Subject:
|
Re: Microfig vs. Nanofig (Was: Nanofig Ties)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Apr 1999 00:22:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
755 times
|
| |
|
|
Well acording to my science book the building scales should go more like
minifig(or just plain fig) down to millifig(which would have been microfig), and
then to microfig(which was nanofig), and then if you wanted a nanofig
stardestroyer all you'd have to do would be use a 2x1 plate :)
Ryan
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 4/9/99, at 5:25 PM, Sproaticus wrote:
> SCOTT R DENNETT wrote:
> > Since it seems that we have advanced from microfig building to nanofig
> > building, here are a couple of tie fighters :) PLMKWYT
>
> Pretty innovative models, but wouldn't a nanofig-scale one-man fighter be
> roughly one millimeter wide? I would say that the models you just posted
> are roughly in the same scale as previous microfig-scale models.
>
> It's my understanding that nanofig scale is most appropriate for modelling
> really *huge* items, such as mile-long starships and presidential egos.
> That sort of thing. If you follow the metric prefix sequence,
>
> "micro" = 1 / 1,000,000 (i.e. one one-millionth (1) ) ;
> "nano" = 1 / 1,000,000,000 (i.e. one one-billionth), or 1 / 1,000
> micro-scale.
>
> You could probably sculpt planetary models in picofig-scale, or 1 /
> 1,000,000,000,000 (i.e. one one-trillionth). Todd's bloodsucker nanotech
> droids (2) could arguably be kilo-fig scale. Of course, this analogy breaks
> down PDQ when you note that "mini" isn't even in there. :-P
>
> BTW, I really like the TIE fighter, regardless what scale it's in. :-,
>
> Cheers,
> - jsproat
>
> 1. American metric. Not to be confused with the metric used by the rest of
> the world. (3)
>
> 2. http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad.dat:160
>
> 3. Note that I'm going from memory, with approx. 64 oz. of caffeine in my
> bloodstream (4), listening to a lethal mixture of MP3 including INXS and
> Queen and Enya and Oingo Boingo and Talking Heads and Loreena McKennitt, and
> trying to implement a recursive treenode-sorting function in Java (5), so
> all that silly rambling legalese (6) about standard disclaimers applies.
>
> 4. And no, I'm not going to convert 64 oz. into metric right now. :-,
>
> 5. I've decided to fully endorse usage of ObjectSpace's JGL. What a slick
> API. Though the docs are kinda hard to understand with the Pixies
> screeching in stereo. :-,
>
> 6. Like I'm not silly / rambling right now. (7)
>
> 7. I think that that's enough footnotes for now. :-P
>
> --
> Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@geocities.com>
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Horizon/5249/
> "The world will not perish for want of wonders but for want of wonder"
> -- British scientist J. B. S. Haldane (1892-1964)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Microfig vs. Nanofig (Was: Nanofig Ties)
|
| (...) Consulting a book?!? With pages and words and stuff? Is that allowed? :-, (...) Wow, talk about minimalist! Yeah, it's gotta be a pretty loose scale. Cheers, - jsproat Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@geocities.com> (URL) world will not perish for (...) (26 years ago, 10-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Microfig vs. Nanofig (Was: Nanofig Ties)
|
| (...) Pretty innovative models, but wouldn't a nanofig-scale one-man fighter be roughly one millimeter wide? I would say that the models you just posted are roughly in the same scale as previous microfig-scale models. It's my understanding that (...) (26 years ago, 9-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
3 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
|
|
|
|
