| |
Hi all,
I know this may be a change of topic to what is most popular at the
moment(colour changes and new castle sets), but I just had a question to ask for
all.
What do most AFOLs use as an underlay when raising a model? (landscaping,
mountains, cliffs, etc). 2x4 standard bricks, Duplo bricks???
I have tried the standard 2x4 brick, but have found myself using over 2000
pieces, where I could have used these to build another model, mind you, it can
get a little expensive, when purchasing through BL or S@H.
I havent tried the Duplo brick, and just wanted to know whether or not it is
worth my while spending on this method. Does the standard brick fit easy to a
Duplo brick?
Is there another method I just dont know of? Any advice would be greatly
appreciated.
Cheers,
Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, David Ishak wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I know this may be a change of topic to what is most popular at the
> moment(colour changes and new castle sets), but I just had a question to ask for
> all.
Well thank the stars for that!
> I havent tried the Duplo brick, and just wanted to know whether or not it is
> worth my while spending on this method. Does the standard brick fit easy to a
> Duplo brick?
I have used duplo, and the normal bricks fit OK on top, but obviously only in
multiples of 2 and also only using 2*x bricks not plates or 1*x bricks.
The bonding is quite weak, so you need to remember to lift by the base not by
the upper part.
> Is there another method I just dont know of? Any advice would be greatly
> appreciated.
You don't need a solid base, you can build up a framework out of bricks and
plates in colours you don't use very much (resists urge to refer to new greys).
I estimate you would use 80-90% less bricks using a framework approach. Don't
ask me to send pics, my frameworks are kinda random and ugly, usually rushed
because they are the boring part.
Mark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Mark Jordan wrote:
>
> I have used duplo, and the normal bricks fit OK on top, but obviously only in
> multiples of 2 and also only using 2*x bricks not plates or 1*x bricks.
>
> The bonding is quite weak, so you need to remember to lift by the base not by
> the upper part.
That puts Duplo out of the question. I have an abundance of light grey 1*x
pieces in all sizes, try to hold onto the 2*x bricks for strength.
What do you mean by lifting from the base and not from the upper part?
> You don't need a solid base, you can build up a framework out of bricks and
> plates in colours you don't use very much (resists urge to refer to new greys).
> I estimate you would use 80-90% less bricks using a framework approach. .
The framework approach is where I have restarted and I find I am still using a
lot of fill in, but you are right, I am finding that Im not using as much.
> usually rushed because they are the boring part.
Too right there, sometimes you can get that bored with this that the finishing
model doesnt turn out the way you imagined.
Thanks for your advice Mark....................
Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, David Ishak wrote:
| |
Hi all,
I know this may be a change of topic to what is most popular at the
moment(colour changes and new castle sets), but I just had a question to ask
for all.
What do most AFOLs use as an underlay when raising a model? (landscaping,
mountains, cliffs, etc). 2x4 standard bricks, Duplo bricks???
I have tried the standard 2x4 brick, but have found myself using over 2000
pieces, where I could have used these to build another model, mind you, it can
get a little expensive, when purchasing through BL or S@H.
I havent tried the Duplo brick, and just wanted to know whether or not it is
worth my while spending on this method. Does the standard brick fit easy to a
Duplo brick?
Is there another method I just dont know of? Any advice would be greatly
appreciated.
|
You could try Duplo (it is fully compatible with System) but you may find that
it is even more expensive than an equivalent stack of regular brick.
The most widely-used technique that I’ve seen is a mix of 2x4s and 2x2s to
create a lattice support structure underground. Typically, short stacks of five
2x2s are used in columns in between layers of 2x4s that bind the columns to each
other. If you build like I do, 2x2 is probably your least-used common brick
shape, so you probably have a lot of it available for this purpose. I find that
using large “waffle brick” near or at the top helps to hold everything together
very well. A picture speaks 1,00 words:
Hope this helps!
- Chris.
|
|
| |
"Dave" <ishakd@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:Hp08F2.13zp@lugnet.com...
> Hi all,
------------8<-------- snip
> Is there another method I just dont know of? Any advice would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
I use a latice of 2xX bricks to build up a framework. I have bags of old
crummy scratched and pre abs LEGO bricks I have been trying to find what to
do with
they are perfect for it. Another option is use *cough*Clone*cough* bricks.
No one is going to see them and they are surely cheaper.
or you could use those otherwise useless bi'cronic'le figures to prop up ...
no, id better not go there ;)
--
James Stacey
------
www.minifig.co.uk
Lugnet Member #925
I'm a citizen of Legoland travellin' Incommunicado
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, James Stacey wrote:
> "Dave" <ishakd@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:Hp08F2.13zp@lugnet.com...
> > Hi all,
>
> ------------8<-------- snip
> > Is there another method I just dont know of? Any advice would be greatly
> > appreciated.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dave
>
> I use a latice of 2xX bricks to build up a framework. I have bags of old
> crummy scratched and pre abs LEGO bricks I have been trying to find what to
> do with
> they are perfect for it. Another option is use *cough*Clone*cough* bricks.
> No one is going to see them and they are surely cheaper.
>
> or you could use those otherwise useless bi'cronic'le figures to prop up ...
> no, id better not go there ;)
I don't have the best of suggestions -- other than to caution you about how much
weight you want to put on the 'raised' area. If it's really light, just about
anything goes: a lattice, duplo (though I just can't imagine myself doing that),
or even just elevating a baseplate. If you are not doing hillsides and just
want height you can get by with a Lego facade (sp?) which covers something
totally non-Lego like a cardboard box.
But, height can be a really compelling aspect of a MOC. I would suggest just
biting the bullet and using those off-color cat-chewed bricks you usually give
to the kids (like I do). I think you'll be happier with a fully detailed
hillside, wall or cliff face, whatever you build.
Dave O'Hare
|
|
| |
Hi Dave,
I thought about this problem a great deal as I wanted to create a seaside
town with a dock and so I needed to elevate the town above sea-level. I
ended up using the duplo solution for this. You can see pictures at:
http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~srk1/lego/
Unfortunately I don't have my construction pictures up yet but in this
picture:
http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~srk1/lego/creations/town01.jpg
you can partially see on the left-hand-side that I have built duplo bricks
up on a 48x48 gray baseplate. On top of that I have used 8x8 and 8x16
bricks upon which I can build however I like. This system has worked out
very well for me!
As for the cost of duplo, I tend to find them notoriously cheap at
garage/yard sales - much cheaper than I would the 2x4 standard bricks
needed to fill the equivalent space. Also, you need not build the duplo
base solid but, as you might be able to see in my picture, you can leave
gaps in between and get more elevation using less duplo bricks.
Whatever technique you decide to use, I hope it works out for you as I
understand that it can be a difficult problem to solve and the best
solution depends on what you're trying to build.
Cheers,
Stephen Kane
Dave wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I know this may be a change of topic to what is most popular at the
> moment(colour changes and new castle sets), but I just had a question to
> ask for all.
>
> What do most AFOLs use as an underlay when raising a model? (landscaping,
> mountains, cliffs, etc). 2x4 standard bricks, Duplo bricks???
>
> I have tried the standard 2x4 brick, but have found myself using over 2000
> pieces, where I could have used these to build another model, mind you, it
> can get a little expensive, when purchasing through BL or S@H.
>
> I havent tried the Duplo brick, and just wanted to know whether or not it
> is worth my while spending on this method. Does the standard brick fit
> easy to a Duplo brick?
>
> Is there another method I just dont know of? Any advice would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The Universe, as has been observed before, is an unsettlingly |
| big place, a fact which for the sake of a quiet life most |
| people tend to ignore." -- Douglas Adams |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Stephen R. Kane School of Physics & Astronomy |
| http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~srk1/ University of St Andrews |
| Email: srk1@st-andrews.ac.uk North Haugh |
| Phone: +44-1334-463067 St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SS |
| Fax: +44-1334-463104 Scotland |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, David Ishak wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi David.
>
> I know this may be a change of topic to what is most popular at the
> moment(colour changes and new castle sets), but I just had a question to ask for
> all.
Feel free, new threads are good!
>
> What do most AFOLs use as an underlay when raising a model? (landscaping,
> mountains, cliffs, etc). 2x4 standard bricks, Duplo bricks???
For me it depends on the moc. Cliffs are pretty easy using BURPs and LURPs.
See the current BUB thread for pics of a cliff.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=429532
>
> I have tried the standard 2x4 brick, but have found myself using over 2000
> pieces, where I could have used these to build another model, mind you, it can
> get a little expensive, when purchasing through BL or S@H.
When I have raised a moc I almost never fill in completely underneath. I also
don't worry about color unless it is visible in the finished product, so I use
the old junky bricks that aren't good for much else. But I haven't raised that
many mocs very high.
>
> I havent tried the Duplo brick, and just wanted to know whether or not it is
> worth my while spending on this method. Does the standard brick fit easy to a
> Duplo brick?
Duplo does fit well with the standard brick and I have seen stuff built using
it. If you already have a bunch of Duplo (your kids room or something) go for
it, but it is expensive to get just for landscaping.
>
> Is there another method I just dont know of? Any advice would be greatly
> appreciated.
I have also just built up the ground using the big, thick green bases. But this
result in more of a ground texture rather than actual height.
See here for an example - http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=429532
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
Build On,
Josh
|
|
| |
> What do most AFOLs use as an underlay when raising a model? (landscaping,
> mountains, cliffs, etc). 2x4 standard bricks, Duplo bricks???
You know those thick plates they use in many of the Harry Potter sets? I usually
build several columns of 2x2 bricks, and then put those harry potter plates on
top. It's really quick and easy.
I think LEGO S@H sells then in a variety of colors too, but only the green seems
to really be of any use.
http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?p=9279&t=7&d=18&c=6858403F%2DCE12%2D4212%2D9DB3%2DAA3A3D31C7C0
If you find a good sale on some medium and large Harry Potter sets, you can
usually get a few of the Dark Grey ones pretty easily. I've also seen the dark
grey ones in Pick A Brick at Mall of America. I would also assume they are
available on BrickLink, but I couldn't find any because I don't know what they
are called on bricklink.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, David Ishak wrote:
> What do most AFOLs use as an underlay when raising a model? (landscaping,
> mountains, cliffs, etc). 2x4 standard bricks, Duplo bricks???
I once raised up 32x32 baseplates. Underneath I used 4x4 pillars. At the edges,
the pillars would wrap over the edge of the baseplate to hold it down. Baseplate
is really equal to one plate.
Now that every Harry Potter set comes with a thick gray basebrick, I am trying
those, but only for landscaping about 3 bricks high.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
You could try Duplo (it is fully compatible with System) but you may find
that it is even more expensive than an equivalent stack of regular brick.
The most widely-used technique that I’ve seen is a mix of 2x4s and 2x2s to
create a lattice support structure underground. Typically, short stacks of
five 2x2s are used in columns in between layers of 2x4s that bind the columns
to each other. If you build like I do, 2x2 is probably your least-used
common brick shape, so you probably have a lot of it available for this
purpose. I find that using large “waffle brick” near or at the top helps to
hold everything together very well. A picture speaks 1,00 words:
|
This idea is Brilliant, Looks as though a lot less bricks required. At the
moment I have been using 2x4 bricks, keeping them two studs apart and
overlapping them(wish I had a pic to make sense). This method still uses a lot,
at least I now have some more use for the abundance of un-used 2x2 bricks. The
pic you have provided gives a Great insight on where to start. Thanks for that
Chris............
It does, Thank you,
Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Stephen Kane wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I thought about this problem a great deal as I wanted to create a seaside
> town with a dock and so I needed to elevate the town above sea-level. I
> ended up using the duplo solution for this. You can see pictures at:
>
> http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~srk1/lego/
>
> Unfortunately I don't have my construction pictures up yet but in this
> picture:
>
> http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~srk1/lego/creations/town01.jpg
>
> you can partially see on the left-hand-side that I have built duplo bricks
> up on a 48x48 gray baseplate. On top of that I have used 8x8 and 8x16
> bricks upon which I can build however I like. This system has worked out
> very well for me!
Great MOC Stephen! Checking out the pics, I can see the Duplo base, very simple,
and yet looks extremely efficient.
Seeing many great MOCs on Brickshelf, you never really see how these models have
been raised and always keeps you curious as to what method these Curators have
used. Its informative to get this kind of Insight to see how others approach
this long and repetetious(is that a word?) step to getting the Great
Finale........
>
> As for the cost of duplo, I tend to find them notoriously cheap at
> garage/yard sales - much cheaper than I would the 2x4 standard bricks
> needed to fill the equivalent space. Also, you need not build the duplo
> base solid but, as you might be able to see in my picture, you can leave
> gaps in between and get more elevation using less duplo bricks.
Looks like I will be hitting the Yard sales this weekend. Have seen them plenty
of times, just never thought they would come of any use. Oh, How i was
wrong...........
>
> Whatever technique you decide to use, I hope it works out for you as I
> understand that it can be a difficult problem to solve and the best
> solution depends on what you're trying to build.
>
> Cheers,
Thanks Stephen...
Dave
>
> Stephen Kane
>
>
|
|
| |
> I don't have the best of suggestions -- other than to caution you about how much
> weight you want to put on the 'raised' area. If it's really light, just about
> anything goes: a lattice, duplo (though I just can't imagine myself doing that),
> or even just elevating a baseplate. If you are not doing hillsides and just
> want height you can get by with a Lego facade (sp?) which covers something
> totally non-Lego like a cardboard box.
I am trying to Build a Castle which I guess will have a lot of top end weight,
the lattice approach seems the most logical at the moment. It looks as though
this model will be Quite heavy, might just have to double the Lattice work.
>
> But, height can be a really compelling aspect of a MOC. I would suggest just
> biting the bullet and using those off-color cat-chewed bricks you usually give
> to the kids (like I do). I think you'll be happier with a fully detailed
> hillside, wall or cliff face, whatever you build.
Too right, Have seen many raised MOCs and have always wanted to put in the
effort and time to do something myself, so here it goes.......
Thanks Dave
Dave
>
> Dave O'Hare
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, David Ishak wrote:
| |
Hi all,
I know this may be a change of topic to what is most popular at the
moment(colour changes and new castle sets), but I just had a question to ask
for all.
What do most AFOLs use as an underlay when raising a model? (landscaping,
mountains, cliffs, etc). 2x4 standard bricks, Duplo bricks???
|
I’ve done several different methods; nearly everything I build these days seems
to start with some buildup inside or underneath...
Methods I’ve used:
4x4 columns with regular baseplate on top.
This works quite well for landscape, although the baseplates can get a bit
wobbly. I put a column at each corner (where 4 baseplates meet) and a larger
8x8 column in the middle of each baseplate helps keep them from being too bendy.
I don’t tend to use this method much any more, unless I’m trying to raise a
really large area (dozens of baseplates worth).
GMLTC lattice
This is an incredably sturdy lattice that unfortunately consumes a fair volume
of 2x2 and 2x4 bricks. However it’s sturdy enough to stand on, and is the
easiest to hook solidly into a hillside or other sculpted terrain.
Method 2x2 pillars with 2x4’s tying them together, and 2x4’s on top to make the
solid surface. 2x2 pillars shouldn’t be more than 6 or maybe 7 bricks high
(that’s experience talking...), but you can make it several layers high. GMLTC
modules are 25 bricks high, which is I think 4 layers.
Picture(courtesy of John Gerlach):
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=18100
Superbricks
This is what I’ve started to use most of the time. 4x4 pillars of brick with
the big 12x24 superbricks over top. Very stable, Very low on brick usage. Can
have a lot of weight sitting on it. I haven’t tried standing on it, but I can
lean on it with a lot of my weight.
Another way to use Superbricks is as removable floor pieces in a multi-level
building. This can take a lot of tile, though.
Pictures
Some examples of things I’ve built which used one or more of these methods
extensively:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=48253
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=72380
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=33678
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=33686
(This last shot has a good view of the back, showing both ‘superbrick held up by
colums’ and GMLTC lattice on top of that)
http://www.nalug.org/2003-Londonderry/castle/index.html
Several pictures of my latest castle here, but I couldn’t find a good one that
showed the buildup really well.
This picture (provided you ignore the minifigs in the foreground) gives a decent
impression:
http://www.nalug.org/2003-Londonderry/castle/castle04.jpg
thanks,
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, David Ishak wrote:
| |
In lugnet.castle, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
You could try Duplo (it is fully compatible with System) but you may find
that it is even more expensive than an equivalent stack of regular brick.
The most widely-used technique that I’ve seen is a mix of 2x4s and 2x2s to
create a lattice support structure underground. Typically, short stacks of
five 2x2s are used in columns in between layers of 2x4s that bind the
columns to each other. If you build like I do, 2x2 is probably your
least-used common brick shape, so you probably have a lot of it available
for this purpose. I find that using large “waffle brick” near or at the top
helps to hold everything together very well. A picture speaks 1,00 words:
|
This idea is Brilliant, Looks as though a lot less bricks required. At the
moment I have been using 2x4 bricks, keeping them two studs apart and
overlapping them(wish I had a pic to make sense). This method still uses a
lot, at least I now have some more use for the abundance of un-used 2x2
bricks. The pic you have provided gives a Great insight on where to start.
Thanks for that Chris............
|
Interesting. It looks like it would be much more vulnerable to shear than the
“GMLTC lattice” (search for that string to find lots of posts about it)
though....
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, David Ishak wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I know this may be a change of topic to what is most popular at the
> moment(colour changes and new castle sets), but I just had a question to ask for
> all.
>
> What do most AFOLs use as an underlay when raising a model? (landscaping,
> mountains, cliffs, etc). 2x4 standard bricks, Duplo bricks???
>
> I have tried the standard 2x4 brick, but have found myself using over 2000
> pieces, where I could have used these to build another model, mind you, it can
> get a little expensive, when purchasing through BL or S@H.
>
> I havent tried the Duplo brick, and just wanted to know whether or not it is
> worth my while spending on this method. Does the standard brick fit easy to a
> Duplo brick?
>
> Is there another method I just dont know of? Any advice would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
The GMLTC uses a "grid and tower" system, with towers of 2x2 bricks, and a grid
of 2x4 bricks.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=18100
Left-to-right: Towers, grid, overlay (surface). The green bricks represent the
outside wall of the module, the blue 1x4 bricks are what leaves room for the
grid to tie into the outside wall. Each 'surface' brick rests on six studs of
the grid, so they're well supported.
If you're concerned about strength, don't be - we have pictures (somewhere) of
some of us *standing* on top of a module built this way.
Yea, it requires a zillion bricks, but if you want to raise a smaller area it's
not too bad. You can also alter the grid height in order to have sloped areas.
Other folks have come up with similar grid systems, unfortunately I don't have
any links to them. But if you come up with something else that works, let us
know!
JohnG, GMLTC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, James Brown wrote:
| |
I’ve done several different methods; nearly everything I build these days
seems to start with some buildup inside or underneath...
Methods I’ve used:
4x4 columns with regular baseplate on top.
This works quite well for landscape, although the baseplates can get a bit
wobbly. I put a column at each corner (where 4 baseplates meet) and a larger
8x8 column in the middle of each baseplate helps keep them from being too
bendy. I don’t tend to use this method much any more, unless I’m trying to
raise a really large area (dozens of baseplates worth).
|
This was my first attempt and unfortunately, I failed miserably. I found I had
too much sag in the Base plate between the 8x8 column and the edges. However, I
have used this method in one part of my MOC where the Ground will be raised only
four to five high, saves using too many plates.
| |
GMLTC lattice
This is an incredably sturdy lattice that unfortunately consumes a fair
volume of 2x2 and 2x4 bricks. However it’s sturdy enough to stand on, and is
the easiest to hook solidly into a hillside or other sculpted terrain.
Method 2x2 pillars with 2x4’s tying them together, and 2x4’s on top to make
the solid surface. 2x2 pillars shouldn’t be more than 6 or maybe 7 bricks
high (that’s experience talking...), but you can make it several layers high.
GMLTC modules are 25 bricks high, which is I think 4 layers.
Picture(courtesy of John Gerlach):
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=18100
|
Well this method would have to be the most Ideal method, looking at the weaving,
I cant see how any model sitting above this would be un-steady. But my pockets
unfortunately arent deep enough. Brilliant design work, A lot of effort has been
put into getting the monotonous building prioritised. Well done..........
| |
Superbricks
This is what I’ve started to use most of the time. 4x4 pillars of brick with
the big 12x24 superbricks over top. Very stable, Very low on brick usage.
Can have a lot of weight sitting on it. I haven’t tried standing on it, but
I can lean on it with a lot of my weight.
|
This is a very similar method to what I am about to approach. Super bricks is a
Good name for it. I wont try to explain what Ive done, instead I will work on
getting my Camera up and running and I will take a few pics.
| |
Another way to use Superbricks is as removable floor pieces in a multi-level
building. This can take a lot of tile, though.
|
This also is what I have to take into consideration when I want to build into
the landscaping and still have easy access.
I love how you have built into the Mountain as a real Castle would have been
done in its day. Funny, that I have never seen this before, just when you
thought you have seen it all. Goes to show that Castle building will never
die.............
Thank you James............
Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.castle, David Ishak wrote:
| |
In lugnet.castle, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
You could try Duplo (it is fully compatible with System) but you may find
that it is even more expensive than an equivalent stack of regular brick.
The most widely-used technique that I’ve seen is a mix of 2x4s and 2x2s to
create a lattice support structure underground. Typically, short stacks of
five 2x2s are used in columns in between layers of 2x4s that bind the
columns to each other. If you build like I do, 2x2 is probably your
least-used common brick shape, so you probably have a lot of it available
for this purpose. I find that using large “waffle brick” near or at the
top helps to hold everything together very well. A picture speaks 1,00
words:
|
This idea is Brilliant, Looks as though a lot less bricks required. At the
moment I have been using 2x4 bricks, keeping them two studs apart and
overlapping them(wish I had a pic to make sense). This method still uses a
lot, at least I now have some more use for the abundance of un-used 2x2
bricks. The pic you have provided gives a Great insight on where to start.
Thanks for that Chris............
|
Interesting. It looks like it would be much more vulnerable to shear than the
“GMLTC lattice” (search for that string to find lots of posts about it)
though....
|
Right, this design is not as strong in the lateral direction as a more dense
lattice. For a stronger structure, you can place more layers of 2x4s, ie: put
an X and a Y support brace together between every 5 2x2s instead of alternating
x 5 y 5 as pictured here. This density works Ok if you have a cliff face or
some other denser structure at the edges of the module. It is always best to
support any module from beneath the baseplate when moving it.
I tried to search for the GMLTC lattice earlier, but couldn’t remember which
club had innovated the concept. (Sorry!) This design was inspired by that one,
but is designed to use less brick with the trade-off of being somewhat weaker.
- Chris.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, David Ishak wrote:
> > I don't have the best of suggestions -- other than to caution you about how much
> > weight you want to put on the 'raised' area. If it's really light, just about
> > anything goes: a lattice, duplo (though I just can't imagine myself doing that),
> > or even just elevating a baseplate. If you are not doing hillsides and just
> > want height you can get by with a Lego facade (sp?) which covers something
> > totally non-Lego like a cardboard box.
>
> I am trying to Build a Castle which I guess will have a lot of top end weight,
> the lattice approach seems the most logical at the moment. It looks as though
> this model will be Quite heavy, might just have to double the Lattice work.
> >
> > But, height can be a really compelling aspect of a MOC. I would suggest just
> > biting the bullet and using those off-color cat-chewed bricks you usually give
> > to the kids (like I do). I think you'll be happier with a fully detailed
> > hillside, wall or cliff face, whatever you build.
>
> Too right, Have seen many raised MOCs and have always wanted to put in the
> effort and time to do something myself, so here it goes.......
>
> Thanks Dave
>
> Dave
>
> >
> > Dave O'Hare
Dave,
I know what you mean about large constructions with lateral and top weight.
Here is the link to my overly large castle (mind you, it's a little too big):
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=63466
If you go up a link, you can see the progress on the building all the way down
to the basic green baseplates.
What I had decided to do, was to build an entire basement level and then build
the tower on top of that. So, when it comes down to it, I'm not sure if my MOC
is actually 'raised' but it's approaching 4 feet tall and 5 feet long. Yeah,
too big.
Anyway, when I built each section (I decided to build in 'units' one baseplate
in size) I built a pretty good load bearing block of lego in each corner of the
plate or floor, depending on which level of the tower you are looking at. When
it comes down to it, I have nothing more then two or three 2x 4 brick stacks
holding up the entire thing. Amazingly, it's quite stable, although I would not
stand on it *laugh* This aspect of the raising was pretty easy as I was mostly
just building big cubes -- and anyone with the brick can do that.
For the hillsides, this was more difficult. I wanted a nice slope and some
grass on top, but I did not want to build solid masses of brick underneath; I
had already used up the colors I don't ever use on surrounding the basement
rooms. So, I built frameworks under the hillsides and went from there. Since
the hillsides are not carrying much weight at all, this seems to have worked out
great. And, I suppose that's the key thing to consider -- weight and stability
of the structure.
Are you planning landscaping around your castle? I would suggest hills and a
basement / dungeon layer. It's a lot of fun and looks pretty good.
Email if you have any questions!
Dave DaveOhare01@yahoo.com
|
|
| |
I store my 2x4 bricks by making them into like-colored 4x4 stacks and then
throwing all of these together into a bucket, so it is very fast for me to just
take these 4x4 stacks as support columns. I also sometimes make stacks of
rectangular BURPs as supports. Then on top of these I buid up with plates and
bricks to make my landscaping. If you are then going to build a castle on top
of the raised landscape you have to be careful to avoid knocking the whole
thing down, or else go with a much sturdier support network. If you aren't
going to build anything on top (and if you don't plan on moving the layout
around for shows), the ground can sort of hang in the air with less support.
Some photos:
http://www.ozbricks.net/bricktales/lotr/lotrplaces/lotrplaces09/lotrplaces09-06.html
http://www.ozbricks.net/bricktales/lotr/lotrplaces/lotrplaces09/lotrplaces09-07.html
http://www.ozbricks.net/bricktales/lotr/lotrplaces/lotrplaces01/lotrplaces01-02.html
I've raised baseplates into the air once. I found that two plates plus a
baseplate makes about the same height as 1 brick, so I supported the baseplates
on 4x4 columns of n bricks plus two plates high, then used overlapping bricks at
the edges to sort of lock the baseplates into place against the cliff face I'd
already built of BURPs and bricks. Sorry, no pictures of the back side, but
here's how it looked from the front:
http://www.ozbricks.net/bricktales/lotr/lotrplaces/lotrplaces09/lotrplaces09-08.html
My Meduseld was build directly onto the raised surface, so I wanted a more
sturdy base. The interior has a lot of rectangular BURPs regularly spaced, then
there is a double layer of large plates over top. That thing was a rock. I'm
sure I could have stood on top of it. After the base was built I then made the
fortress just as if I were building directly on a baseplate. I could press down
hard without any problem of plates coming loose. Here are the pics:
http://www.ozbricks.net/bricktales/lotr/lotrplaces/lotrplaces09/lotrplaces09-04.html
When I built Orthanc I didn't have a very good support system, so I had the
problem that when I pressed down as I was building the castle, a plate would pop
out of the rock part and the pieces would fall down into the hollow area
underneath, which was really annoying. Here are some pictures:
http://www.ozbricks.net/bricktales/lotr/lotrplaces/lotrplaces05/lotrplaces05-01.html
Bruce
Bruce
|
|
|
