On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:33:09 +0100, Apache wrote:

> Probably better and faster to use an isosurface instead of height field.

Any links or doc pointers as to how one would do this? (That don't require
 higher math...)

> And
> with just a little bit of wind this narrow bridge will start moving forth
> and back and possibly break.

I disagree, for two reasons.

It could be/is built of futuristic materials (The IRTC theme is 'Future')
like carbon nanotubes, etc, that have strength that is orders of magnitude
past anything used today.

Also, it's 200ft wide, with the 3 arch tubes being 40ft in diameter. I
think it could work. The New River Gorge Bridge in West Virginia is 4
lanes (Maybe 60ft wide?) and has a single arch span of just under 2000ft.
This bridges width/length ratio may be about 3 times that, but the West
Virginia bridge was done in the 1970's with regular steel, and not
something with many times the tensile strength. I really think it could be
done.

Post a reply to this message