Subject:
|
Re: Displacement Tonnage for Spaceships?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:39:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
449 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Kyle Keppler writes:
> Soudns inneresting, but waaaaay too complicated. Counting the length of my
> ships is bad enough, let alone calcuating anything. I prefer to call my stuff
> big, really big, insanely big, and ludicris big.
>
> But I think Jon's SHIP term is good enough for me.
Haha! :)
I hope someday that I can build a ludicrous big ship. Most of mine are
sorta small, fairly small, and diminutively small. :)
(The Terrorformer and the Armegeddon being two exceptions of course.)
-H.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Displacement Tonnage for Spaceships?
|
| (...) Don't worry, building large ships is actually easier than it might seem. I was building mere 100 studish long ships for years, then I decided to make the jump to large ships. I now have built a 240 or stud long ship which weighs upward of 25 (...) (22 years ago, 31-Dec-02, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Displacement Tonnage for Spaceships?
|
| Soudns inneresting, but waaaaay too complicated. Counting the length of my ships is bad enough, let alone calcuating anything. I prefer to call my stuff big, really big, insanely big, and ludicris big. But I think Jon's SHIP term is good enough for (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.space)
|
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
|
|
|
|
