how many small blocks in one big cube

[Iam_a_cow]

iam trying to make a 1x1 large ship block with small ones how many do i need

[VanGoghComplex]

Large blocks: 2.5m cubed.
Small blocks: 0.5m cubed.

[Iam_a_cow]

Originally posted by VanGoghComplex:

Large blocks: 2.5m cubed.
Small blocks: 0.5m cubed.

so 5

[Vectura]

5 up, 5 wide, 5 deep. 5x5x5 = 125, so 125 small ship blocks in a large ship block.

[Iam_a_cow]

Originally posted by VanGoghComplex:

Large blocks: 2.5m cubed.
Small blocks: 0.5m cubed.

Originally posted by CMDR VECTURA:

5 up, 5 wide, 5 deep. 5x5x5 = 125, so 125 small ship blocks in a large ship block.

thank

[Vargali]

i thought it was closer to 3x3x3 small equals 1 large cube...though the dimensions are NOT presice which ever number is right..

[Vectura]

It is always 5 x 5 x 5

[Martinowitsch]

the dimension are not real .. the normal Cockpit is in big and small in size indentical, but by big it use 1 big Block and in small it use 3x3x3 small blocks

[rebellionmarch]

Originally posted by Martinowitsch:

the dimension are not real .. the normal Cockpit is in big and small in size indentical, but by big it use 1 big Block and in small it use 3x3x3 small blocks

this is why i too thought it was 3x3x3, but after merging the two grids by rotor-trick and painstakingly getting them to line up right, i have found that when i need to cut holes in the smallgrid work i do to make way for large grid doors and halls that it is indeed 5x5x5, there must be some difference in size between the two cockpits, i'll have to examine them more closely

[plaYer2k]

Originally posted by reptilian jesus:

Originally posted by VanGoghComplex:

Large blocks: 2.5m cubed.
Small blocks: 0.5m cubed.

so 5

Your issue there was the ambiguous and bad way of how the english language works with these notations.
You apparently assumed 2.5m³ and 0.5m³ while it actually is (2.5m)³ and (0.5m)³.

Hence why the "squared" and cubed" suffix is so dangerous. It simply gets interpreted in two completely different ways.
Which is also the reason why i prefer the mathematical version over the ambiguous vocal one.

Even though i agree that "X unit cubed" should be "(X unit)³", it often gets used as "X unit³" aswell which is entirely different of course.
Thus like already said, it should be avoided at all costs and instead mathematical expressions should be used only.

[Iam_a_cow]

Originally posted by plαYer2k:

Originally posted by reptilian jesus:

so 5

Your issue there was the ambiguous and bad way of how the english language works with these notations.
You apparently assumed 2.5m³ and 0.5m³ while it actually is (2.5m)³ and (0.5m)³.

Hence why the "squared" and cubed" suffix is so dangerous. It simply gets interpreted in two completely different ways.
Which is also the reason why i prefer the mathematical version over the ambiguous vocal one.

Even though i agree that "X unit cubed" should be "(X unit)³", it often gets used as "X unit³" aswell which is entirely different of course.
Thus like already said, it should be avoided at all costs and instead mathematical expressions should be used only.

what the ♥♥♥♥

[VanGoghComplex]

Originally posted by reptilian jesus:

Originally posted by plαYer2k:

Your issue there was the ambiguous and bad way of how the english language works with these notations.
You apparently assumed 2.5m³ and 0.5m³ while it actually is (2.5m)³ and (0.5m)³.

Hence why the "squared" and cubed" suffix is so dangerous. It simply gets interpreted in two completely different ways.
Which is also the reason why i prefer the mathematical version over the ambiguous vocal one.

Even though i agree that "X unit cubed" should be "(X unit)³", it often gets used as "X unit³" aswell which is entirely different of course.
Thus like already said, it should be avoided at all costs and instead mathematical expressions should be used only.

what the ♥♥♥♥

Concurred. Placing the cube exponent behind the unit has never, in my experience, led to any confusion.

[plaYer2k]

Originally posted by VanGoghComplex:

Concurred. Placing the cube exponent behind the unit has never, in my experience, led to any confusion.

Well that is your experience there.

There are plenty of examples where it lead to confusion due to misuse.

This forum post has several examples already:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=109620
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57209.html

Lets take just the last example from NIST

the value 3 m²· K/W is usually spelled out as "three square meter kelvin per watt," and the value 3 C · m²/V is usually spelled out as "three coulomb meter squared per volt."

In that example you can see that neither "X meter squared" nor "X square meter" actually affects the value but only the unit and thus they both refer to "X m²" instead of "X² m²".

However if you read the forum carefully, you will see that several journalists wrongly used it aswell as politicians (or better said the lawyer?) for lawful bills.

So both forms are used ambiguously and thus their written out variants lead to issues.
It is very likely that one form is uniformly used in one region, but that can not be said in a bigger scope.
Which is why such a form should be avoided and the proper mathematical variant should be written out.
Luckily we are writing here and not talking.

[xenolego]

Dude, this is a steam forum, not a lab report.

[MysticMalevolence]

A 5x5x5 small block cube is theoretically the same size as 1 large ship block.
In practice, however, either VRAGE or Havok prevents such blocks from lining up.

[rebellionmarch]

Originally posted by plαYer2k:

Originally posted by VanGoghComplex:

Concurred. Placing the cube exponent behind the unit has never, in my experience, led to any confusion.

Well that is your experience there.

There are plenty of examples where it lead to confusion due to misuse.

This forum post has several examples already:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=109620
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57209.html

Lets take just the last example from NIST

the value 3 m²· K/W is usually spelled out as "three square meter kelvin per watt," and the value 3 C · m²/V is usually spelled out as "three coulomb meter squared per volt."

In that example you can see that neither "X meter squared" nor "X square meter" actually affects the value but only the unit and thus they both refer to "X m²" instead of "X² m²".

However if you read the forum carefully, you will see that several journalists wrongly used it aswell as politicians (or better said the lawyer?) for lawful bills.

So both forms are used ambiguously and thus their written out variants lead to issues.
It is very likely that one form is uniformly used in one region, but that can not be said in a bigger scope.
Which is why such a form should be avoided and the proper mathematical variant should be written out.
Luckily we are writing here and not talking.

Math is not regional, Math is universal, i think you are the one who is confused, also, journalists and politicians? why would you expect either to speak any kind of truth?????