TWF-04 - BENAN WATCHTOWER

[Rick]

I can see potentially 2 or 3 fiddly type problems, but nothing that I'd think was "significant". Give us a clue?

[Brandlin]

Fiddly eh? Hmm well there's nothing in the structure I've not done before except the join between the tops of the pillars and the beams...  that might be awkward as the cut outs are a bit small. But no that's not the problem.

It's not a laser cutting or assembly problem its a design problem...

[Rick]

Anything to do with that central pole and the roof trusses?

[Carcharoth]

Is the gap between the pillars less than 30mm?

[Brandlin]

Is the gap between the pillars less than 30mm?

Smart Arse.
Yup its about 27mm

now the tricky bit... what to do about it?

I could move the pillars outwards but that would mean doing the railing in sections and then you couldn't use the railing without the pillars so you'd have to have the canopy top on your watchtower.

I could move the whole railing ring outwards to allow the pillars to move outwards but that would mean it overlaps the top of the building so would require a 9.6mm overhang minimum and that destroys the shape of the building.

I could have a pentagonal canopy with a pillar every 72 degrees rather than hexagonal and 60 degrees. This would then mean that locations for stockade walls would be every 72 degrees too (otherwise you get a wall and walkway meeting the tower with a pillar in the way) This would mess up the locations to things like the pryn-gul tower when you came to lay out a number of interconnected buildings.

I could use square pillars, where they are cut as legs from the main trusses so they are only 2mm thick (that saves about 1.5mm) and then lean them outwards - ie they are not vertical. That would allow a figure to be placed inside and then lowered but its a bit fiddly and gonna get annoying during a game.

I could leave the canopy top loose so that you take it off to put figures inside but that will mean the pillars are very weak as they'll only be glued at one end and locating the roof will be a nightmare with the current join. I could replace the join with magnets so it snaps on and off but again this feels like a pain during a game.

I could use a bigger base item for the tower which is effectively the same solution as the first one allowing the pillars to move outwards. this is basically starting again...

tum tee tum - what to do....?




On the plus side I've had a great idea for a Devanu Cage....

[Carcharoth]

27mm? That's close...
Allowing the roof to be removed sounds like a neat option. You could maybe do some horizontal struts at the top to support the verticals? Or a solid round section that the roof then sits on (rather than slotting into the pillars themselves).

Or...

Could you simply use the tubing as six thick verticals on the railings, then do the roof pillars to line up over those? You would only need to provide the thick bits to convert the standard railings to covered railings. Would that even be enough to gain 3mm?

[Brandlin]

27mm? That's close...

yes, a generous person would refrain from yelling "I told you so!" about the issue of 25mm or 30mm base choices...

"I TOLD YOU SO!"



I'm looking at running the vertical pillars 'through' the railings - I can use a thinner tube through the railing, and then slip a bigger tube over it - it would also provide a very solid structure as the railing would brace the pillars. This would mean that the canopy wouldn't be as useful elsewhere though as it would only assemble to the railing.  

It also looks as though that only gets me to about 30.3mm... which isn't enough. i really need to get up o 33+ i think to ensure that figures can at least reasonably easily be removed.

I'm coming more to the idea of a removable canopy with braces as you say - and magnetic attachment. even so getting fat gamer fingers into the top is going to be awkward I was trying to avoid having braces between the tops of the towers or a disc as i liked the clean open look of the beamed structure.

But whatever i do it's going to be a compromise...

... still thinking.

[Brandlin]

I could have a hexagonal canopy but supply just five pillars so one of the gaps between pillars is roughly twice the width of the others?

sometimes the simplest ideas are the best

[Emberbreeze]

Why not make the roof an irregular hexagon? with 3 long edges and 3 short edges? would that help? (might look good too!)

[Klute]

Hmm.
How about splitting the vertical pillars at a hight thats looks handrail hight. Have the lower halves fixed to the tower with a handrail around the top. In the hand rail would be 2 or 3 locator holes for the upper section which contains the upper verticals and the roof. The bottom of the verticals would also have the same size piece as the handrail to match the lower one when the top section is placed on.
This means the roof can be totally left off and the model still look complete.
Quick sketch...

[Carcharoth]

Don't forget the models can be tilted, so you don't need much room around the base to slide it through. I think it might actually look a bit neater with the verticals forming part of the handrail structure, however you end up doing it.

If you had pointed out to me that 30mm bases would cause a problem for your pringle pagodas when I first made that somewhat arbitrary decision about basing (2 years ago), then yes, you could have said I told you so. But you didn't, so 

[Rick]

This idea is going to over-complicate the design, but could you put the pillars on the outside of the handrail and have a wider support on the tower itself for them to sit on?

[Brandlin]

Thanks for all the suggestions guys. Thats why I like asking here.. you get lots of response.

Klute - thanks for the idea and you even drew a pic you hero! If i understand correctly then your suggestion is what I was trying to say in the post starting "I'm looking at running the vertical pillars 'through' the railings..." but you describe it better. It suffers because the canopy cannot then be used elsewhere. I've since done the maths and even doing that doesn't get me enough extra sapce so its a lot of work to still not solve the problem. That also scuppers carcharoths suggestion a couple of posts above.

Its a shame this doesn't give more width as it would be my preferred way of having the roof be detachable is to have rods from the bottom of the towers slip down into tubes in the railing - accurately locating and very solid.

Emberbreeze's suggestion is one of those simple ones that challenges your preconceptions - why does the hexagon have to be regular? Clearly it doesn't! its just that's the easy way to draw it.  I need to play with the model to see if i can get enough space and still a shape i like. but its a contender.

Ricks suggestion to put the pillars on the outside of the railing will work but means extending the diameter of the base beyond the railing - which i think will look odd. just to get to 30mm i need to extend the radius almost 10mm and another 10 to get to 33mm, thats almost a 60% increase in the diameter of the base! so i think from a pure trigonometry position this wont work.. although it took me a while with the cad to prove that to myself.

Leavig out a pillar still works though

Mike's point about tilting the base to get the figure in is very valid and will work in the horizontal axis. but there isn't too much head room to play with here either.  Using the current configuration each floor is 56.5mm high (why? cos its a pringles tube divided by 4 thats why - silly question)  deduct the height of the hand rail and you only have 43.5mm of vertical height.

I tried this by taking a piece of card and cutting a 27 x 43mm hole in it and tried to pass a figure through - its very fiddly.  And that's before you try to get devanu on 40mm bases or a mounted fubarnii knight in there. Possible but most gamers will complain about it i think.

So, still not sold on the solution but a missing pillar, irregular hexagon and detachable roof (somehow) are all in the mix.

I think i shall start the "we demand smaller bases" petition!  All mine are going on 20mm square ones so i can rank em up in regiments anyway ! :p

[Brandlin]

What about triangular roofs rather than hexagonal. Just three pillars and the trusses .. lots less styrene too and still maintains the ability to do 120 degree symmetry for the wall connections.

I think this sounds elegant and wouldn't look like a compromise and complete resolves the problem for 30 and 40mm bases!

off to sketch it

[Emberbreeze]

Taking the irregular hexagon to the extreme!