New Resource Tower Model

2»

Comments

  • battlearmourbattlearmour Join Date: 2008-12-28 Member: 65889Members
    Stay on topic, stay on topic.... They're coming in too fast!

    Take it to PMs, eh?
  • HarimauHarimau Join Date: 2007-12-24 Member: 63250Members
    Six would be way too bunched up.
  • ryknow69ryknow69 Join Date: 2008-03-24 Member: 63952Members
    and making it have 8 ain't?
  • botchiballbotchiball Join Date: 2003-04-24 Member: 15810Members, Constellation
    edited February 2009
    I found a way which I think would beef the legs up, giving them strength without requiring a complete rehaul of the design:

    <img src="http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc345/botchiball/resource_tower_adjustment.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />

    The red circles show a second set of pistons, which are supposed to be about twice as large as the ones below. The idea is that when the legs are stowed away, the larger pistons recess back into the structure. When the legs are set-up, the large pistons stretch out - their bottom section sliding on the top of the "thigh" before it clicks in place at the point shown.

    Just an idea, not sure if it would really work - but it appears to be more sturdy to me. And sorry about the crappy image adjustments, not working with a very good computer at the moment.

    p.s. Note that the large pistons are the <u>only</u> adjustments to the image I've made, everything else is the work of "Squeal_Like_A_Pig" as far as I know.
  • locallyunscenelocallyunscene Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
    I have a suggestion: MOAR NSPAINT

    <img src="http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4121/beefierlegszc9.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
  • HarimauHarimau Join Date: 2007-12-24 Member: 63250Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1699621:date=Feb 6 2009, 08:10 PM:name=ryknow69)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ryknow69 @ Feb 6 2009, 08:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1699621"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and making it have 8 ain't?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    I'm sure you aren't stupid, but you're doing a very convincing job of showing that you are. If I say, 'six is too much', then anything MORE (eg. eight) is obviously also too much. Hell, I think FIVE is too much.

    And apart from being bunched up, it's also a waste of metal/material and space.

    Three is a good number, it's stable. Four is good because it's symmetrical.
  • ryknow69ryknow69 Join Date: 2008-03-24 Member: 63952Members
    Ehh, thought you were in support of 8 legs befor that post >_>

    3 is too little, 4 is alittle etching it, I think 6 cause the engineering of bridges(idk y) comes to mind that triangles are ftw, and having 2 equillateral triangles would make a perfect base.
Sign In or Register to comment.