Subject:
|
Re: Realistic versus Iconic Trees...solved!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 May 2006 16:57:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
769 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
> > Realistic it is!
> >
> > Calum
>
>
> Uhhh, don't we at least get pics (Mister-Calum-Camera-Man) to vote on it
> ourselves???
>
> Janey "Realism is often overated, Red Brick"
I'll try and get some pictures up after this weekend.
I used to love the little iconic sphere and cone Lego trees...and always wanted
a tall teardrop tree...but ever since I saw Sean Kenney or Spencer Rezkalla (I
think it was him...) and the composite trees made of those little green
bits...I'm all for the realistic.
This debate is a little different, which you'll see once the pictures are up.
Calum
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Realistic versus Iconic Trees...solved!
|
| (...) Added to this debate is the fact there are currently only three "realistic" trees, but 12 iconic trees already build. Using one over the other leads to a very deforested city. Personally I think we should use both. The more trees the better. (...) (18 years ago, 19-May-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
9 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
|
|
|
|
