Subject:
|
Re: New space building standard and submission to www.classic-space.com
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:00:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1208 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Damien Guichard writes:
> > Hi Jon Palmer,
> >
> > I also have designed a "space building standard" concept.
> > It is not designed by a group.
> > It is of a much finer granularity (brick level).
> > It is also somewhat terse so I expect no popularity.
> >
> > http://brickcaster.multimania.com/misc/building_calculus
> >
> > Nevertheless, I want to submit it to www.classic-space.com as it's the
> > natural place for it, how should I proceed?
> > Then I would remove it from my site.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Damien
> Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, Ami Mizuno! What do you mean by all of
> this on that page? I mean, granted, I have a 122 I.Q. but anything beyond
> pre-algebra I have a hard time understanding. They do look nice but my
> theory is to simply think in four steps. The first step is to think of a
> general design. The second step is to determine what would look good as a
> design, such as altering the design, if necessary, when building said LEGO
> design. The third step is to find out how your design will function and to
> alter functions, if necessary, on the LEGO design. The fourth and final
> step is to simply build the LEGO design. That is how I always worked on
> LEGO designs so if my lack of understanding your infintely complex theories
> on LEGO designs unnerves you, then please take the time to explain them to
> me in a way I can understand but not feel like a moron. Thank you for your
> time, Damien.
> Jesse Alan Long
Hi Jesse,
I agree with you.
Simple ideas should have simple presentation.
It also came to my mind that the real or perceived complexity of my building
system may be a poor mist for charlatanism. I am not naive: where there is
seduction there is charlatanism. I have to assume that, and do whatever I
can so people don't expect much more than what the concept can give. And the
concept can't give anything, or so little. So the document gives no
application and makes no promise of any sort.
I think you deserve a more fair, more intuitive presentation.
So here is my second chance (read it slowly):
You start a new classic space creation with the big picture in mind.
The basic idea is that turning this big picture into an actual model
requires a myriad of atomic design decisions. Just like a piece of matter is
made of a myriad of atoms. The main hypothesis is that these constructive
(=difficult) decisions are only 5 in number:
* pair = join 2 neighbor bricks
* bridge = join two pillars
* support = make a pillar
* balance = make two heights equal
* floor = provide a surface
Other decisions are said to be decorative (=easy).
A brick has studs at top and antistuds at bottom.
So a brick can fulfill two roles: a bottom role and a top role.
Obviously bottom role is either "pair" or "bridge".
Obviously top role is either "support", "balance" or "floor".
Then the comcept easily justifies the selection and placement of bricks. The
selected brick has a shape compatible with the two roles assigned to the
placement. Conversely roles are assigned to placements thanks to constraints
generated by other bricks: a bridge joins 2 pillars so a bridge requires two
pillars.
Thanks for criticism,
Damien
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New space building standard and submission to www.classic-space.com
|
| (...) Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, Ami Mizuno! What do you mean by all of this on that page? I mean, granted, I have a 122 I.Q. but anything beyond pre-algebra I have a hard time understanding. They do look nice but my theory is to simply (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jul-02, to lugnet.space)
|
41 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
|
|
|
|
