PlaymoFriends
General => Brainstorming For Playmobil => Topic started by: playmofire on May 27, 2010, 19:03:00
-
Here are my ideas for what they are worth.
To start with I haven't gone down the route of trying to combine Steck and System-X as I think they are two different to be made compatible in any real sense of the word, so I've gone the route of a new system, or maybe a similar system to Steck is nearer an accurate description.
The flexibility of a construction system is directly related to the smallest unit of the system. The smaller the unit, the more flexible the system. At one extreme, a system such as Lego is very flexible because the basic brick unit can be combined in lots of different ways to create buildings of different sizes and designs. At the other extreme, a system where there are, for example, four walls and a roof which can only be combined in one way and cannot be examined is quite inflexible. I've gone for the idea of two basic units, a full wall and a half wall and a range of connectors to allow different shapes and angles in a building.
The basic wall and half wall units can be produced to different designs, e.g. sold walls, walls with doors (square topped or round topped doors, single width or double width doors), walls with a window or windows, walls with different styles of windows, e.g. house size or shop size, walls with a door and window combination and so on.
There is further flexibility in that the wall surface can be varied, smooth, brick, stone, timber and plaster and so on.
Attached are sketches of the basic wall and half wall design. Construction is by the tab and slot system, similar to Steck. I've shown two tabs, but there could be more, although I think not fewer. The dotted lines on the left hand side of the unit indicate the slots for the tabs for joining on another unit.
The dotted lines on the top and bottom indicate slots to allow vertical connection for two storey buildings or for a floor or for fitting a roof unit. The connector would be a cross shape.
I'm off now to sketch the connectors to allow corners and joins at an angle other than 90 degrees.
-
A couple of connectors, a 90 degree one and a 45 degree one. They're not drawn to scale compared with the wall units and the 45 degree one shows up my lack of design and drawing skill and no doubt can easily be bettered in quality.
The views are top views and the dotted lines show where the end slots are for connecting to wall units. There would also be a slot in the top and bottom to allow for floors on additional walls but I've omitted these as it would have made the already poor quality drawings completely incomprehensible.
Clearly, other angles for connectors could be created, e.g. 35 degree, 60 degree.
-
Briliant thinking Gordon! Cost efficitne I think!!
What pieces are to fit at the side of the walls? I can understand where the tabs will be inserted but the longer dotted lines need a bigger part. Have you made a design of it?
-
Briliant thinking Gordon! Cost efficitne I think!!
What pieces are to fit at the side of the walls? I can understand where the tabs will be inserted but the longer dotted lines need a bigger part. Have you made a design of it?
Thank you, Panos. Cost efficiency was certainly something I had in mind.
Do you mean on the top and bottom of the walls? I'll post a drawing of that tomorrow.
-
Thank you, Panos. Cost efficiency was certainly something I had in mind.
Do you mean on the top and bottom of the walls? I'll post a drawing of that tomorrow.
Both actually...
-
Both actually...
I'm working on them now - well, actually revising my first set of sketches of the connectors to include a side view as well as an end view.
-
Right, here is my idea for connecting walls vertically for multi-storey buildings. This method is a simple one where, for example, a building is wanted with rooms two wall heights high. I have another connector where a floor is needed between the lower storey and the higher storey.
The connector is a cross shape end on, the vertical arms fitting into the slots on the bottom of the upper wall and the top of the lower wall. The horizontal arms lie between the two walls like the meat in a sandwich.
Because there are full wall units and half wall units, there will also need to be full and half size vertical connectors.
I'll do the sketches for the floor unit next.
-
Oh ok now i see it!! Its a good idea!!! And one that can make the four way connector for castles become reality!!!
-
Oh ok now i see it!! Its a good idea!!! And one that can make the four way connector for castles become reality!!!
Your four way connector is certainly possible as it is a variation of the wall vertical connector, although it will have to have male and female sides. That is a disadvantage of having male connectors at the right hand end of the wall units and female at the left hand end. I think there will also be implications for a connector for fitting internal walls.
-
Your four way connector is certainly possible as it is a variation of the wall vertical connector, although it will have to have male and female sides. That is a disadvantage of having male connectors at the right hand end of the wall units and female at the left hand end. I think there will also be implications for a connector for fitting internal walls.
not necessarily...if the tabs are only designed for the bottom of the walls to fit the floors, then the slots for the connector can be neither male nor female as, perhaps, the connector can slide into place? (with what to hold it you'd might ask...) I kinda think of thesingle battlements getting into their place between the double battlements...but that would not make a strong structure would it?
Or, what if all walls are male and connectors be female? .... that is now the case is it not?
Oh i think I am too much tired from work to think... 8} 8} 8}
-
not necessarily...if the tabs are only designed for the bottom of the walls to fit the floors, then the slots for the connector can be neither male nor female as, perhaps, the connector can slide into place? (with what to hold it you'd might ask...) I kinda think of thesingle battlements getting into their place between the double battlements...but that would not make a strong structure would it?
I don't think it would and it would only work with castles. People may want a four way connector with a civilian building.
Or, what if all walls are male and connectors be female? .... that is now the case is it not?
Yes, it is but it means that you need connectors to join up each wall section, something I was trying to avoid for simplicity and probable cost saving.
Oh i think I am too much tired from work to think... 8} 8} 8}
Time for bed, then. I will sketch a four way connector tomorrow and will post the floor unit in the post I am about to write.
-
A floor unit next, which will also need to be in full width and half width units. It could be adapted to also be a base unit, although as it is designed at present it would limit the size of any building front to back.
The floor unit acts as both a floor between two storeys and as a vertical connector for the upper and lower walls. The top part of the sketch shows the side view of the floor section. The lower part shows a floor section in place (the hatched shape) between the front and back upper and lower walls. The need for front and back walls to support the floor unit made me realise that there is also a need for a simple support unit with the same function as the Steck open frame pieces - just to form a cheap way of strengthening a building and supporting a floor where there is one.
It also occurred to me that the only construction for which walls at an angle other than 90 degrees are needed is a surrounding wall such as the curtain wall of a castle. Therefore, there is no need for a number of corner connectors of different angles as I suggested above but only a 90 degree one and a hinged one which could be set either to any angle or have built in settings, e.g. 25 degrees, 45 degrees, 65 degrees and 90 degrees. A sketch is attached.
-
Wow... Playmofire, this is an impressive piece of work.
I disagree that the only occasion to use other than 90 degrees is for outer walls. There would be several especially big buildings for that this would be interesting... But something like this (especially for the floor pieces) is quite difficult to design on the scratch, I think.
I like your steck system. But what is the benifit to the old steck system? The two sizes we also have in the old system. You are substituting the connectors basically, but how do you realize a T-connection? I need a connector there but then two pieces with a T-connector would be wider than the big piece, wouldn't they? ???
I would love to see prototypes of your system, especially your idea with the floor connectors is intriguing as you would really get a smooth high wall without any transitions. Would probably look pretty cool for castles... 8-)
Your new pieces are great. Thanks for your effort here. :)
best,
socrates
-
Playmofire I like your solution on the floors!!!
-
Wow... Playmofire, this is an impressive piece of work.
Thank you, Amir, after all the work you have done your words are very much appreciated.
I disagree that the only occasion to use other than 90 degrees is for outer walls. There would be several especially big buildings for that this would be interesting...
You may well be right it was just that, having suggested different angle corner connectors I could only think of a use for them with castle outer walls. The hinged corner connector would solve all situations but might be expensive to produce and not blend in 100%
But something like this (especially for the floor pieces) is quite difficult to design on the scratch, I think.
I like your steck system. But what is the benifit to the old steck system? The two sizes we also have in the old system.
The benefit is that it is double skinned, there is an inside wall surface, an air gap and then the outside wall surface and this would allow different textures or colours inside and out, e.g. stone work outside and smooth plaster inside.
You are substituting the connectors basically, but how do you realize a T-connection? I need a connector there but then two pieces with a T-connector would be wider than the big piece, wouldn't they? ???
Good question which I've been thinking about. It is possible and I hope to draw a sketch today. Basically, it means a two more wall units rather than a connector.
I would love to see prototypes of your system, especially your idea with the floor connectors is intriguing as you would really get a smooth high wall without any transitions. Would probably look pretty cool for castles... 8-)
Your new pieces are great. Thanks for your effort here. :)
Thank you again my friend. :wave:
best,
socrates
-
Playmofire I like your solution on the floors!!!
Thanks, Panos. I quite like it myself as it will give much more rigidity than the system used with Steck.
-
Here's an idea for allowing the fitting of an internal wall. Basically, there are two external wall units involved, one has a male connector for connecting to another external wall and an internal wall, and the other has a female connector which allows connection to an internal wall and another external wall. This has also given me two other ideas, a redesigned right angle corner connector or an external wall which has a built in right angle corner connector.
I thought of a way of making a mock-up wall unit which I might try.
-
This is very impressive work Gordon, :wow:
I look forward to seeing your mock up wall unit.
What is the height of the wall pieces - would you envisage them about the same as steck or higher? Also would there be roof pieces to fit if they were used for houses say?
Elaine
-
This is very impressive work Gordon, :wow:
I look forward to seeing your mock up wall unit.
What is the height of the wall pieces - would you envisage them about the same as steck or higher? Also would there be roof pieces to fit if they were used for houses say?
Elaine
Thank you, Elaine.
A wall unit is 16cm long (excluding the tabs) and 12cm high, i.e. the same as Steck.
There would be roof pieces to fit, utilising the slot in the top of the walls. I hope to do some drawings shortly.
-
This is progressing great Gordon!!! More difference in the connecting pieces, more connecting possiblities, is that right?
-
Apologies for the long delay in getting back to this topic but the day after my last post I damaged a finger which meant I couldn't do the extra drawings or the mock-up of the wall unit. After that, the planned house move intervened plus some work on where we are living now, and so it's only today that I was able to do some rough sketches of the way a roof could be fitted and revise the design of the corner connectors so that they are more compact and so that the 45 degree one actually works. I suddenly noticed that the original sketch just gave a 90 degree corner with a short 45 degree angled wall section. The roof shown is a pointed would be a pointed one but it could just as easily be flat with a parapet or a pyramid style as the connection system in all cases would be the same using the slot on the top of the wall unit and a projecting connector on the roof.
Here are the sketches.
First the roof system:
(http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww48/playmofire/Playmobil/Construction%20system/Revisedroofunit.jpg)
and then the revised corner connectors:
(http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww48/playmofire/Playmobil/Construction%20system/Revisedcornerconnectors.jpg)
Roof units would come in full and half units and would be connectable with the same tongue and groove system as the walls - i.e. the left hand edge of the roof has a slot in and the right hand edge a projecting tongue. At the right hand edge of a roof, the tongue would slot into the gable end and at the left hand edge a connector like that used to connect walls vertically would be used to connect the gable to the roof.
For those who read this post early on, I have now uploaded the revised roof unit sketch.
-
Very brilliant Gordon !!! I think this can work very nicely!!!
-
Very brilliant Gordon !!! I think this can work very nicely!!!
Thank you, Panos. I shall try to do a sketch of the individual roof pieces tomorrow.
-
i asked sylvia :love: to move this thread to this section so that it could create some synergies with:
"system x designer wanted" - http://www.playmofriends.com/forum/index.php?topic=5760.0
"steck designer wanted" - http://www.playmofriends.com/forum/index.php?topic=4514.0
"a new construction system for playmobil... " - http://www.playmofriends.com/forum/index.php?topic=4623.0
let´s see if it will work, steck and system-x together. ;)
-
Sounds good Gordon,
Looks really nice too. :)
But I can see only one problem... :-\
The walls are really think,
It would take a lot of plastic to create this.
-
Sounds good Gordon,
Looks really nice too. :)
But I can see only one problem... :-\
The walls are really think,
It would take a lot of plastic to create this.
Thank you, WoT. As for the thickness, the sketches are not to scale. I used a scale which made it easy for me to do the drawings quickly. I should have put on them that they weren't to scale on reflection. :doh:
-
Thank you, WoT. As for the thickness, the sketches are not to scale. I used a scale which made it easy for me to do the drawings quickly. I should have put on them that they weren't to scale on reflection. :doh:
Oh ok,
But still, the way the structures would need to be made in order to work
(Especially with that roof)
They would need to be pretty thick. ???
Maybe This is a good thing.
One of the things I liked about SysX was that it had these slopes at the top and bottom,
Maybe that is what your system needs. :)
-
If there were tiles moulded in I think no thicker than Steck would work, but that's a problem for the engineers not the designer! :lol: