Subject:
|
Re: More Module Shapes
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 6 Sep 2003 02:45:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
386 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer wrote:
> 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?
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
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: More Module Shapes
|
| "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
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | More Module Shapes
|
| 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
