| |
John wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I know what you mean. When I see a fine compressed train, as in a James
> > > Mathis creation, the word that comes to my mind is "cute".
> >
> > Funny, when I see a fine looking (when on static display) 8 wide model on a
> > curve, even a curve/straight/curve curve, the word that comes to mind is
> > "ridiculous".
>
>
> That's interesting. I've never had the wonky weave problem. Perhaps it is
> because we go curve-straight-curve-straight (never 2 curves together).
Ugh, I can't stand it. We just had a layout that used c-s-c-s-c-s-c to
avoid a track overlap, and I felt like puking as the trains went bobbing
through it. I can only imagine how those poor minifigs felt.
As for the 8-wide debate, we all know where I stand, build them big and
damn the shubbery! But, I have been compressing my stuff lengthwise.
When I figured out how long I would have to go to make a super cheif
coach uncompresses I nearly coughed up a lung. Oh yeah, this weekend I
discovered that you can "damn the shubbery" but you cannot really damn
the 7-foot tall building with a 10-wide platform entrance. Prying the
last car back out was fun.
> > If and when LEGO ever makes decent radii, I might switch.
>
>
> Yeah, and bats will fly out of my butt!
LEGO bats? You _could_ do it with LEGO bats.
|
|
| |
Christopher Masi wrote:
> Oh yeah, this weekend I
> discovered that you can "damn the shubbery" but you cannot really damn
> the 7-foot tall building with a 10-wide platform entrance. Prying the
> last car back out was fun.
Better that way than having several clubmembers coming to you asking what
that stupid big engine did to their trackside structures.
(I was the only 8-wide builder at the time and built my engines big, heavy
and as overpowered as possible :D )
--
Jan-Albert van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/brickpiles/
|
|
|
