Subject:
|
Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Aug 2002 19:04:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2334 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Thomas Avery writes:
> 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 a given construction, it's a
> little unfair.
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 with newer pieces they aren't needed as much.
> > > -Non gender specific. Bricks and plates are studded, a male and a female
> > > part to each piece. This is a limiting factor, decreasing the usability
> > > of each piece. Rounded beams do not have this property.
> This "added function" of having studs and stud "receptors" (i.e. the bottom
> of a brick) increases the function as well as the dimension of the part.
> Bricks are taller than beams.
I think studs really dont help. With the very first brick used, your are
predetermining parts of structure which you haven't even built. Studs are
male/female so when use start using bricks, all the bricks used thereafter
already have there orientations decided. This can cause problems, this is
why people are always requesting stud reversing parts. Beams dont have this
problem.
Just my 2 cents
Brian
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
44 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
|
|
|
|
