Subject:
|
Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:16:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1285 times
|
| |
|
|
"David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message
news:IA3zL9.xKJ@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.robotics, "Rob Limbaugh" <RLimbaugh@greenfieldgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >
> > Personally, I think something similar to the moonbase concept should be
> > applied--an input bin with opening or edge at a given heighth and width
> > and placed in a specifica location on a standard footprint size, or
> > perhaps by allowing different categories of footprints.
> >
> > In this way, anyone's module can fit to another persons and event
> > organizers can plan layouts for events and request the appropriate
> > amount of space.
> >
> > - Rob
>
> I love standards, but I also like the 'variedness' of the GBC
> modules--trying to
> get somethign specific hammered down, like 'only 32x32 baseplates with the
> bin
> in the bottom left corner' might be a little difficult.
>
> As it is, Steve's details is the front of the bin must be within 32 studs
> from
> the back edge of the baseplate, to allow modules to run along a wall.
>
> Maybe in the future Steve and Co. will get more specific, but this is a
> good
> start
>
> We shall see what transpires.
>
> Dave K
What's the big deal? Either you can make a module to comply with simple
specs, or you can't. If you need more space and can't fit everything inside
1 - 32x32 module, then make a multiplate module that will still make the
little toy LEGO balls go from point A to point B per the specs. I see no
reason to bicker about where the balls come from and go when we're not
dealing with NASA building rockets or making pianos...
-Ya, I'm having a Monday...
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| (...) Why impose more limits than necessary? Of the 10 modules in our (very successful) test GBC, these 4 would have to be eliminated for being out-of-spec: (not a multiple of 32) (URL) I forgot, you can't use 48x48 baseplates. Add this: (URL) to (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| (...) Wow. Mondayness for me as well. I agree with you, Rob. That said, to start, Steve and Co. have their little thing goin' on, and I just wanted to point out that, within the parameters as layed out by them, one has toe potential to make a module (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| (...) <snip> (...) I love standards, but I also like the 'variedness' of the GBC modules--trying to get somethign specific hammered down, like 'only 32x32 baseplates with the bin in the bottom left corner' might be a little difficult. As it is, (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
11 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
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
