View Full Version : Mission Space Update

10-21-2002, 10:11 PM
Some of you have reported that Mission Space is testing with cast members. This is incorrect. They have done crowd flow studys on ride and preshow cycle time over in the old Millennium Village building. These tests are only so they can find the most efficient length for the preshow and certain spiels and utilize cast member "volunteers" who are paid for their time.

Captain Crook
10-22-2002, 08:16 AM
I also received info this weekend that concur's with Mr. Show...

:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

10-22-2002, 05:14 PM
'My info' also agrees with Show.

10-22-2002, 05:35 PM
Thanks to all of you for clearing that up.

One "little" comment...

These tests are only so they can find the most efficient length for the preshow...
Hmmm.... efficiency determining the length of the pre-show. As opposed to finding the most efficient way of implementing the pre-show as designed...


(Show, sorry, not trying to pick on you... just something I noticed in the way the info was stated. Thanks again for posting it.:D )

10-23-2002, 06:42 PM
Interesting info. So when do you think it might open for real?

10-23-2002, 06:50 PM

This is something that is done with the preshow at every attraction. All of the preshows are designed to last a certain amount of time which is why there is only a limited amount of line space on the other side. If the preshow is too long they cycle empty ride vehicles, too short and the line backs up into the preshow room. Look to Dinosaur, Tower, and Rock n Roller Coaster as examples of this. If one side of Tower goes down and they keep cycling both libraries the queue will back up right to the libraries demonstrating how the length of the preshow does matter. I rode coaster during the soft open and they were still playing with preshow length (basically how long u listen to Walk This Way before the film starts). Me and my sister actually had an entire train to ourselves because the preshow was cycling too long.

10-23-2002, 07:00 PM
Show, understood. If the testing is only to determine how to adjust minor elements like you described, I have no problem with that. (As if anybody really cared whether I'm ok with it...;) )

I just wouldn't want to see important elements or segments dropped merely because it didn't fit the already existing mechanism.

Thanks again...