To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.spaceOpen lugnet.space in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Space / 27767
27766  |  27768
Subject: 
Re: If we are changing the Moonbase standards then why not...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.space
Date: 
Tue, 2 Sep 2003 23:38:13 GMT
Viewed: 
591 times
  
In lugnet.space, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
The only thing I can figure 10 high intervals has going for it is the
ease of numbers. (ie. 10,20,30... as opposed to 12,24,36...) That just
seems a very silly reason to adopt 10 high
as standard to me.

What about this?
http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=monorail

Monorail works in intervals of 10 bricks.
--Bram



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: If we are changing the Moonbase standards then why not...
 
(...) Ah... So that is where the idea came from. Well I have to wonder if the potential benefits of making 12 high intervals and simply adding the neccesary bricks to the monorail stanchions (given most of the track would be on the modules anyways, (...) (21 years ago, 3-Sep-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: If we are changing the Moonbase standards then why not...
 
(...) A single plate thickness for a floor won't even come close to cutting it for the moonbase I plan on building. (URL) Really, I think 10 high intervals would be too limiting for people that want to make 2 levels in between corridor levels. Isn't (...) (21 years ago, 2-Sep-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)

10 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR