JW_Fas

Technical: Overall solid track work. I spotted a couple minor pumps in the entrance to the Immelmann and at the apex of the vertical loop. The supports were done well, though some of the larger A-frame supports needed cross beams. E-stop and tunnel test passed. 8/10

Adrenaline: This ride packed a nice punch in a compact package. Plenty of high and low verticals with laterals kept in check. The pacing also kept pretty consistent. 9/10

Originality/Visuals: I liked the fact that this layout made maximum use of limited space. The scenery was nice, and the queue looked good. The theming was a bit plain, though. 7/10

Overall: 8/10

Technical: Solid track work. No pumps spotted. Good B&M shap'ting (those wingovers aren't easy). No tunnel test failures. Nice supports as well. E-stop passed. 10/10

Adrenaline: This ride had good pacing and a lot of high forces. Laterals were kept within reason. 8/10

Originality: The track layout itself wasn't too generic, but it wasn't a notable departure from a B&M invert. What made this ride stand out was the theming and the audio. The music clips did overlap with each other a lot, but I won't deduct points for it. 7/10

Overall score: 8.33

Technical: The track work was mostly good. I spotted two vertical pumps. Obviously, the auto generated supports were used, but I'm not deducting for that since wooden coasters would be overly tedious to support manually. However, I am deducting points for not tweaking them enough to avoid tunnel test failures. The tunnel test failed in at least three spots (first turn/climb after the drop, climbing turn into MCBR, first valley after MCBR). This ride would have passengers missing arms and maybe heads by the end. The E-stop passed, but one nitpicky detail is that the front car extends slightly past the MCBR when activated. If the passengers had to be evacuated, there is no catwalk next to the front car for them to exit easily. 5/10

Adrenaline: This aspect of the ride delivers. It's an exciting RMC with plenty of highs and lows and disorienting inversions. 9/10

Originality/Visuals: I liked the layout. Theming and use of terrain would've been nice, so in that respect it looked a little plain. 6/10

Overall score: 6.67

Technical: The track work is definitely on par with a traditional Arrow Dynamics coaster. I spotted a couple pumps. One before the first loop and one exiting the second loop. The supports were the Achilles Heel of this layout. They were too sparse, particularly around the lift, pre-drop, and double corkscrew. If this coaster were built in real life, the track would flex like crazy. 5/10

Adrenaline: It had the typical appeal of an Arrow coaster. Decent high G's coupled with lats. It got a little slow near the end. 6/10

Originality/Visuals: It wasn't terribly original for an Arrow. However, I did like the queue and food court nearby. The transfer track was an interesting setup too. 6/10

Overall score: 5.67

Technical: The track work was okay. In a few spots I noticed some small pumps. The supports were generally what I'd see on a B&M hyper, but there wasn't a singe cross beam/tie. Many of the A-frame supports were too narrow to realistically hold a structure of that size. 6/10

Adrenaline: Overall, it was an exciting coaster, and the pacing was good. The initial drop needed tweaking, though, because the back seat pulls as much as -2.3 G's. Moreover, B&M hypers should produce more floater airtime than ejector like an Intamin would. 6/10

Originality/Visuals: I was hoping for more use of the terrain, but the theming was decent. I liked the animated splashdown near the end. The queue was a nice, clean design, and I liked the addition of the food court off to the side. 7/10

Overall score: 6.3