Subject:
|
Re: Reason 5H bricks are good
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.build
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:53:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
872 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 04:04:01 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
<radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> Steve Bliss writes:
> > I was
> > inserting stacks of 1x4 bricks between the horizontal beams, to provide
> > rigidity (is that a word?).
> Yes.
>
> > Now, this problem is pretty easy to solve by making sure that my
> > diagonal beams cross on either side of the brick-stack, so the bricks
> > can't move. But it's even easier to use 5H bricks instead.
> I've often thought that those taller bricks would be cool to use in big
> structures, like some of the big skyscraper/office building types. That, IMO,
> neither limits creativity nor violates integrity (or purism). It only does so
> when the object built is much smaller.
I could see that. Also, the smoothness of the 5H bricks (fewer
inter-brick lines) would increase the asthetic appeal of skyscraper
models.
My big problem with 5H bricks is when they give the illusion of solid
construction. Without adequate design, a building made of 5H bricks is
much easier to collapse than another building, same design, with regular
bricks.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Reason 5H bricks are good
|
| (...) Yes. (...) I've often thought that those taller bricks would be cool to use in big structures, like some of the big skyscraper/office building types. That, IMO, neither limits creativity nor violates integrity (or purism). It only does so when (...) (26 years ago, 20-Jan-99, to lugnet.build)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
