 | | Re: Lambrecht-Lowell Stellar Cartography Podule —Daniel Rubin
|
| | | (...) snip (...) Very nice. It looks pretty cool, and seems like it'd look even cooler in a moonbase module, especially clustered together. Why limit connections to just the 4 horizontal directions? I see a 3 dimensional array of spheres as (...) (20 years ago, 16-May-05, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lambrecht-Lowell Stellar Cartography Podule —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | | (...) I think he means that the extra bits attached to the corridor assembly should not extend more than one plate below the corridor floor in order to keep the clearance for stuff passing underneath. --Bram (20 years ago, 16-May-05, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lambrecht-Lowell Stellar Cartography Podule —Jason J. Railton
|
| | | | | | (...) I see someone was replying at the same time as me! I forgot to add that I think if you have one fixed permanent corridor, it should be allowed to be supported from below however you want; this to allow a little more creative freedom. The (...) (20 years ago, 16-May-05, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Lambrecht-Lowell Stellar Cartography Podule —Jason J. Railton
|
| | | | (...) It was four directions so that however you put it together, it would make something compliant with the overall module standard. In the UK we're still using the 'Classic Moonbase' ;) standard, i.e. we haven't jacked ours up the extra bricks, (...) (20 years ago, 16-May-05, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lambrecht-Lowell Stellar Cartography Podule —Jason J. Railton
|
| | | | (...) Another point on putting space train track on the edge of modules - it becomes vitally important that you follow a strict six-wide rule on your trains. i.e. not even half a plate of overhang is allowed for ladders or handles. The trains must (...) (20 years ago, 16-May-05, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lambrecht-Lowell Stellar Cartography Podule —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) Flibbity Floo. Any "system" that has such heavy restrictions on building creativity sucks and should be abandoned. I mean really. Why bother with incorporating "trains" at all? JOHN (20 years ago, 16-May-05, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lambrecht-Lowell Stellar Cartography Podule —Jason J. Railton
|
| | | | | | (...) It's not that hard to do you know, so long as you've grown out of (URL) Duplo>! Only kidding. You don't have to do any of that. It's just if you want to make big wide diesel-guzzling stacked intermodal space trains they'd be limited to the (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-05, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lambrecht-Lowell Stellar Cartography Podule —Jon Palmer
|
| | | | (...) Aside from all the other great ideas you've brought up, I should mention that I'm all for track being just about anywhere on a module. Track running on the edge of a module is just fine as far as I'm concerned. The Moonbase page will reflect (...) (20 years ago, 16-May-05, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lambrecht-Lowell Stellar Cartography Podule —Jason J. Railton
|
| | | | (...) Thanks. I think it'd be a lot easier to co-ordinate if you can add the track after the modules come together. Co-ordinating a moonbase with pre-set track layouts on each module looks like a right nightmare. By going along the edges, most (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-05, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
