Macross & BezierGirl
BezierGirl
I’ve been fine‑tuning a new formation that relies on perfect symmetry—do you think a hexagonal pattern gives better coverage than a simple triangle?
Macross
A hexagonal layout does offer more uniform coverage because each point touches six neighbors, so you reduce blind spots and keep units evenly spaced. A triangle gives good spacing too, but it leaves a bit more overlap along the sides. If you want tighter control over angles and easier angle calculations, go hexagonal. If you need a simpler setup that’s quicker to deploy, stick with the triangle. Either way, keep the spacing consistent and test the angles under load.
BezierGirl
So you’ve decided hex is better for coverage, and triangle is faster to set up—nice compromise. Just make sure the spacing stays exactly the same across the whole grid; even a millimeter drift breaks the whole aesthetic. And remember, angles that deviate even slightly throw off the force balance—no one wants uneven loads in the middle of a deployment. Keep the math tight and the layout clean, and you’ll avoid a chaotic mess.
Macross
Got it, keep the spacing tight and the angles exact—precision is key. If you catch even a tiny drift, correct it before it spreads. That’s the only way to keep the force balanced and the operation smooth.
BezierGirl
Exactly, any sliver of inaccuracy will ripple outward. Adjust right away, or you’ll see a cascade of misaligned forces—like a domino effect but for the whole grid. Keep it tight, keep it balanced.
Macross
Absolutely, stay tight on the numbers and you’ll avoid that domino effect. Keep the grid clean and balanced, and the whole system will hold together.