Subject:
|
Re: Deciding on a large ship acronym
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:49:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1134 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer writes:
snip snop
> >
> > Could work. But what do we mean by "100 studs"? Are we discussing length
> > of the model? What if someone designs a model that is rather wide, deep, • or
> > tall? Theoretically, a ship could contain thousands of pieces and still
> > measure less than 100 studs long, depending on its shape. In real life,
> > sea-ships are measured using tonnage and displacement (I think). How • might
> > such a thing be translated to mini-figure scale for space vessels?
>
> Great questions. I personally think anything that is either 100+
> long/wide/tall would be included. Granted some builders will make (and have
> in the past) some ships that are this long/wide/tall yet extremely weeny.
> Maybe we could even make another acronym for ships that are trying to hard
> to be a SHIP. For some reason I keep thinking BLIP...can't really think of
> what it stands for though..
(de-lurk)
Hi I am I newbie here I but I thought that maybe you could go by wiegth in
oz....
Tim
Spacey
(lurk)
snipity snip snip
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Deciding on a large ship acronym
|
| "Hendo (John P. Henderson)" <hendo@valyance.com> wrote in message news:H4tIKw.F1A@lugnet.com... (...) I try. I try. (...) or (...) might (...) Great questions. I personally think anything that is either 100+ long/wide/tall would be included. Granted (...) (22 years ago, 30-Oct-02, to lugnet.space)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
