Subject:
|
Re: Train? Thoughts sqrt(2) - Fuel the Insanity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:12:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
540 times
|
| |
|
|
Jeff Elliott wrote:
> I think the run would be pretty short without human intervention - if the
> speed regulator is set high enough to drive the train up the hill, it's
> going to *careen* back down on the return trip, and depart controlled flight
> around where the track slopes & turns. Perhaps we can convince a mindstorms
> to regulate it, or maybe we can insulate the track and gang 3 speed regs to
> it - one in Altenburg, one up, one down, and set each appropriately. But
> from my experience with slopes & train, a speed setting of "off" can run out
> of control with the wrong train...
This is true, you would have to manage the train somehow on the way
down. If Iain would like to try and make something to do this
automaticly I say let let him go for it.
> I think Calum may be right - perhaps we should separate the construction of
> terrain from that of building, etc. Then people can chip in buildings where
> they'll look good, etc. Thoughts?
I agree with that. I was trying to work everybody in too soon. I just
didn't want people who had already started work on things to get left
out of the design. But really we should work out the design and then
deside on how it gets built. If we make the layout fexible then
individual modules could be added as well and we don't have to
nessisarily include them as part of the core layout.
> I'm happy to build the ramp; I'm good at them. If he'd like to do it,
> great, but I expect he'll need access to a zillion green and/or grey bricks,
> so maybe he & I should link up.
I have know doubt that he has enough gray, or green bricks to build the
ramp and then some. He could probibly build it out of dark gray without
using BURPs. However he is a little reclusive about his building, so
we'll have to see as we get closer to construction time if he will take
part.
> OK, here's my addition to the madness:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=217165
The trick to getting past the moderation is to use deep links instead of
the cgi script links. The get the deep link, click on the image you
uploaded, untill you reach just the JPG/GIF file you uploaded. From
there you should see the deep link in the address bar.
In this case it would be:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/jeffe/Train/altenburg2.gif
The only problem is you can't address a folder this way, only individual
files.
I really like this design. I think it will work well. The only
ajustment I can think of is trying to find a way to attach both sides of
the ramp to the left hand side. This would give use free rain to expand
the lower part of the layout for peoples individual modules with the
upper part being the core part of the layout.
I want to coment further but need to get going, I'll have to add the
rest of my thoughts later.
Derek
> This contrasts with your last offering in the following ways:
>
> Shorter run-in on the cross-switches under Altenburg, and on the switches at
> the tops of the ramps. Take a *close* look at the track geometry there -
> did you know that you don't have to use two curves to link a pair of
> switches, you can do it with one straight, and the geometry works? Saves 16
> studs of space.
>
> The ravine / trestle crosses at right angles, and you don't have to build
> much curved trestle. It feels like a feature to me, but if you have your
> heart set on a curved trestle, feel free to pull in some more of the end of
> Altenburg. But it struck me there'd be a nice point out there, suitable for
> a lonely tower or lighthouse.
>
> The ramp doesn't descend down the middle of a full module, it's back to a
> half-mod. I think on a full mod, the space behind the ramp will be
> relatively inaccessible. Furthermore, this way it's easier to "cheat" and
> not build a backslope to the ramp, which saves roughly 1/2 the building effort.
>
> The 1/2 mods carry the ramp all the way to the turns at the end. If you
> look at the full mods on either side, you'll see that this makes them much
> closer to "standard", or at least less confusing.
>
> I got rid of (buried) the wide turn on the upper right - I think that module
> would be hard to design, since the turns and clearances would eat most of
> the surface area, giving a blank-looking module. By burying it, we have
> nice, shiny, attractive Altenburg on top of the module.
>
> In this version, Altenburg shares fewer edges with lower modules. The way I
> see it, each edge needs to be contoured & bricksculpted, which eats up a lot
> of energy and resources. In contrast, even at my least creative, I can hack
> together a blank, 18-brick tall black wall for where Altenburg borders the
> edge of the world. That means we can focus our brick resources and energy
> making a few, really good-looking slopes & contours.
>
> I made the layout narrower and longer. I think it winds up using slightly
> fewer modules this way. 13 & 4/2 instead of 16 & 2/2
>
>
>
> Options: Feel free to throw in the wide curves, but you're going to have to
> make a new LDraw image of the clearances for the Go train, in that case >;)
>
> Some things we still need: An easy patch to allow us to incorporate more
> modules that people bring.
>
> I like the fact that you can play with this layout to give 2 or 3 loops, as
> desired.
>
> We'll have to put a net off the end of the table to catch runaway trains
> going downslope... Do you remember the games we played with my little
> siding and runaway cars? As I recall, they tended to derail somewhere down
> around the corner in Jeff VW's layout. Well, this slope will be longer and
> higher.... :D
>
> * * *
>
> A final thought - I know that there's a pressure to expand the core area to
> give everyone oodles of space, but I'd like to try to curtail that tendency.
> I'm happy making about 1 or 2 modules' worth of buildings & other ground
> cover, along with contouring whatever needs to be done. I'd rather have
> dense, detailed and crowded modules than sparse, widespread ones.
>
> If we're clever, we should be able to build a fascinating core pretty close
> to 10-15 modules in size, sort of the minimum to get in the terrain features
> we're after. Then we should arrange to be able to add an arbitrary number
> of additional modules outside the core. So everyone who wants to can
> contribute a small piece to the core, and bring oodles of extra modules to
> be part of the extensions.
>
> Derek, back over to you :)
>
> Tired. Must sleep.
>
> Jeff E
>
>
>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
