Subject:
|
Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 15 May 2001 01:00:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
820 times
|
| |
|
|
Nice response time here on my behalf :] Oops
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Kyle D. Jackson wrote:
>
> > Steve, I'm thinking it would be of more use to name the parts
> > using a "Rise/Run" method, like in architecture. When using
>
> Hmmm. Off the cuff, there are two things I *don't* like about this idea.
> They might be more a matter of adjusting to change, and less actual
> disadvantages. Anyway, they are:
>
> 1. The rise:run notation tends to be a close duplicate the Depth x Height
> information.
> 2. The rise:run notation is slightly longer than the angle notation.
Yeah, I didn't like these two either, mostly the first one. It could
be confusing.
> > "Slope Brick 10 6x8" doesn't mean much to me, but
> > "Slope Brick 1/6 6x8" does. It tells me the brick is 1-high,
> > and there are no studs on top.
>
> Actually, it should be "Slope Tile 10...", but I disgress.
ARRrrgh!! Hehe, got it :]
To me, either of the angle method or the rise-run methods could
work, and I can relate to both. Ultimately you just memorize
which are which anyhow, after using them a few times. I guess
as long as it's consistent, and doesn't stump new users, either
system can work.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change?
|
| (...) Hmmm, interesting thought. I'll have to think it through some more. This would give us figures like: Angle Rise:Run 10 1:6 18 1:3 33/27 1:2 45 1:1 45 2:2 53 3&1/3:3 55 6:4 (not yet released) 65 2:1 75 3:1 Hmmm. Off the cuff, there are two (...) (23 years ago, 17-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
