Enjoy 10% OFF* ALL PURCHASES STOREWIDE or enjoy 30% OFF items with a SKU number lower than 16000 & 30% OFF items from Runtime DNA.
Take an EXTRA 20% OFF of today's related items
I admit I hadn't realsied it was as bad as that. Admittedly I avoided the tubes myself when working in Londodn, I hate them, but for a different reason.
I could never understand my colleagues when I was working at the Home Office, when it was situated at Queens Annes gate, The New Passport Office was down by Victoria Station. When we had site meetings down there my colleagues would jump on the tube, I would walk, and often could get there before them. I didn't ever bother getting the Company vehicle from the car park,quicker to walk, and they were quite a bit younger than me, and I have artritus, although not as bad as my brother.
DWG said:TheSavage64 said:Yes, the girl in the wheelchair would be leaning further forward
TheSavage64 said:Yes, the girl in the wheelchair would be leaning further forward
A lot of wheelchair users can't lean forward, they don't have the working core musculature to support themselves in any position much off upright - in the original pose the woman in the chair is actually being supported against the chest of the man lifting the rear of the chair. I think the problem is I'm coming at it from the position of someone who knows the issues that the disabled person faces and the nature of chair design, while other people are making assumptions that don't apply because they aren't familiar with them. I'm not being deliberately obstinate, I just see real-world issues that make the advice I'm getting inapplicable.
Probably so, and I see real word physics in action; leverage, fulcrums, pivots, loads and gravity, combined with the biological, muscular and geometric restrictions of the human body. What I can absolutely guarantee in your scenario is that the two lifters won't be able to do what is physically impossible (that is to say something that breaks the laws of physics). Remembering that if your render looks impossible, it won't have the same impact to get your message across as if it looks possible but difficult.
With that in mind I'd also look at the proportions of your people to the steps as I notice you have 7 steps between the person at the bottom and the person at the top. When you consider that a single step will be more than the length of an adult person's foot (about... a foot!) your two lifters are actually standing over 7 feet apart. With less space between them, the guy at the top wouldn't be crouching in his impossible position so much.
And just in case my posts are coming across as over critical, I don't mean to be rude at all, I'm really only trying to help but I am aware I can sound a little 'curt' sometimes. :)
TheSavage64 said:I notice you have 7 steps between the person at the bottom and the person at the top. When you consider that a single step will be more than the length of an adult person's foot (about... a foot!) your two lifters are actually standing over 7 feet apart. With less space between them, the guy at the top wouldn't be crouching in his impossible position so much.
I've cut the image down a little for clarity and expanded the width of the staircase to give me a better side on angle for showing it. If you look at the image I've added a 30cm (i.e. 1 foot) primitive cylinder on the stairs below the image, it overhangs the stairs by about a third, suggesting an 8 inch tread depth (which tallies with my memory of similar Tube entrances), the riser is around 4 to 5". So distance between the two figures is around 56" / 4' 8" The side-on view is helpful because it does reveal the lower figure has his torso too far back in comparison to his feet, but the feet of the chair occupant limit the ability to bring his chest forward and I'm probably going to have to take his high leg two steps back and turn it into his low leg to fix it. You can see how high a lift he has already, so going any higher is I think problematic. There is some potential to straighten the arms of the upper figure if I can tuck them closer in to his chest, but I don't think it will be sufficient to entirely get him out of his squat.
It may be possible to increase the X dimension to 150%, pushing the tread depth up to 12", cutting down the number of stairs between the two figures and therefore the height differential, I'll do some experimenting to see if that's workable. Later: Actually it's better than I thought, the wider tread depth and reduced fall between the figures mean I can drop the chair and still largely bring the upper figure out of the squat, provided I can make the rest of the setting work with the scaling change.
Well even using your measurements and remembering that for each 8 inch step there is a 5inch (at least) rise, the two people are still stood about 6 feet away from each other. Make a box that has the dimensions of 64"x40" then draw a diagonal line corner to corner.
Looking at your pic from the latest angle, I say the bottom person needs to pull forward so the girl's feet are almost against his chest (if your stairs are 8 inches deep, there is about 8 inches between her feet and his chest, unless she has particularly smelly feet, there is no need for that amount of distance. :-)), his shoulders high and his arms down to his elbows directly downwards, then from his elbow to his hands almost fully bent back upwards and the top person needs to move down two steps, have his arms straight down with low shoulders and his legs can straighten up. He can even lean backwards as he would need to try and counter the weight he is carrying to his front.