| |
In lugnet.space, Matthew Miller writes:
> Z <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> > and built as a single unit. It looks so much better that way, and it works
> > better that way too.
>
> Works better how?
>
> --
> Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
> Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
While modules aren't designed for any particular setup, the space stations
designed and built as one unit are designed so that certain components function
with certain other components. Such specific design results in a better
functioning space station, and certainly a better looking one.
Z
|
|
| |
Z <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> While modules aren't designed for any particular setup, the space stations
> designed and built as one unit are designed so that certain components
> function with certain other components. Such specific design results in a
> better functioning space station, and certainly a better looking one.
Well-designed modules can produce a better whole than a designed-as-a-lump
one, for a complicated-enough system. This is why object-oriented
programming is so popular. Or why networking protocols are thought of as
layers.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Matthew Miller writes:
> Z <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> > While modules aren't designed for any particular setup, the space stations
> > designed and built as one unit are designed so that certain components
> > function with certain other components. Such specific design results in a
> > better functioning space station, and certainly a better looking one.
>
> Well-designed modules can produce a better whole than a designed-as-a-lump
> one, for a complicated-enough system. This is why object-oriented
> programming is so popular. Or why networking protocols are thought of as
> layers.
>
>
>
> --
> Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
> Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Nonetheless, the modular stuff is structurally weaker, and UGLIER than that
which is designed as one. I don't ever build modular stations, due to such
things.
Z
|
|
| |
Z <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> Nonetheless, the modular stuff is structurally weaker, and UGLIER than that
> which is designed as one. I don't ever build modular stations, due to such
> things.
But think about how you'd build a _real_ space station. Wouldn't a modular
design make sense?
I understand where you're coming from on the ugliness point. Modular designs
tend to look very functional and mechanical. (But that can have it's own
appeal too, can't it.)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
Matthew Miller wrote:
> Modular designs
> tend to look very functional and mechanical. (But that can have it's own
> appeal too, can't it.)
Form follows function, baby, and something that does the thing it is
intended to do, and does it well and efficiently, is a thing of beauty,
as beauty follows form.
At least that's MY aesthetic opinion.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Matthew Miller writes:
> Z <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> > Nonetheless, the modular stuff is structurally weaker, and UGLIER than that
> > which is designed as one. I don't ever build modular stations, due to such
> > things.
>
> But think about how you'd build a _real_ space station. Wouldn't a modular
> design make sense?
>
> I understand where you're coming from on the ugliness point. Modular designs
> tend to look very functional and mechanical. (But that can have it's own
> appeal too, can't it.)
>
> --
> Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
> Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
important than realism.
Z
|
|
| |
Z wrote:
> Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> important than realism.
Perhaps you are. I'm talking about LEGO brand building bricks, and the
constructions we can make from them, not about whatever it is you are
talking about.
If you want me to take you seriously, take The LEGO Company and their
rights seriously, including their right to determine what their product
is called, and what part of speech the name actually is. LEGO is an
adjective, by their reckoning, not a noun.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Z wrote:
>
> > Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> > important than realism.
>
> Perhaps you are. I'm talking about LEGO brand building bricks, and the
> constructions we can make from them, not about whatever it is you are
> talking about.
>
> If you want me to take you seriously, take The LEGO Company and their
> rights seriously, including their right to determine what their product
> is called, and what part of speech the name actually is. LEGO is an
> adjective, by their reckoning, not a noun.
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
> - - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
> fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
>
> NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
This is lugnet.space, not lugnet.splitting-hairs. Need you point out small,
insignificant errors?
Z
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> important than realism.
I don't automatically agree. For some, realism *is* coolness, as the more
realistic a creation is, the cooler it can be. And some build for realism with
no thought of coolness (which can occur naturally as a bonus).
-Tom McD.
when replying, "Spammenstein" was much too scary for movie audiences of the
1930's.
The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
http://www.baylug.org
|
|
| |
I'm working on a modular one now but its not as neat as my mostly
brick ones. See CLSotW: Aug 22 99 Original LEGO® creations by Rick
L. Kujawa. The modular design takes many more specialized pieces.
I'll post some pics soon.
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> > Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> > important than realism.
>
> I don't automatically agree. For some, realism *is* coolness, as the more
> realistic a creation is, the cooler it can be. And some build for realism with
> no thought of coolness (which can occur naturally as a bonus).
>
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, "Spammenstein" was much too scary for movie audiences of the
> 1930's.
>
> The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
> http://www.baylug.org
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> > Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> > important than realism.
>
> I don't automatically agree. For some, realism *is* coolness, as the more
> realistic a creation is, the cooler it can be. And some build for realism with
> no thought of coolness (which can occur naturally as a bonus).
>
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, "Spammenstein" was much too scary for movie audiences of the
> 1930's.
>
> The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
> http://www.baylug.org
I just make sure that the concepts used in my LEGO creations are at least
theoretically possible.
Z
|
|
|
