Subject:
|
Re: SSClagorpion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 06:40:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
13027 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > In lugnet.technic, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> > I'm fine with (*just* :^) forwards/backards/turning at 18 pistons and 52
> > switches, and deferring sideways walking to a future model.
>
>
> Yes. I'm fine with that, also. Eric?
About the sideways walking motion.
1. It would be cool.
2. Can Kevin include this without a major redesign?
3. Can we approximate the same intended direction through alternate or standard
locomotion?
4. The sideways motion makes for an interesting frame. A set of wish bones where
the main frame rail sits. Very cool to imagine.
5. Kevin, do what you see is prudent to get the walking logic down, give or take
additional articulation points.
6. A fourth set of pistons and switches to create the sideways crawl, would be
great. Both in terms of the frame, and in looking very cool in a complex way.
7. Why am I counting?
8. If a new upper-most Leg connection were to be built, I would insist on the
leg tips/feet, be bent inwards at the bottom to be under or closer to the body
for stability.
9. Or keep it as is if it will keep you head from exploding.
10. 10's a charm.
e
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: SSClagorpion
|
| (...) hmm. I didn't think about doing that. :) (...) Does that include the sideways_out_force? It may be about 8 switches short. But I don't think that matters. (...) Yes. I'm fine with that, also. Eric? (...) Looking at the totals on top, I think (...) (21 years ago, 9-May-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
300 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
