Subject:
|
Re: More Module Shapes
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 6 Sep 2003 06:46:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
448 times
|
| |
|
|
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 buried.... we should think hard about bases broader
than 2x 48 unless they are the interior bottoom corner module and can link
to multiple modules on 2 of the 4 sides
my two cents
-tk
"Mike Petrucelli" <lordi@erols.com> wrote in message
news:HKruC9.2C1@lugnet.com...
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
