Subject:
|
More Module Shapes
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 6 Sep 2003 01:33:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
462 times
|
| |
|
|
We should have probably addressed this a while ago. Think we should go ahead
and open up modules to being rectangular or bigger than 96x96?
New sizes could be:
48x96
144x144
Like that. I think as long as they stayed square or rectangular and sides
were always a multiple of 48 this would be fine.
What do you think?
--
[ j o n ]
http://zemi.net
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: More Module Shapes
|
| sounds quite logical. -tk "Jon Palmer" <jon@zemi.net> wrote in message news:HKrr3J.1uIC@lugnet.com... (...) ahead (...) (21 years ago, 6-Sep-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: More Module Shapes
|
| (...) Uh... As long as the edges of the module are at least four studs from the edge of the plate and the corridors line up what difference does the shape make? What about a 3 plate 'L' shaped module for example? -Mike Petrucelli (21 years ago, 6-Sep-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: More Module Shapes
|
| (...) As long as it's a multiple of 48, anything goes IMO. How is building a 48x96 module different than showing up with 2 modules that you insist on keeping connected? The only objection i can think of is the possible lack of the paths between (...) (21 years ago, 6-Sep-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: More Module Shapes
|
| (...) Err, I'm a little confused here. Isn't that what supermodules are already? I've seen more than a few (heck, they were at brickfest) that are already rectangular. How is this new? Adrian (21 years ago, 6-Sep-03, to lugnet.space)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
