't the business he leaves behind; it's the family he leaves behind.

gruelurks
Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:41:38 PM
Dave,

Glad to see ya post over here away from GTTP and CB. You have alot to contribrute here I think.

Welcome Dave, y'all, really.
Pinetar
  •  Pinetar
  • 87.34% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman
Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:41:32 AM
Quote:

quote:


May I just take a moment to express how much I HATE Windows Media?

I agree, quicktime is my media choice. Anybody have quicktime pro and use it for developing movies, VR?
UserPostedImage
squirrel
Wednesday, January 21, 2004 6:52:23 AM
Quote:

quote:


Originally posted by Pinetar

Quote:

quote:


May I just take a moment to express how much I HATE Windows Media?

I agree, quicktime is my media choice. Anybody have quicktime pro and use it for developing movies, VR?


A Simple AVI file -- use DIVX-5 for video, whatever for audio -- works fine every time, and small files to boot. Not to mention no overhead from Apple loading all that quicktime crap on your machine that sits in your taskbar taking down system resources that doesn't uninstall when you tell it to. (YES I have a beef with Apple currently because when I install a program, it should have an uninstall that WORKS. Instead, I got rid of the plugin, then the rest of the software stayed. After 2 hours of registry editing, along with patience, I was able to get rid of it all. Too much headache for a lousy video codec and processor if you ask me.)
Pinetar
  •  Pinetar
  • 87.34% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman
Wednesday, January 21, 2004 12:48:53 PM
I dumped real player for the same reason but why would you dump qt. I won't touch div-x. Microsoft always trys to hijack qt formats, gates is the ****head here.
UserPostedImage
RideMan
Wednesday, January 21, 2004 1:13:48 PM
In this particular case my trouble with Windows Media is that it REFUSES to cache the video file. So when I am trying to watch it over what amounts to a piece of wet spaghetti, I get lousy results. With QuickTime, at least I can cache the whole movie so that I can wait for the whole thing to load, then run it.

gruelurks-- I thought you knew I was here. I've been here for a couple of months now...even worked my way up to "40-miler"... [:D]

--Dave Althoff, Jr.
squirrel
Wednesday, January 21, 2004 1:46:40 PM
Quote:

quote:


Originally posted by Pinetar

I dumped real player for the same reason but why would you dump qt. I won't touch div-x. Microsoft always trys to hijack qt formats, gates is the ****head here.


Several reasons why I don't run it. My computer is a total loss. It's an AMD-300 w/192megs ram and 30gig hard drive. I run a really slim configuration -- not very many bells and whistles. This means I have VERY little installed as far as extras go. On several occaisions I attempted to download/install/etc. Quicktime. I had nothing but problems from the get go for whatever reason. I know that it wasn't the configuration of the computer, as Win2000 was just freshly installed in November. Then, after the installations failed, I couldn't get QT to completely uninstall without editing the registry, and manually deleting files, after I told the taskbar launcher several times not to load. It (in my opinion only) was too much hassle for the so very few movies I watch in quicktime format. I don't necessarily condone Windows Media Player either. I still get pink movies because of poor codec support. I use BS-Player (http://www.bsplayer.org) for all my movies. Have XviD, divx 3,4,5, and the microsoft MPEG audio and video codecs installed and that's all I need. Everything else I try to watch plays flawlessly -- even on this piece of old news computer I use...

I know quicktime is of decent quality, just as preference only - I really didn't like it.
squirrel
Wednesday, January 21, 2004 1:48:48 PM
Quote:

quote:


Originally posted by RideMan

In this particular case my trouble with Windows Media is that it REFUSES to cache the video file. So when I am trying to watch it over what amounts to a piece of wet spaghetti, I get lousy results. With QuickTime, at least I can cache the whole movie so that I can wait for the whole thing to load, then run it.

gruelurks-- I thought you knew I was here. I've been here for a couple of months now...even worked my way up to "40-miler"... [:D]

--Dave Althoff, Jr.


Windows Media Player (along with others) was designed to not cache files when told not to by the streaming configuration. This is because of the constant problem of piracy, I'm sure. There should be options to tell Media Player that you are on a modem connection, and have low bandwidth. This will greatly increase your performance (but might not resolve it entirely). I've found that once you see the movie once, if you replay it (without refreshing the page) the cached version will play 95% of the time.
RideMan
Wednesday, January 21, 2004 5:34:09 PM
I forgot to mention that my system is running OS-X.2.8. I installed WiMP, but apparently the OS-X version is 'crippleware'. At work I have an XP system with an Ethernet connection to the campus network, but lately that connection has been so saturated that I get better web throughput at home with the 56k modem!

Anyway, we're veering dangerously off-topic here, but I suppose since Secret Squirrel is involved it's OK for now... [:D] Oh, by the way, right now my favorite video codec is the current one from 3ivx. Tiny files, miniscule data rate, great quality. And because it's MPEG-4 compliant, QuickTime 6 can play it back without the 3ivx codec.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.
Pinetar
  •  Pinetar
  • 87.34% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman
Wednesday, January 21, 2004 5:59:34 PM
Quote:

quote:


Several reasons why I don't run it. My computer is a total loss. It's an AMD-300 w/192megs ram and 30gig hard drive.

It sounds brutal SS. Are you still able to play QT movies.

I'm glad to see we have another Apple head here RideMan. I had 10.2.8 but it was causing printer trouble so I went back to 10.2.6. 3ivx is a new one on me, never saw it mentioned before, but I did just check it out.
UserPostedImage
squirrel
Wednesday, January 21, 2004 6:06:02 PM
Quote:

quote:


Originally posted by Pinetar

Quote:

quote:


Several reasons why I don't run it. My computer is a total loss. It's an AMD-300 w/192megs ram and 30gig hard drive.

It sounds brutal SS. Are you still able to play QT movies.

I'm glad to see we have another Apple head here RideMan. I had 10.2.8 but it was causing printer trouble so I went back to 10.2.6. 3ivx is a new one on me, never saw it mentioned before, but I did just check it out.


3ivx is pretty neat, but it's more a filter than a true codec, if I remember right. I know the quality is much sharper for the same size file (like rideman stated). But they all cost money... Divx used to install spyware with their free version, then it was only with the full version, while they always charged for the pro version... Ever since my bout with quicktime over the last couple months, I have somewhat boycotted QT movies in general. I'm also boycotting .WMV files as well (media player format) for essentially the same trouble (codec problems)... I figure if I ever upgrade to a real computer, I will deal with the movies alot more, but with a 300mhz box compared to a G4 Mac or 2ghz PC, I'm kinda limited (the animations on my website alone drag my box down 😞 )...

We did get off topic pretty bad here... It's mainly my fault &lt;grin&gt;, but you'll have that...
Users browsing this topic
  • OceanSpiders 2.0