 | | Re: Crate Contraption Standard
|
|
(...) As long as the "Type 1" standard doesn't tightly constrain future expansion, I think both are achievable. (...) It seems a good one, but certainly not the only one. For instance, have a empty crates not filled directly, but instead via a (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.us.smart)
|
| |
| | Re: Crate Contraption Standard
|
|
Steve clearly wants to keep this simple for the first go-around. But others, including myself, dream of more flexibility. I like Larry's idea of referring to versions. So rather than having to reject some features as too difficult, we can ear mark (...) (20 years ago, 12-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.us.smart)
|
| |
| | Re: Crate Contraption Standard
|
|
(...) I had in mind something a bit like the moonbase concept except where they have level passage-ways between modules, a GBC module would have either one or two two ins which include a slight down slope to encourgage balls to enter and either one (...) (20 years ago, 11-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.us.smart)
|
| |
| | Re: Crate Contraption Standard
|
|
(...) Yes, I think more people will participate in a "ball contraption" than a "crate contraption". It's my intent to create a ball contraption standard. People can use crates to move balls within there own module, if they choose. When balls are (...) (20 years ago, 11-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.us.smart)
|
| |
| | Re: Crate Contraption Standard
|
|
(...) I guess I am confused then. A crate is a thing that balls go in. A crate contraption would need to be able to handle crates, yes? Else it would be a ball contraption? The thing is, I think the problems of actaully building a mechanism which (...) (20 years ago, 8-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.us.smart)
|
