|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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] faricy net> 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'
![garabit_viaduct_wip.jpg](/povray.binaries.images/attachment/%3C3A63CF83.8CEABADA%40faricy.net%3E/garabit_viaduct_wip.jpg?ttop=443840&toff=11350&preview=1)
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
> My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yann Ramin atr### [at] atrustrivalie eu org
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |