Talk:Zero-pip pyramids

Add topic
From Looney Pyramid Games Wiki

Cerulean, I love you and everything you stand for. - misuba 21:04, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

LOL, I was calling them 0.5 pip pyramids in my spreadsheet. 0-pip makes sense, it just seems wrong, to me.  ;) -JEEP 06:53, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Aspect ratio[edit source]

I'm sure that Andy noted on the lists that the aspect ratio was intended to be constant, but that the dimensions are rounded to the nearest 1/32 inch. I'll see if I can dig it up.— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 21:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

"Of course, it is obvious that possibility (2),(C) is the correct choice. Not only do the pyramid Base Size and Face Height vary with a neat equation: BS = 4 / 7 FH = (4 + (2 ^ (PointValue - 1)) / 8, but the pyramids are similar too."[1]

There we go. They do not get squatter, it's a misunderstanding of trying to reverse engineer the formula from 3 data points.— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 21:30, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Mathematical corrections[edit source]

The formula Andy quoted from that long-ago discussion does not match the production sizes. I added some discussion of that fact. I also corrected the formula for the face height vs. the mid height for the variable aspect ratio linear progression. H'/H is not constant unless the aspect ratio is constant. Perhaps we should promote a constant aspect ratio linear progression as our primary ("best") extrapolation, with a note that the production values are rounded. Walleye 12:38, 29 March 2008 (EDT)