Subject:
|
Re: latest layout photo
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.nalug
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Oct 2000 20:25:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
848 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> > James Brown wrote
> > > About the only thing I don't like is no train yard...
> >
> > I agree with the need for an obvious train yard.
>
> Have a look and tell me what you think...
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=16397
> The mountain (upper left) has the main line running under in via a
> tunnel, and the elevated section goes over and through it. A curved
> section would be carved out to make room, just like the Rockies... :-)
Hmm. I'll confess I have a *really* hard time judging how elevations and so
forth look from a 2D overhead.
That being said, I think I'd prefer if the elevation changes were limited to
what we need to have for the terrain. I realize that we're dealing in a
certain amount of unreality, but to me train tracks getting elevated when they
don't need to be just looks off.
..now if we had varying table heights, that would be different!
:)
As an aside, Brickshelf now serves .tdl files with their own MIME assignment,
so anyone with track designer can view them.
If I could start being included on the loop when .tdl files get mailed around,
then I can play too. :) Things are settling down to a routine, again.
James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: latest layout photo
|
| (...) Have a look and tell me what you think... (URL) mountain (upper left) has the main line running under in via a tunnel, and the elevated section goes over and through it. A curved section would be carved out to make room, just like the (...) (24 years ago, 6-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
