Subject:
|
Re: Lambrecht-Lowell Stellar Cartography Podule
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 May 2005 17:17:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2174 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.space, Daniel Rubin wrote:
| |
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 potentially very cool. Heck, if you started
doing non-orthoganal connections, simple molecules could be modeled on the
moonbase with these things!
|
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, and still just have the basic plane
of connections. Vertical extensions are a cool idea. You may have to skip
floors because of the size of the sphere though.
I think if you did multiple floors, that would be down to you personally.
There’s no standard for stacking other people’s modules on top of yours, so I
don’t think there needs to be one for podules.
| |
Also, why does your standard allow the connection to be a plate below the
standard connection? Why not just require a standard connection?
|
OK, maybe it’s not clear. It does require a standard connection. The
point is the corridor itself shouldn’t have anything hanging down from it or
require any sort of support. This is to provide clearance underneath for
spacetrains turning a corner in the area below.
I allow for 1 plate of underhang because that’s what I found I needed to SNOT
mount those natty hexagonal corridors. If it took more than that, the
standard would probably have said ‘two plates’ and the minifigs would just
have to duck! ;-)
Even with the lower moonbase standard, you can still build low-riding trains
for minifigs to sit on and pass under airlocks with a few plates to spare.
Jason R
|
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 be able to squeeze through a six-wide gap. That will let them pass safely
around a layout where there may be solid walls right up against the track.
It’s preferable to do short two-axle trucks too. Longer bogey trucks may be
awkward. That’s a bit limiting though, so you’d probably just have to be
careful which modules you lay the track around.
Jason R
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Lambrecht-Lowell Stellar Cartography Podule
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lambrecht-Lowell Stellar Cartography Podule
|
| (...) 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)
|
21 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
|
|
|
|
