 | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) Thanks JT! You can make things a little easier by not connecting all the member ends at one common point (like you did with the diagonal connection). Also, take a look at Ross' truss bridge: (URL) joints don't meet at a common point, or (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(URL) this out! I think this might help you alittlebit! regards jt (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) Amen. (...) I just recently built a Truss bridge as well and pretty much ended up in the same place you did. I don't think using liftarms would help much in my case since all my members were created using 1x2 beams attached to 1xN bricks with (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
Hi All! I hope I can distract everyone from the Bionicle vs. Technic discussions and focus on something more constructive for a moment. I built a little bridge recently: (URL) details will follow later, after I put together a webpage) I'm not (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Yes, but very expensive. IIRC, when Lego used to sell those accessory packs, they were about 1/2 as much. Granted it's been a long time since, I don't think they'd be as much if Lego still sold them. TJ (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle folks went away?
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Kyle Beatty writes: Kyle you expletive deleted, You set the FUT to bionicle, now everyone in Technic will miss my responce, and I'll be open to more tirade's from bloomin Bionicle's fans. Grrr My response for those using e-mail or (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Well I wasn't expecting 100% absolute conformality wth my word's. You must be the exception that prove's the rule. (...) Did you actually read my post. I've never trashed your right to enjoy Bionicle that's an assumption on your part. I don't (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic.bionicle)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle folks went away?
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Steven Lane writes: <quotes snipped> (...) I am here to tell you that your assumption is in error. I read the Technic posts (the ones that aren't screeds about devolution of parts and the like) and get much from them. (...) That's (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Everyone probably already knows about this, but I thought I would get this out here anyway. LEGO Technic elements can easily be obtained by contacting (URL) resource for raw elements. $0.02 By the way, why doesn't LUGNET just make a BIONICLE (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) That the two groups are combined is a Lugnet issue. The fact we hate Bionicle is a Lego issue, their two seperate and distinct arguments. The easy test that we're right is that if the two groups had split, no one would bother to argue that (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
