Subject:
|
Re: More studs in holes...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.build
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 07:28:36 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Selçuk <teyyareci> <sgore@superonline.*nomorespam*com>
|
Viewed:
|
616 times
|
| |
|
|
Jonathan Perret <jperret@cybercable.fr> wrote in message
<snip>
> The only reasonable explanation I have found so far is that
> they are not using a 3-D package to compose the instructions at
> all. I'm still having a hard time believing this but I can't explain
> the mistakes otherwise.
>
> Cheers,
> --Jonathan
Yes, it is seemingly impossible at the beginning but I've seen a 8880
instruction error related to a 1x1 technic brick with hole, and I still
don't have any clue how a 3D CAD system can do this (especially by using a
ready to use 3D library of bricks)..:-)
SElçuk
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More studs in holes...
|
| (...) The consistency in instruction styles from the mid to late 70's onwards through until now makes me wonder about this. They couldn't have been using a CAD system them (surely? far too expensive) so they'd have been done by draughts[wo]men, and (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.build)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More studs in holes...
|
| Todd Lehman writes : (...) Interesting. I tend to measure pieces in terms of plate heights, but I have almost the same measurements. Except that the stud height is NOT equal to half the plate height. I discovered that last night and I'm still (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.build)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
