|
Can someone make the large version of this part? i am making a contribution to datsville that needs
both sizes.
--
Jonathan Wilson
wilsonj@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
|
|
|
I'd suggest being very happy with this one for now. That had to be a major
project.
-John Van
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> Can someone make the large version of this part? i am making a contribution to datsville that needs
> both sizes.
> --
> Jonathan Wilson
> wilsonj@xoommail.com
> http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
|
|
|
It's the second largest post in this group. 8-)
It took some trigonometry to make it, but then again, the foundation was already layed by Christian.
I think I've only seen a smaller pine tree, no larger. In which set should it be seen?
/Tore
John VanZwieten wrote:
> I'd suggest being very happy with this one for now. That had to be a major
> project.
>
> -John Van
>
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > Can someone make the large version of this part? i am making a contribution to datsville that needs
> > both sizes.
> > --
> > Jonathan Wilson
> > wilsonj@xoommail.com
> > http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
|
|
|
Tore Eriksson wrote:
> It's the second largest post in this group. 8-)
>
> It took some trigonometry to make it, but then again, the foundation was already layed by Christian.
>
> I think I've only seen a smaller pine tree, no larger. In which set should it be seen?
>
> /Tore
>
> John VanZwieten wrote:
>
> > I'd suggest being very happy with this one for now. That had to be a major
> > project.
> >
> > -John Van
> >
> > In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > > Can someone make the large version of this part? i am making a contribution to datsville that needs
> > > both sizes.
> > > --
> > > Jonathan Wilson
> > > wilsonj@xoommail.com
> > > http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
Forestmen set, I think
--
Jonathan Wilson
wilsonj@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
|
|
|
Tore Eriksson wrote:
>
> It's the second largest post in this group. 8-)
>
> It took some trigonometry to make it, but then again, the foundation was already layed by Christian.
>
> I think I've only seen a smaller pine tree, no larger. In which set should it be seen?
There is (_was_) a cypress tree...
2x2 Round Tile, Top Cypress Tree
Qty Set U.S. Set Name Year Theme
--- ---- ----------------------- ---------- ---------------
1 383 Knights Tournament 1979 LEGOLAND Castle
1 1592 Town Square 1980 LEGOLAND Town
1 6390 Main Street 1980 LEGOLAND Town
1 6374 Holiday Home 1983 LEGOLAND Town
1 7835 Level Crossing 1985, 1989 4.5v
1 5870 Pretty Playland 1994
It's never been in a Forestmen set, though.
-- joshua
> John VanZwieten wrote:
>
> > I'd suggest being very happy with this one for now. That had to be a major
> > project.
> >
> > -John Van
> >
> > In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > > Can someone make the large version of this part? i am making a contribution to datsville that needs
> > > both sizes.
> > > --
> > > Jonathan Wilson
> > > wilsonj@xoommail.com
> > > http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
|
|
|
In the instructions of 6054 the last step clearly shows 2 pine trees of different sizes.
the large one clearly has 3 extra rings on it.
--
Jonathan Wilson
wilsonj@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
|
|
|
I agree with John Van - be content with what is available and exercise some
patience. I think we all want to see LDrawn versions of all parts, but this is
a very complex part (one of the few I have started and given up on), so it
should wait until someone has the skills, time and motivation to author it
properly.
Jonathan, please ( note this useful word :-) ), don't get into the cycle of
demanding parts again.
Chris Dee
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, John VanZwieten writes:
> I'd suggest being very happy with this one for now. That had to be a major
> project.
>
> -John Van
>
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > Can someone make the large version of this part? i am making a contribution to datsville that needs
> > both sizes.
> > --
> > Jonathan Wilson
> > wilsonj@xoommail.com
> > http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
|
|
|
That's 3471 plus the smaller one (2435). The only tree that could be
considered
a larger "pine" than 3471 is the cypress.
The cypress would be a lot more work than 3471. I haven't compared them
directly
in awhile, but I believe 2435 might be the same as the top of 3471 with
a base on
the bottom.
BTW, I appreciate how you backed up your argument with solid evidence,
rather than
insisting on your point for the sake of arguing. Now we know exactly
what you
were talking about. I wish you'd quoted specifically the portion of my
message that
you were addressing, but that's minor in this particular case.
-- joshua
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
>
> In the instructions of 6054 the last step clearly shows 2 pine trees of different sizes.
> the large one clearly has 3 extra rings on it.
>
> --
> Jonathan Wilson
> wilsonj@xoommail.com
> http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
|
|
|
I thought that 3471 was the larger of the two conical pine trees, but without a
DAT viewer on my office machine couldn't be sure. From the time when I
considered authoring this, then I do recollect that the foliage part of 2435 is
identical to the top of 3471.
Chris Dee
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Joshua Delahunty writes:
> That's 3471 plus the smaller one (2435). The only tree that could be
> considered
> a larger "pine" than 3471 is the cypress.
>
> The cypress would be a lot more work than 3471. I haven't compared them
> directly
> in awhile, but I believe 2435 might be the same as the top of 3471 with
> a base on
> the bottom.
>
> BTW, I appreciate how you backed up your argument with solid evidence,
> rather than
> insisting on your point for the sake of arguing. Now we know exactly
> what you
> were talking about. I wish you'd quoted specifically the portion of my
> message that
> you were addressing, but that's minor in this particular case.
>
> -- joshua
>
> Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> >
> > In the instructions of 6054 the last step clearly shows 2 pine trees of different sizes.
> > the large one clearly has 3 extra rings on it.
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan Wilson
> > wilsonj@xoommail.com
> > http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
|
|
|
Chris Dee wrote:
> I thought that 3471 was the larger of the two conical pine trees, but without a
> DAT viewer on my office machine couldn't be sure. From the time when I
> considered authoring this, then I do recollect that the foliage part of 2435 is
> identical to the top of 3471.
if that is the case then all someone needs to do is take the top of the piece that is already there
and stick it onto a shorter pole.
--
Jonathan Wilson
wilsonj@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
|
|
|