- This topic has 32 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
>> I know that Walter had started an early prototype of the Incline, so maybe that’s what you’re thinking of.
True. If you want, you can go through Walter’s Flickr stream and find his original prototype pics. I know they were on there for about a year with no progress before I started nagging him with ‘What ever happened to that?’ posts. (Translation: you all have Ben to thank for the ultimate completion of the incline.)
Was the Incline underway in July 2016?
Tim’s post that I quoted today was timestamped July 6, 2016 at 7:16 pm. In this very same thread, Greg used the word “incline” on July 8, 2016 at 4:54 pm in such a way as to indicate it had already been discussed AND that we’d already applied for support:
On the other hand, the incline project qualified because it involves modeling a unique Pittsburgh landmark.
So yeah, at least the original concept was moving… #backreadingisessential
I joined the LUG in January 2107
so July 2016 was before my time.
Dang, I’ll say. So the world still has LUGs 88 years in the future, eh? That’s probably a good sign…
I joined the LUG in January 2107
so July 2016 was before my time.
Dang, I’ll say. So the world still has LUGs 88 years in the future, eh? That’s probably a good sign…
According to Rufus (George Carlin’s character in Bill & Ted), “The LUG philosophy of “Play Well” has become the cornerstone of all future civilizations, and LUG members are revered role models for the young and old alike!!” LOL. Anyway, I fixed the date (just in case Rufus has it wrong)!!
Most, if not all, of the sculptures are steel frame. Like the one at Carnegie Science Center and there was one I was just at at Liberty Science Center in NJ. Even the Lego “official” stuff uses steel frame sometimes for SDCC and NYCC statues and sculptures.
P.S. That DS9 station was pretty cool!
I didn’t even know this thread existed. Anyways I agree that MILS is very part intensive, but I also think it looks amazing AND if done right by a large group of people it ensures all the buildings and individual contributions come together and look flawless. That in all honesty is the biggest attraction for me is the seamless look and how easy it makes everything. This way all the roads are even, the sidewalks and Curbs are all the same height, and all is right with the world. I do agree that there are some portions that do not necessarily need to be MILS but I definitely will argue that we atleast all need to be building the same height. I have some examples of Roads that I have built and I am working on MILSed train track that I I am hoping we could make standard. I will bring them to the next meeting
My opinion on MILS has evolved since my last posts on the subject. MILS, for me, now offers rigidity laterally on the X and Y axes, and thus makes all baseplate sized builds much easier to transport. I’ve also discovered that MILS does NOT have to cover the entire baseplate; the connectivity and rigidity required really only needs to go about 4 studs around from the edges to work, leaving the interior as even more open space to work with, especially for play features. So the part count for a functional MILS baseplate is less than we think of it.
I don’t think that MILS would be a problem if we got the parts into builders’ hands individually to do this. If we want to do many of these as a club standard, Project Support is tailor made for exactly that, reducing builder cost to zero *and* filling all of those plates up beyond what we may already have. One Build Day could supply all of the contributing builders over the past year with one MILS baseplate within a couple of hours with enough hands on deck. Having built MILS baseplates myself, it’s not that hard really, and quite pleasing once done.
However, after I saw @arcadiumsol’s “drop-in” baseplate construction atop brick built structure, I now believe that MILS is actually just a first layer of larger superstructure that lends modular flexibility at large scale and vertically as well. I’m interested in revisiting that technique, Sean, for my own use in the future. That said, MILS shouldn’t be considered as an end-all, be-all foundation for builds *except* where we are building collaboratively. Once we have experience in the MILS standard, we can advance upon it as Sean already has, and connect these new types of superstructure plates together then.
In summary, I think that baseplates are better thought of as something to build *on* AND to build *with*. MILS is just the beginning of that conversation, but, as @willmcdine suggests, a good standard to stabilize larger builds physically and to link them together more seamlessly. But they should NOT be a club absolute.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.