 | | New TLC standard for containers? —Tim David
|
| | | 6 wide but only 8 long (URL) (Click for bigger) (URL) Rest of catalogue> Tim (18 years ago, 23-Dec-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: New TLC standard for containers? —Tim David
|
| | | | | (...) doh, 10 studs long (18 years ago, 23-Dec-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: New TLC standard for containers? —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) Yawn. What took them so long? (URL) :-) JOHN (18 years ago, 23-Dec-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: New TLC standard for containers? —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | (...) It's such an unappealling aspect ratio. 6x12 would match the old ones better but I'd be more inclined to 6x14 or 6x16. 6x10 just looks nothing like a real container (half or full). Tim (18 years ago, 23-Dec-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New TLC standard for containers? —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Could be because it is just off of the golden mean: 3:2 (...) Speaking of the containers-- is that a new element on them; a 1x5x6 thin wall-type thing? JOHN (18 years ago, 23-Dec-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New TLC standard for containers? —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | (...) actually 10:6 = 5:3 = 1.66 is closer to the golden mean (1.618...) than 3:2 = 1.5 ;) (...) Moved to .o-t.geek (18 years ago, 23-Dec-06, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New TLC standard for containers? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote 3:2. I meant that 6:10 is just off the golden ratio of 6:9.7... Though I was confused there, you make the case that the aspect ratio is actually a pleasant one, as opposed to your initial (...) (18 years ago, 23-Dec-06, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New TLC standard for containers? —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | | (...) No doubt it's pleasant but it's a shipping container so it should be practical and is this unappealling ;) Tim (18 years ago, 23-Dec-06, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New TLC standard for containers? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) Could well be. Also looks like a new bigger boat hull - AFAIK the largest to date is (URL) this> (besides the (URL) Belville one>), and this looks considerably larger than that - at least 16 wide, and by my count at least 70 long. ROSCO (18 years ago, 23-Dec-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New TLC standard for containers? —Steve Lane
|
| | | | | | (...) That's very interesting I've had the genus of a boat idea for a while now, which could now amount to something. Would require two hulls though. Steve (18 years ago, 24-Dec-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New TLC standard for containers? —Adrian Egli
|
| | | | | In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote: -snipped- (...) (URL) This> picture makes me think so. Adr. (18 years ago, 24-Dec-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New TLC standard for containers? —Rich Stehnach
|
| | | | | | It makes a lot of sense - give the KIDS a container large enough to actually have room for placing things inside. AFOLs can always use their own/old "standard". (18 years ago, 24-Dec-06, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New TLC standard for containers? —Ondrew Hartigan
|
| | | | | (...) Welll yes and no. Indeed it's a new element from Lego however megablox has had that element for a while. In the megajunk version they used it as a translucent window. This new "now Lego" element opens doors too much lighter models especially (...) (18 years ago, 24-Dec-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New TLC standard for containers? —Jan-Albert van Ree
|
| | | | (...) Here's to hoping they'll soon do a trans-white version! (18 years ago, 24-Dec-06, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
