Subject:
|
Re: New space building standard and submission to www.classic-space.com
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:46:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1160 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Wayne R. Hussey 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
>
>
> Whereas I do have an idea what you're speaking to, I do not see the
> relevance to "space" only. It seems to me to be something much more general
> - sort of a theory of LEGO building/structure. I could see this being used
> to consider an assembly beforehand to make sure the structure will be sound,
> but most individuals who have built models that stay together will have an
> intuitive grasp of these priciples. I am lost in the need or desire to make
> use of the formality of these ideas. I can definitely see the mathematical
> bent that these considerations have, but by what you indicate the use to be,
> I liken them to attempting to apply number throery to teach general arithmetic.
>
> I guess I just don't see a usable outcome of your, albeit elegant, work.
>
> Wayne
Hi Wayne,
You have catched two important points.
First the calculus consider assemblies forehand to anticipate or solve
building problems like ensuring cohesion (mostly "pair") and surrounding
emptiness to generate volume (mostly "bridge").
Second this knownledge is not new (or space theme would not exist) but is
expressed in a more conscious form. And not being new, you do not expect
something really new either. You are totally right: no revolution is on the
way. MAY BE life will become easier for children and beginners that do their
first step into lego building, but impact on fan and expert practice will be
nearly zero. Because experts use much more knownledge and context than my
kernel operators.
Then you expect two more qualities:
The method should be universal.
It is universal but the patterns appear more spontaneaous and diverse if you
build classic space. You could use the method to "deconstruct" 6075 yellow
castle but ending with hundreds of "pairs" and a few "bridges" patterns does
not make much sense.
The method should be more intuitive.
Before the final version I made experiments with only 3 core constructors
(instead of 5). These constructors were 3 letters:
H = Horizontal extension
V = Vertical extension
B = Bridge connection
The idea was intuitively convincing, it could perfectly describe my orbital
station model:
http://brickcaster.multimania.com/themes/space/classic_space/orbital_station/index_main.html
But then I realized that the constructing power of this notation is really
poor. Because it generates or solve no constraint. I do not need descriptive
tools, building instructions are best for that, I need constructive concepts.
My experience on these previous attempts is that the intuitive presentation
should be derived from the rational one, not the reverse.
Deriving the intuitive from the rational is easy (I have done it in previous
postings), deriving the rational from the intuitive just forces
reconsideration and refundation. An intuitive presentation simply can't
resist a rationalization.
Thanks for criticism,
Damien
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
