Subject:
|
Re: Pneumatics book?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:42:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3546 times
|
| |
|
|
> > I'm sure this means that the old system is more efficient as you need fewer
> > different part types in your inventory.
>
> I'm sure this means that the new system is less restrictive, as you don't just
> have a handful of part types in your inventory.
Restricted as I understand it is not so much a question of how many
different parts exist, but what different types of structures you can build
from them. And given the great models I have seen in both TLG and MO
creations, both studded and studless, I'm really unsure whether it is the
restrictedness that differs between both styles.
I do think, however, that the studless style makes it harder to apply some
of the standard construction patterns we got used to. Also I don't see any
easy-to-recognize patterns in studless models to fill this gap. Rather,
studless seems to require a more integrated approach towards constructing.
Whoever prefers to throw together subsystems and building blocks into a
model, will probably find it harder to construct studless.
> Seriously, though, the old system is great for doing one thing, which is
> building big, strong, {square} structures.
You seem to have a pretty extended definition of the word "square, then ...
Greetings
Horst
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Pneumatics book?
|
| (...) Has anyone noticed all of the rich variety of parts available to the modern stud-free system that have no comparable equivalent in the old stud-dependant system? Take, for instance, these parts: (URL) triple liftarm> (URL) 1x2 flat liftarm> (...) (21 years ago, 10-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.books, FTX)
|
38 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
