 | | More Module Shapes —Jon Palmer
|
| | | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 6-Sep-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: More Module Shapes —Travis Kunce
|
| | | | | 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 —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Jon Palmer
|
| | | | | | | "Mike Petrucelli" <lordi@erols.com> wrote in message news:HKruC9.2C1@lugnet.com... (...) edge (...) make? What (...) I think that opens up an entirely new can of worms. You expand to L shapes and then all sorts of tetris modules will start to (...) (21 years ago, 6-Sep-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: More Module Shapes —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hmmm... Actually now that I think about it your right. (...) Yeah I probably get the award for most annoyingly vocal person who hasn't actually built a module yet. :-) As soon as my NLSO and I move into our new house at the end of October I am (...) (21 years ago, 6-Sep-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: More Module Shapes —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'd be inclined to let people build any shaped multiple of 48x48, HOWEVER, if you build something larger than 48x48, and especially something weird in shape, it may not be able to be fit into a setup. Another way to handle it would be to (...) (21 years ago, 9-Sep-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: More Module Shapes —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Forgive me if I'm wrong about this - but this is exactly what Adrian did at Brickfest03. His Rigel 7 moonbase fit well with the aesthetics of his Tycho Brahe (sp) Hotel, and all formed to make a super cool 96 x 96 moonbase. However, the Rigel (...) (21 years ago, 9-Sep-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: More Module Shapes —Jon Palmer
|
| | | | | | | | "Lenny Hoffman" <lahoffma@*NOSPAM*ma...r.fsu.edu> wrote in message news:HKyLp3.1HJ3@lugnet.com... (...) at (...) Tycho (...) ones. (...) midpoint (...) as a (...) example, (...) there (...) connection (...) this (...) Some interesting thoughts guys. (...) (21 years ago, 10-Sep-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: More Module Shapes —Travis Kunce
|
| | | | | | there was extensive talk aobout this during the evening hours of BF03 , it seems like the best way to showcase moonbases so that every base gets seen is to make the whole layout in cross thtat is 2x 48 across. With this type of display no base gets (...) (21 years ago, 6-Sep-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: More Module Shapes —Spencer Nowak
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Adrian Drake
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
