Subject:
|
Re: doh!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 May 2000 20:27:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1055 times
|
| |
|
|
J.D. Forinash <foxtrot@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:8f9nuj$72q$1@cc731244-b.chmbl1.cc.ga.home.com...
> In article <FuAtvD.Cqw@lugnet.com>, Lorbaat <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> • wrote:
> > line too many of them up, but I have had little problem with them as a
> > structral element. I used some of them here:
>
> While I don't woosh castles, I do manipulate them-- for example, my • current
> version has levels that one can lift off one another.
I also have built castles with the "lift off" design. I prefer them to ones
that hinge (although some of the hinged creations I have seen are very
impressive - i.e. Ed Boxer's AMAZING white castle).
[snip]
> Where the only places the sections can be locked together are on the
> tops and bottoms.
>
> I really like the looks of it, and it yields a quite modular design,
> but I can't make it stay together.
>
> Which brings me to yet another question:
>
> What's the trick to relatively durable buildings built in that style?
What I have done is to not have the sections lock together with studs at
all. Instead I have the upper section rest on a row of tiles and place
corresponding bricks on the underside of the upper section which slide down
immediately to the inside of the lower section walls. This, in effect,
"locks" the upper section in place. Unless you tip the castle to 90
degrees, this will provide a sturdy construction.
Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: doh!
|
| (...) While I don't woosh castles, I do manipulate them-- for example, my current version has levels that one can lift off one another. I find that when one goes with a design like that, it looks a lot better, much, much better. But some fool (...) (25 years ago, 9-May-00, to lugnet.castle)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
