| |
(Would non-.loc.au readers please refrain from trimming the .loc.au. I'd
prefer you let the "members" of .loc.au decide if it's too noisy for our
group - TIA ;-)
"Kyle Keppler" <hifiki@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GF3rMr.3Kx@lugnet.com...
>
> A good strong base is also very important, and my ship has a set up of:
> a layer of plates,
> a layer of technic beams and regular bricks,
> and another layer of plates.
Do you connect your technic beams together with pegs? I've found that a
skeleton of parallel- and perpendicularly-linked 1x12, 1x14 and 1x16 technic
beams, when built upon, will create an amazingly sturdy structure.
I took my latest spacecraft to a meet recently. It's over 150 studs long and
weighs in excess of twenty kilos when fully loaded with its fighter
complement (probably a third of its mass). I was picking it up to pack it
away and somebody commented, "gee, that would sag a bit wouldn't it". It was
particularly satisfying to see the looks on their faces when I held it by
_one_end_ and the other didn't sag at all - not even a bit. Didn't even
creak, not a single noise.
This principle has been used in many older Technic sets such as 8860 and
8880 and is well known to most Technic builders. It's my hope that more
"System" modellers will become familiar with the uses of this method.
Unfortunately, despite its virtues, it's not without practical drawbacks:
1. A great deal more construction planning is required to make a structure
that takes proper advantage of such a strong skeleton. You can't really tack
stuff onto the skeleton, the latter has to run through the whole structure
to reinforce it.
2. Newer Technic sets seem to use more and more studless "liftarms" and less
brick-style Technic beams - for example, 8880 had dozens of 1x16s, but the
Silver Champion only contains 8. The SW Technic sets don't seem to contain
any. This is a real shame - technic beams longer than 1x8 are becoming more
and more difficult and expensive to obtain.
Having the luxury of a good Technic collection, I must say that personally I
love using this construction method. In fact, that's why I prefer building
big - not only is the result more impressive, but you're given the
opportunity to solve a greater range of construction/engineering problems on
the way to achieving it.
So yeah, in other words bigger IS better. :-)
--
Cheers,
Paul
LUGNET member 164
http://www.geocities.com/doctorshnub/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
6 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
