| |
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.
|
|
| |
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, 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, 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.
|
|
|
