 | | Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead) —Thomas Avery
|
| | | For clarification: "beam" = studless beam (e.g. (...) I think each has its own place, which is governed by necessity. We cannot compare equivalent constructions to judge the better piece. For example, if you think of replacing a brick with a beam in (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead) —Philippe Hurbain
|
| | | | | (...) Technically, not quite: a beam is 7.8mm in pinhole direction (same as a brick), 7.4mm between smooth faces Philo (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead) —Thomas Avery
|
| | | | | | (...) Whatever. For building purposes its ratio is approximately 1:1. Leave the micrometer out of it ;-) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead) —John Henry Kruer
|
| | | | | (...) I totally agree! I think I overdid it. I totally agree that beams and bricks have their uses, I just don't like how Lego is making the beam 'superioir' these days. The thing that ticks me off, though, is flex axles and 'styling panels.' I just (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead) —Thomas Avery
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yes, that's true. It's disappointing to get a set with little or no Technic bricks in it. I think one frustrating thing about the new pieces (and I'm thinking of studless beams as well as liftarms, or 1/2 width "beams") is that because there's (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead) —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I've always gotten a kick out of how you described that container to me once: "The Bucket of Shame." j. FUT .fun (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Buckets of "Shame" - Near useless stuff I have too much of —John Heins
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I have to confess that I have a similar "depository" of less than useful pieces. I have a rather large collection of parts used to teach various classes (robotics, machines and such). I have trays holding "reasonable" amounts of parts sorted (...) (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) The styling panels may not have structural purposes, but to me they make a Technic set somewhat more attractive. The reality is that very little in the real world is just grids of structural members, there are decorative (or functional) (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead) —Brian Sadowski
|
| | | | (...) I completely agree that bricks have there own place and can be very useful, but I do believe the style of rounded beams and liftarms are a better means for technical modeling then the Technic brick. I still use bricks in all of my models, but (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead) —Thomas Avery
|
| | | | (...) Oh, sure. I agree with that. It's having enough beams that's the problem! (...) Well, it just depends on what you need for a given situation. Studs can really help, if you need them. If not, they're just an added complication. But you're (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
