I'm working on a model of the Garabit Viaduct for the train. As you can
see I have a lot of it done. Okay, so some of the auto-positioning math
for the crossbars is sloppy, but hopefully it's good enough for my
purposes. By making a bridge, I can avoid having to do detailed enough
landscape for immediate foreground view.

What I'm wondering is how the top platform is constructed on such a
bridge. There is basically one long rectangular box with the x-shaped
braces, but there must be something on top of that because I don't think
they would just have rails over a wireframe box with a 400 foot drop
underneath. It'd be much appreciated.

Questions / comments?

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'garabit_viaduct_wip.jpg' (37 KB)

Preview of image 'garabit_viaduct_wip.jpg'

This bridge looks pretty good. You have the right idea here for sure.  Most 
bridges of this form do not have many sub supports (the beauty of an 
arch)., at the least the ones I've seen IRL. A rigid "surface" is usualy 
only coupled in a few spots to the arch.  Try looking on imagebank.com for 
concept pictures, I've always felt that was a good source.

David Fontaine wrote:

> I'm working on a model of the Garabit Viaduct for the train. As you can
> see I have a lot of it done. Okay, so some of the auto-positioning math
> for the crossbars is sloppy, but hopefully it's good enough for my
> purposes. By making a bridge, I can avoid having to do detailed enough
> landscape for immediate foreground view.
> 
> What I'm wondering is how the top platform is constructed on such a
> bridge. There is basically one long rectangular box with the x-shaped
> braces, but there must be something on top of that because I don't think
> they would just have rails over a wireframe box with a 400 foot drop
> underneath. It'd be much appreciated.
> 
> Questions / comments?
> 
> --
> David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
> My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/
> 
> 

-- 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yann Ramin                      atr### [at] atrustrivalieeuorg
Atrus Trivalie Productions      www.redshift.com/~yramin
AIM                             oddatrus
Marina, CA                      http://profiles.yahoo.com/theatrus

IRM Developer                   Network Toaster Developer
SNTS Developer                  KLevel Developer
Electronics Hobbyist            person who loves toys

When smashing monuments, save the pedstals -- they always come in handy.
                -- Stanislaw J. Lem, "Unkempt Thoughts"

"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll 
ask about Exchange Server next
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

Didn't answer my question, but thanks anyways.

Yann Ramin wrote:

> This bridge looks pretty good. You have the right idea here for sure.

Tnx, but most of it is coming from a photo I downloaded and illustrations in
the Building Big book by David Macaulay.


> Most
> bridges of this form do not have many sub supports (the beauty of an
> arch)., at the least the ones I've seen IRL. A rigid "surface" is usualy
> only coupled in a few spots to the arch.  Try looking on imagebank.com for
> concept pictures, I've always felt that was a good source.

As above.

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message