Please refrain from posting animated GIFs, memes, joke videos and so on in discussions other than those in the off topic area.

Dismiss this message to confirm your acceptance of this additional forum term of use.

Dismiss this message to confirm your acceptance of this additional forum term of use.

You must be **16 or over** to participate in the Brickset Forum. Please read the announcements and rules before you join.

dutchlegofan50
Zwolle, NetherlandsMember Posts: **146**

So in my winter village layout I would like to place various small builds (like the market stalls from #10235) on a not 90 degree angle. I know you can do something with jumper plates but I would really like to have everything at the same level. With a bit of experimenting I found a couple of not-so-great solutions.

The first one leaves unsightly gaps. (The partly hidden yellow plates are 2 by 3's):

This is a 6x8 plate in a 13x14 square.

Next I came up with this one:

Here I have a tight fit of 7x7 enclosed in a 11x11 square.

A 4x4 plate (with gaps) in a 7x7 square formed by 4 3x3 wedge plates:

A 8x8 plate with too much spaces around it in a 12x12 square.

My question is: do you know solutions for putting rectangular plates at an angle in a larger rectangle? The size nor the angle of the enclosed plate doesn't really matter. There must be someone who figured out the possibilities or 'rules'

The first one leaves unsightly gaps. (The partly hidden yellow plates are 2 by 3's):

This is a 6x8 plate in a 13x14 square.

Next I came up with this one:

Here I have a tight fit of 7x7 enclosed in a 11x11 square.

A 4x4 plate (with gaps) in a 7x7 square formed by 4 3x3 wedge plates:

A 8x8 plate with too much spaces around it in a 12x12 square.

My question is: do you know solutions for putting rectangular plates at an angle in a larger rectangle? The size nor the angle of the enclosed plate doesn't really matter. There must be someone who figured out the possibilities or 'rules'

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

- 22.5K All Categories
- 2 Announcements
- 2 Current Announcements
- 8.9K General
- 2.7K Collecting
- 3K Everything else LEGO
- 1.4K Building and Techniques
- 11.7K Shopping
- 1.6K Shopping USA/Canada
- 311 Shopping Elsewhere
- 9.1K Marketplace
- 61 Charity Sales
- 1.9K Brickset
- 70 News
- 13 Ambassador
- 2 Announcements
- 905 Introduce yourself
- 266 The Database
- 349 Brickset.com
- 250 Forum Operation
- 15 FAQs
- 986 Other
- 498 Community and Events
- 12 Fairy Bricks
- 237 Photography/Video

## Comments

798LEGO doesn't make any "wedge plates" (in BrickLink-speak) that are integer-based right triangles (Pythagorean triples), but it'd be great if they did. In the meanwhile, we're left with with "fudging it". If your hole is (say) 7.98 studs wide, you might be able to squeeze a full 8 studs inside there-- or if it's 8.04 studs wide, you can see if the small gap is objectionable.

I'm not sure if there are any combos that work especially well at the scale you've got. If (say) you were looking to get a full 48x48 baseplate or more rotated at a funny angle, there are a few oddball options that might work. But in the "16-studs-and-under" size, not too much.

There may be other oddball things (like your 2nd option) where there's some space left at the corners, rather than uniformly all around, but I'm not aware of any offhand.

One option for uniform gaps is using the new 2x2 wedge plate:

Using 5 of these on each side (20 total), you can get a 63 degree rotated 11.18 hole that's got a gap of 0.18 studs (0.09 studs when place centrally, which is only marginally better than your 4x4 square)

You can also use these plates:

Using 4 of them, you can get a hole that's 4.12 studs square, at a 76 degree angle. That's not too bad, but it's not a big square to work on.

Another option are these:

That'll get you a 12.17 stud hole, with an 81 degree angle.

Apart from that, other solutions I might work towards would be:

1) Make your base thicker, and use a tiled surface under your angled structures. That allows you to get whatever angle you want, but it does mean removing the underlying white plates from your buildings, and it means using more pieces. Keep a handy chart of the Pythagorean triples handy so that you can "stud-down" your larger buildings with more than just a single stud. (This is usually what I try and do)

2) Cover up the holes. Some strategically located small "snow mounds" scattered all around can hide the holes, and provide a different landscape texture.

3) Put white plates/tiles, or even just white paper underneath the holes. With everything else going on in the scene, I'm not sure the gaps would be all that noticeable-- particularly when they're white.

DaveE

146Do you have an example of your alternative solution #1?

~Martin

15,662Take a look at these two pairs of cylinders (you can use 1x1 plates too, square or round, it doesn't matter). The distances between the pairs are exactly the same. They are just mirror images of each other.

So place one plate on top of the cylinders on the other, so that the cylinders are above each other. You don't actually need the studs on the top surface, they are just there to show the alignment.

The plates are now angled with respect to each other and locked in that angle. For bigger plates you can places more single studs in the right places, or use tiles where they don't match exactly.

Want a different angle? Use a different diagonal. This

goes to this angle...

This clearly lifts the plate up by one brick (or one plate if you use a 1x1 plate) but securely locks in the building on top.

It is a technique used to build the tree in the Winter Toy Shop (see steps 5-6 here).

It doesn't have to be that distance apart though. You can choose any pair and it works, and so get almost limitless angles.

And no worrying about getting exact Pythagorean triples, as the distance between the two points are guaranteed to be the same.

15,662637I like the idea for added stalls at various angles a lot. I may have to follow your lead and give it a shot.

798Sorry, I don't have any handy photos of how a finished MOC would look, but I'm sure there are a lot of pictures of this technique out there!

DaveE

63215,662For example if we wanted to fit this 3x5 stud building shown as orange onto a surface and are going to use the tiles to create a flush surface, then you can place the connection points in many places. Of course, this building doesn't have a way of doing a 3-4-5 triangle (as it is really 2x4 when considering distances between studs). But here you can pick any pair of studs and find a perfect match. For example, here (red) 2x4 studs apart or (purple) 1x4 apart or (blue) 1x3. 2x3 is another possibilty. These are not integer pythagorean (root 20, root 17 and root 10 respectively), but so long as you overlay them on another pair that are the same distance apart (so the hypotenuse is the same length) they will fit. Of course, this is using Pythagoras theorem, just not integer based. Then just remove the conflicting studs underneath replacing with tiles as above.

Obviously if you are happy to use tiles in the surface and remove the white plates from the bottom of the stalls, then this way will also allow them to sit flush with the surface.

798DaveE

15,6621,029