Subject:
|
Re: My new approach to modular brickscaping...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:15:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
24708 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Gereon "Jerry" Stein wrote:
> http://www.zweistein.de/lego/brickscaping_landscape.html
>
> True, it's not perfect yet, but I'd like your opinions on the modular approach I
> chose.
The general approach looks sound.
The module size is good. It's easy to forget when building that your
model will often have to get through the doors of your home and into your
car---usually by one person working alone.
I wonder if using Technic pins to connect modules is over-engineering it.
In my experience (with, for example, COLTC-standard hill modules)
alignment per se is not the issue---it's the big seam you get between
modules. That can be easily addressed by using a few plates to tie
modules together, which simultaneously solves any alignment issues. Pins
just make it harder to setup and tear down. Similarly, the Moonbase
standard calls for Technic pin connectivity, but the pins are really only
used for attaching floating corridors and endcaps---they're just not worth
the effort for attaching adjacent modules.
I don't care for the visible red understructure on the edges. I prefer a
more neutral green or black. Of course a) those are the bricks you most
want to keep available for building everything else and b) that's where
you want to be using Duplo as much as possible, and green and black Duplo
are rare. If the visible red bothers you, you could make a
one-brick-thick "skirt" to brick or pin to the exposed side; that has the
advantage that you only have to worry about prettying up the exposed side
(presumably two or three sides of the module will usually be up against
other modules).
The five-brick-high built up terrain works well in this application (a
river) but more might be required for, say, a harbor. I like eight bricks
(as also used in Base8
http://www.copernicanstudios.com/landscaping/page2.html
) because it plays well with COLTC hills, allows the use of buried BURPs
and LURPs, and works out to a three-inch-drop. Of course, all your
modules can be different heights if you're using custom tables or other
non-Lego supports (like foam insultation sheets) to line them up but you
will want to make sure that you have supports of the right height before
you build it.
--
TWS Garrison
http://www.morfydd.net/twsg/
LEGO: CA+++ SW++ GA+c #++++++ LS+++ P+++++ YB77m
Remove capital letters in address for direct reply.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: My new approach to modular brickscaping...
|
| Thomas, thanks for your feedback - I think the height issue will sort itself out with the additional modules I'm starting on right now. Adjacent modules will either run to greater heights (as for the tunnel mountain) or as low as 2-3 bricks high, (...) (17 years ago, 30-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: My new approach to modular brickscaping...
|
| (...) Technic half-pins are better for alignment (and a few plates as you mentioned above) when considering the COLTC-standard hill modules -- makes set up/tear down much more simpler. Like you said Technic pins are better for "stronger" (...) (17 years ago, 30-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | My new approach to modular brickscaping...
|
| ...with strictly a trains motivation of course ;) I have taken a break over the holidays and done some bricking - partially inspired by what the kids built recently. See here: (URL) it's not perfect yet, but I'd like your opinions on the modular (...) (17 years ago, 28-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
4 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
|
|
|
|
