Subject:
|
Re: Tatsumaki
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.build.mecha
|
Date:
|
Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:27:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
939 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.build.mecha, Marcus Clancy wrote:
> Hi my name is Marcus Clancy and this is my first post on Lugnet. I wanted
> to show my new mech and possibly hear some feedback. The mech that i am
> posting is based off a frame that I had made a few months ago. The purpose of
> this frame was to see if I could make a frame using only balljoints for the
> articulation since I had not see this done before.
Wow, Marcus. You beat me to it. (I seem to write that on Lugnet a lot.) And
it looks really good!
I am not a mecha person -- I'm a bit too old, I guess. But my son loves giant
robots, so I've been trying to build a few. I have a half-completed frame that,
like yours, uses only ball joints. My frame is considerably smaller than yours.
I only need a single ball joint at each knee. I restricted the ball joint's
degrees of freedom in much the same way that it is done in the original Bionicle
torsos.
I wasn't restricting my building to ball joints just to see whether I could do
it. The fact is that the other joints I have in my collection are not good
choices. I hate the finite number of positions of click hinges, and the fact
that they wear out with repeated use. Hinge plates and bricks just aren't stiff
enough to support much weight. Neither are Technic friction pegs and beams.
Ball joints and axles are stiff, continuously variable, and durable.
Cheers,
John Ladasky
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Tatsumaki
|
| Hi my name is Marcus Clancy and this is my first post on Lugnet. I wanted to show my new mech and possibly hear some feedback. The mech that i am posting is based off a frame that I had made a few months ago. The purpose of this frame was to see if (...) (20 years ago, 10-Nov-04, to lugnet.build.mecha) !
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
