Subject:
|
Re: Proposed 'Legomodule' standard
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:04:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2529 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> > My only problem with this system is that it is difficult to maintain how the
> > "slope" from the front to the back is to be maintained between one person's
> > modules to another's, unless the edge of a module is designated as a high
> > one with a tunnel entrance or a low one with a bridge. Perhaps my idea is
> > not the best for modular display, but I think it is the coolest in terms of
> > display value.
>
> I agree completely. That's why we try to do that exact thing on our 'common'
> sections - the sections that *always* line up next to each other. Building
> vertical is good - it adds a lot of interest and visual appeal...
Terminology alert. I'd tend to call sections that are designed never to mate
with anything else something other than "common", They're more or less unique,
since the interface across the module boundary is non standard and unique to
that particular pair of modules (track profile, land profile, roadways, etc).
However, these are the most "common" (in the numerical sense) kind of boundary,
as the "standard interface points" are relatively uncommon (only 2 pair in the
current planned config), and there are lots of "unique" boundaries planned.
Confused yet? :-)
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Proposed 'Legomodule' standard
|
| (...) I agree completely. That's why we try to do that exact thing on our 'common' sections - the sections that *always* line up next to each other. Building vertical is good - it adds a lot of interest and visual appeal... JohnG, GMLTC (25 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
