 | | | | | |
Wait. Put down that shovel.
This is the deal:
We will be adding some new features to the Moonbase Project standard soon. These
include vertical corridors, higher horizontal corridors and a a permanent
Monorail integration standard. All of these new features will be aligned on a
module with a base measurement of 10,20,30 etc.
So..
Should the standard Moonbase Project Corridor be raised 2 bricks up from a
height of 8 to a height of 10 off the ground to match the new features?
And here is the poll:
http://members.lugnet.com/polls/results/?n=167
2 bricks folks. 2 bricks that could save a lot of headache in the long run.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Jon Palmer wrote:
That link should be:
http://members.lugnet.com/polls/ballots/?n=167
Sigh..
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On 18.50 8/28/2003 +0000, Jon Palmer wrote
> Wait. Put down that shovel.
> This is the deal:
>
> We will be adding some new features to the Moonbase Project standard soon.
> These
> include vertical corridors, higher horizontal corridors and a a permanent
> Monorail integration standard. All of these new features will be aligned on a
> module with a base measurement of 10,20,30 etc.
>
> So..
>
> Should the standard Moonbase Project Corridor be raised 2 bricks up from a
> height of 8 to a height of 10 off the ground to match the new features?
>
> And here is the poll:
>
> <http://members.lugnet.com/polls/results/?n=167>
>
> 2 bricks folks. 2 bricks that could save a lot of headache in the long run.
_WWWWEEEELLLLL_ since you brought it up... :-)
Why not make it 4 (12, 22, 32, etc).
Reasoning: make "ground level" 2 over the baseplate... to allow texture on
the moon...
Yea, I know its a pain... but the end result would be purdier :-)
You should mention as a note that you can build a "riser baseplate" by
starting with a baseplate then adding 1 brick + 2 plates of height to it.
If you put a "old style" moonbase on a riser, it will line up with "new style".
(or 3 bricks + 2 plates if you want ground :-)
It would at least let people keep some of their old modules around till
they get converted and may make people more willing to accept the change...
---
wubwub
aka stephen f roberts
wildbrick.com - Jain's Guide : Promoting more than just the MOC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> _WWWWEEEELLLLL_ since you brought it up... :-)
>
> Why not make it 4 (12, 22, 32, etc).
You mean 24, right? ;P
> Reasoning: make "ground level" 2 over the baseplate... to allow texture on
> the moon...
>
> Yea, I know its a pain... but the end result would be purdier :-)
Not necessarily. First of all, you'd have to incorporate the textured
edges into the Moonbase Standard, which isn't as easy as it sounds. Aside from
that, the texture would run the risk of looking somewhat patterned, as the
shapes of the edges would form a predictable pattern (imagine what it would look
like if the outer two studs of every plate had to be flat all the way
around...). Also, what makes you think lunar developers wouldn't plow
everything flat like they do on a regular basis here on earth?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Gah, how soon after the poll's closure do you plan to impliment this? How many
already have modules for NWBC? Not that raising a module would be all that
hard..
Mark
snow Daddy
Neumann
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On 22.18 8/28/2003 +0000, Purple Dave wrote
> In lugnet.space, Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> > _WWWWEEEELLLLL_ since you brought it up... :-)
> >
> > Why not make it 4 (12, 22, 32, etc).
>
> You mean 24, right? ;P
>
> > Reasoning: make "ground level" 2 over the baseplate... to allow texture on
> > the moon...
> >
> > Yea, I know its a pain... but the end result would be purdier :-)
>
> Not necessarily. First of all, you'd have to incorporate the textured
> edges into the Moonbase Standard, which isn't as easy as it sounds. Aside
> from
> that, the texture would run the risk of looking somewhat patterned, as the
> shapes of the edges would form a predictable pattern (imagine what it
> would look
> like if the outer two studs of every plate had to be flat all the way
> around...). Also, what makes you think lunar developers wouldn't plow
> everything flat like they do on a regular basis here on earth?
Yea... it would end up looking like it does now... but at least with 2
bricks down to go each plate could have some texture. In particular, I was
thinking of building some furrows and excavation sites. Something that cant
be done at the moment without building lots of _up_ bases first...
---
wubwub
aka stephen f roberts
wildbrick.com - Jain's Guide : Promoting more than just the MOC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jon Palmer wrote:
>
> Wait. Put down that shovel.
> This is the deal:
>
> We will be adding some new features to the Moonbase Project standard soon. These
> include vertical corridors, higher horizontal corridors and a a permanent
> Monorail integration standard. All of these new features will be aligned on a
> module with a base measurement of 10,20,30 etc.
>
> So..
>
> Should the standard Moonbase Project Corridor be raised 2 bricks up from a
> height of 8 to a height of 10 off the ground to match the new features?
>
> And here is the poll:
>
> <http://members.lugnet.com/polls/results/?n=167>
>
> 2 bricks folks. 2 bricks that could save a lot of headache in the long run.
I hate to vote against this, but I would have to rebuild my current
modules. This change would make it a little less likely that I would
supply a module to the next setup that uses this.
A thought however would be for some folks to provide transition modules
that have a connector at the 8 brick height and a connector at the 10
brick height.
If this passes, I will try and change my modules.
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
ya ok.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Jon Palmer wrote:
| |
Wait. Put down that shovel.
This is the deal:
We will be adding some new features to the Moonbase Project standard soon.
These include vertical corridors, higher horizontal corridors and a a
permanent Monorail integration standard. All of these new features will be
aligned on a module with a base measurement of 10,20,30 etc.
|
By “vertical corridors” do you mean guidelines for multi-level modules? That
is, for corridor connections at regular intervals above the “1st floor”?
Live it up,
-sb
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Stickboy" <f_trayers@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HKCyEn.CKx@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.announce, Jon Palmer wrote:
>
> By "vertical corridors" do you mean guidelines for multi-level modules? • That
> is, for corridor connections at regular intervals above the "1st floor"?
>
> Live it up,
> -sb
Right. I'll make a MOC for this in a little bit to explain it further. But
basically it's like this:
A vertical corridor will stop at 10/20/30/40 etc. bricks off the ground.
What connects on top of that can be any height or whatever. It just needs
to do the same thing as the module below it...have a vertical corridor that
ends on a 10.
I had an idea for a moonbase measuring tool that would be good for stuff
like this.
--
[ j o n ]
http://zemi.net
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Jon Palmer wrote:
| |
Wait. Put down that shovel.
This is the deal:
We will be adding some new features to the Moonbase Project standard soon.
These include vertical corridors, higher horizontal corridors and a a
permanent Monorail integration standard. All of these new features will be
aligned on a module with a base measurement of 10,20,30 etc.
So..
Should the standard Moonbase Project Corridor be raised 2 bricks up from a
height of 8 to a height of 10 off the ground to match the new features?
And here is the poll:
http://members.lugnet.com/polls/results/?n=167
2 bricks folks. 2 bricks that could save a lot of headache in the long run.
|
Just don’t think I’ll be redesigning the Rigel 7 Module any time soon :)
I agree with whoever said to bump it up a little more than 2 to give more room
for monorail underneath, though.
Don’t worry, non-Brickfesters, the Rigel 7 (winner of Best Moonbase at Brickfest
2003), will be making its appearance on Brickfrenzy soon enough. Once I’m done
being lazy and actually rebuild it from its transport back, anyway *hehe*
Adrian
http://www.brickfrenzy.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
The corridors also need to be 2 studs wider.
David “Fuzzy” Gregory
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"David "Fuzzy" Gregory" <crazylegoman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HKEnLM.1tJz@lugnet.com...
> The corridors also need to be 2 studs wider.
> David "Fuzzy" Gregory
I see why you're saying this. So the corridor width is 10 to match all the
other numbers. But IMO we neither need to change it nor would it be an
easy thing to do. Having people raise their old modules (or just the
corridors) is one thing, having them totally rebuild the corridors is
another.
--
[ j o n ]
http://zemi.net
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Actually I didn't even think about the total corridor width being 10 to
match the new height. (Total coincidense, really) I just really like having 6
studs of space inside the corridor instead of 4. Minifigs can pass each other
without the "excuse me, pardon me" shuffle, and they can get bigger cargo and
stuff through.
I guess I didn't realize how long people keep their modules together. As
soon as my stuff is fully photographed, it becomes fodder for new MOC's. I do
see how changing corridor width would be much more of a pain than adjusting the
height, if you're working with a pre-existing module...especially if it was a
Christmas Moonbase Module, and you had glued it together for the contest. : )
David "Fuzzy" Gregory
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, David Gregory wrote:
| |
Actually I didn’t even think about the total corridor width being 10 to
match the new height. (Total coincidense, really) I just really like having
6 studs of space inside the corridor instead of 4. Minifigs can pass each
other without the “excuse me, pardon me” shuffle, and they can get bigger
cargo and stuff through.
|
I think this line of thinking depends on the “tech level” being envisioned with
the Moonbase idea. To me, the very concept of a modular base built on the moon
sounds very “near future”, like something that NASA and its companions might
develop. Such a base would indeed have narrow passages connecting the modules,
and submarine-like portals that seal between them. I like the idea that only
one person can pass and cargo might need to be supplied by an alternate route in
this scenario.
Now, in a growing/aging moonbase, perhaps eventually a newer technology might
give rise to a wider corridor. The builders would develop adapters to connect
the older modules to the newer ones. It is not likely they would retrofit the
older ones until some time after that. Perhaps this same in-character concept
might be used with the height change issue.
Now, if the setting were not lunar, if it were something further away, then a
newer design concept might be reasonable. Perhaps by the time astronauts reach
Mars, the Marsbase design might be 10 wide connectors. But does that mean that
portal doors are also bigger? Sounds ungainly.
| |
I guess I didn’t realize how long people keep their modules together. As
soon as my stuff is fully photographed, it becomes fodder for new MOC’s. I do
see how changing corridor width would be much more of a pain than adjusting
the height, if you’re working with a pre-existing module...especially if it
was a Christmas Moonbase Module, and you had glued it together for the
contest. : )
|
I suspect that with Moonbases, more people keep them together a long time than
would otherwise be normal. This is because the whole idea of this project is to
build a MOC that you will *bring to a fest* to join with other people’s MOCs. I
personally wouldn’t build a Module unless I hoped to bring it to something like
BrickFest. So when I built my first Moonbase in August 2002, there was no way I
was going to scrap it for pieces until after BrickFest 2003. I think since the
idea of Moonbases is to bring them to Fests that people keep them together
longer, sometimes perhaps for more than one Fest.
...My personal thoughts on changing the standard: Allowing for both old and new
somehow (as my suggestion above of a growing city with old and new) would be
cool. I wouldn’t want to retrofit any of my five mods for either wider or
higher corridors. Any change in the standard would encourage me to scrap them
and start over. But the ideas have merit. The plan for upper level standards
would be good. (I had aimed for that with my high density project modules when
I instead accidentally developed the diagnal cross corridor.) And finding a way
to incorporate a monorail would be cool. However, I am leaning toward accepting
these changes because I’m not likely to go to another fest until 2005, and thus
would have plenty of time to scrap and build anew. :) I shall leave it to the
majority to decide the fate of the standard...
-Galactic Mediator Hendo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, John P. Henderson wrote:
| |
In lugnet.space, David Gregory wrote:
|
snipped
| |
Now, in a growing/aging moonbase, perhaps eventually a newer technology might
give rise to a wider corridor. The builders would develop adapters to
connect the older modules to the newer ones. It is not likely they would
retrofit the older ones until some time after that. Perhaps this same
in-character concept might be used with the height change issue.
Now, if the setting were not lunar, if it were something further away, then a
newer design concept might be reasonable. Perhaps by the time astronauts
reach Mars, the Marsbase design might be 10 wide connectors. But does that
mean that portal doors are also bigger? Sounds ungainly.
|
snipped
Hendo,
Please be aware that colonization of Mars has begun
(see here)
and the interim alliance of Martian colonists uphold and support the standard 6
wide corridors. I believe the majority of colonists on Mars are willing to make
height adjustments if the Moonbase Module commitee endorses raising the standard
to 10.”
In other words, I support the height adjustment standard, but feel that wider
corridors fall under the catagory of ‘personal artistic liscence’. Which I
support, I just don’t think they need to be standardized. I was in ‘official’
violation with both of my Marsbases due to the lack of 4 stud clearance on all
four sides. I accepted proudly being separated from the Brickfest primary MM
display.
The standards provide a basic structure for us to follow, and create an exciting
interaction of bases at gatherings. These need to be kept as simple and
non-interfering as possible.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Jon Palmer wrote:
| |
Wait. Put down that shovel.
This is the deal:
We will be adding some new features to the Moonbase Project standard soon.
These include vertical corridors, higher horizontal corridors and a a
permanent Monorail integration standard. All of these new features will be
aligned on a module with a base measurement of 10,20,30 etc.
So..
Should the standard Moonbase Project Corridor be raised 2 bricks up from a
height of 8 to a height of 10 off the ground to match the new features?
|
I may have missed some conversation. Before I vote, I would need some facts
clarified. Is this raising of height specifically to fit a monorail underneath,
or is there some unrelated reason? What are the pros and cons to this
suggestion?
-The Galactic Mediator
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, John P. Henderson wrote:
| |
I may have missed some conversation. Before I vote, I would need some facts
clarified. Is this raising of height specifically to fit a monorail
underneath, or is there some unrelated reason? What are the pros and cons to
this suggestion?
|
It appears to be an attempt to further standardize the standard, allowing for
multiple floors to be added every ten bricks of height. Given that intent, it
does make a certain amount of sense to make the first floor height be 10 high
rather than 8. Other than making it easier to remember, I can’t think of any
stated pros, but if it does allow a monorail to be built underneath, that would
certainly qualify.
The cons that I see are that it would mean every existing Moonbase module would
have to be modified to comply with the new standard, some people might not have
the required parts to perform the necessary modifications, and it could lead to
two divergent standards of 8’s vs 10’s (i.e. the people with large complex 8’s
modules wouldn’t want to go through the chore of modifying them to match the new
standard, or with people working from the 8’s version unaware of any change to a
10’s version) and different Moonbase coordinators would have to specify which
version was the primary version (or at least confirm which version everyone had
before planning a layout). Really large/tall structures could potentially be
destroyed during an attempt to raise them two bricks, which would have to be
considered.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
.I've been playing with a cargo system for moonbases
and I think that it would make sense for early moonbases
to re-use cargo containers in their structure.
The TEU's (twenty foot equivalent units) I've muddled up work well for
interconnections, mate up with standard corridors and when used with
adapters they work with wide ones too.
They also add a new level of playablity. Think of it
Build your cargo ship. Land it on a moon. Unload it and re-assemble
it into a moonbase nucleus. More ships arrive and the moon base grows !
Here's a pic on an inter-connection module made with cargo containers :
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/xanthra47/moonbase/cn-teu-x.jpg
The thing about cargo containers is that it's useful
to stack them up. Assuming that large housing units could be made of
stacks of cargo containers the vertical spacing works out to 8 bricks.
This also allow us to use vertical technic beams to hold things together!
But the current starting height doesn't quite allow a cargo container or
vehicles below it.
I think we should set the first level at 10 bricks and then the
interlevel spacing should be 8 bricks.
Jon Palmer wrote:
> Wait. Put down that shovel.
> This is the deal:
>
> We will be adding some new features to the Moonbase Project standard soon. These
> include vertical corridors, higher horizontal corridors and a a permanent
> Monorail integration standard. All of these new features will be aligned on a
> module with a base measurement of 10,20,30 etc.
>
> So..
>
> Should the standard Moonbase Project Corridor be raised 2 bricks up from a
> height of 8 to a height of 10 off the ground to match the new features?
>
> And here is the poll:
>
> <http://members.lugnet.com/polls/results/?n=167>
>
> 2 bricks folks. 2 bricks that could save a lot of headache in the long run.
>
> ~ <<http://zemi.net/sidebar/bot001.gif>>
> ~ [ j o n ]¬
> <http://zemi.net [zemi.net]>¬
> <http://the-shipyard.com [the-shipyard]>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ack, I messsed up. I propose the first level be at 10 and the
inter-level spacing be 8 bricks and 1 plate ! That hit's a
technic beam compatible spacing and still allow corridors and
cargo modules to stack.
Xanthra47 wrote:
> I think we should set the first level at 10 bricks and then the
> interlevel spacing should be 8 bricks.
>
| | | | | | |
