| |
| |
With this collection of creations arrayed here, I think it would be
interesting if we had a discussion on what we each think defines a good mecha
model.
|
I don’t have enough experience to be up to a serious discussion on this point,
beyond the subjective platitude of ‘if I like the way it looks then it’s a good
mecha’. I mean, the only lego mecha I’ve seen in real life are my own!
But: I’m not entirely convinced by the ‘practical requirements being met’ idea;
perhaps if it was modified with a fair bit of aesthetic leeway. I mean, I
remember reading on lugnet.space here,
Tony Hafner talking about how a ship ‘wouldn’t work’ because the engines aren’t
positioned correctly - no offence to Mr. Hafner, but I don’t really care about
that sort of thing, as long as it looks good. It should be noted that he goes on
to say in a later reply, ‘This is Lego, where for the most part style trumps
reality’. My attitude is: if you want to build something that would work in real
life, build a train. Conversely, if those engines were way out, then not only
would it be ‘unrealistic’, it would probably look pants aswell.
I suppose we could have a philosophical argument here ;) what is beauty?
| |
If I’m not made to believe in the
design, then it seems like a toy version of a mecha, rather than a model of a
mecha.
|
I’m not sure that being a ‘toy’ version of a mecha is such a bad thing; this is
lego we’re playing with here, after all!
For the record, my favourite entries were Fradel’s ‘Thundersnatch’ and Marco’s
‘Little Fist’. I don’t think I could quantify what it is about them that I
prefer over the other entries.
mo.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Matthew Evans wrote:
| |
But: I’m not entirely convinced by the ‘practical requirements being met’
idea; perhaps if it was modified with a fair bit of aesthetic leeway. I mean,
I remember reading on lugnet.space here, Tony Hafner talking about how a ship ‘wouldn’t work’ because the
engines aren’t positioned correctly - no offence to Mr. Hafner, but I don’t
really care about that sort of thing, as long as it looks good. It should be
noted that he goes on to say in a later reply, ‘This is Lego, where for the
most part style trumps reality’. My attitude is: if you want to build
something that would work in real life, build a train. Conversely, if those
engines were way out, then not only would it be ‘unrealistic’, it would
probably look pants aswell.
|
This is like the difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction, which I often
like to explain. :-) Science Fiction requires some intellectual rigor and logic.
You can certainly make up weird new science, but it has to be self consistent.
Similarly, you can come up with a totally bizarre mecha, unlike anything that
has ever existed, but every single detail has to conform to some sort of
rationale or it’s just a form of junk art - interesting to look at, even
beautiful, but not in any sense realistic (conforming to any possible reality).
If you look at anime mecha designs, even the outlandish ones, the best ones
(IMO) have reasoning behind their details, and are thought out to the level of
having practical internal structures, even if they are never shown!
K
ps - If a rocket motor isn’t positioned to give thrust behind a ship’s center of
mass, it isn’t going to fly very well, and a top heavy mecha with tiny legs also
isn’t going to walk very well. Realistic considerations. ;-)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Brian Cooper wrote:
| |
This is like the difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction, which I
often like to explain. :-) Science Fiction requires some intellectual rigor
and logic. You can certainly make up weird new science, but it has to be self
consistent.
|
Philip K Dick, among countless others, has also addressed this. His distinction
between sci-fi and fantasy was similar but more fundamental: if an element of
the story is considered impossible, then it’s fantasy. Not “improbable” or
“currently unavailable,” but impossible. He asserts that no hard, fixed
distinction between the two is possible, because our notions of the “impossible”
tend to fluctuate.
The self-consistency aspect is less of a distinction, since a good story in
either genre must entail sufficient self-consistency to maintain a
comprehensible plot, IMO.
| |
ps - If a rocket motor isn’t positioned to give thrust behind a ship’s center
of mass, it isn’t going to fly very well, and a top heavy mecha with tiny
legs also isn’t going to walk very well. Realistic considerations. ;-)
|
I’m not a physics guy, so forgive me this question: we’re talking about the
“net” center of thrust being directly behind the center of mass, right? As
opposed to an engine placed exactly there?
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Philip K Dick, among countless others, has also addressed this. His
distinction between sci-fi and fantasy was similar but more fundamental: if
an element of the story is considered impossible, then it’s fantasy. Not
“improbable” or “currently unavailable,” but impossible. He asserts that
no hard, fixed distinction between the two is possible, because our notions
of the “impossible” tend to fluctuate.
The self-consistency aspect is less of a distinction, since a good story in
either genre must entail sufficient self-consistency to maintain a
comprehensible plot, IMO.
Dave!
|
Another interesting study of Sci-Fi vs. Fantasy can be found in Henry Gee’s
The Science of Middle Earth. His point is that science fiction has at least
some focus on the technology that makes the ‘impossible’ possible. Fantasy, he
suggests accepts the impossible with little attention on how. His examples come
mostly from The Silmarillion and Tolkien’s notes of Elven ‘technology’.
Basically, Tolkien invented the how, but then simply doesn’t focus on the how in
his stories.
Side note, I have read many of the ‘Science of...’ books on SW, ST, Harry
Potter, etc. This book references more actual science, and yet stays accessible
much more so than it’s fellow books. ie I recommend it to fellow science and/or
fiction geeks.
Aaron
|
|
| |
> This is like the difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction, which I
> often
> like to explain. :-) Science Fiction requires some intellectual rigor and
> logic.
> You can certainly make up weird new science, but it has to be self
> consistent.
> Similarly, you can come up with a totally bizarre mecha, unlike anything
> that
> has ever existed, but every single detail has to conform to some sort of
> rationale or it's just a form of junk art - interesting to look at, even
> beautiful, but not in any sense realistic (conforming to any possible
> reality).
Hmmm, good explanation. If we're equating 'self-consistency' with 'realism'
then I agree with you. A good mecha design is not going to have any
'out-of-place' details. I guess I misunderstood your initial argument.
but on the other hand:
> ps - If a rocket motor isn't positioned to give thrust behind a ship's
> center of
> mass, it isn't going to fly very well,
yeah, but if the ship is lego, it's never going to fly anyway!
> and a top heavy mecha with tiny legs also
> isn't going to walk very well. Realistic considerations. ;-)
Well, this is more true. Perhaps the realism thing is more applicable to
mecha; an unstable mecha is just going to look silly. Spaceships get to
operate in a vacuum where things like gravity and aerodynamics don't really
apply. And as this discussion is supposed to be about mecha, it was probably
amiss of me to bring up the space thing in the first place!
I've though a bit about why I like Thundersnatch and Little Fist. I reckon
it's because they're nice and clean. Now that's a word that's been used more
than once to describe my Iron Mecha, which is fine, of course I'm likely to
build models that end up fitting my idea of a good mecha. In my mind, clean
isn't opposed to detailed; but it's the 'intensity' of detailing on mecha
like Eric Sophies QWelder that turns me off I think - although I can still
appreciate the brilliance of the design! (This may be just a feature of
larger models, I'm not sure). Also, I think they're very well proportioned,
is this where 'realism' comes in?
mo.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Philip K Dick, among countless others, has also addressed this. His
distinction between sci-fi and fantasy was similar but more fundamental: if
an element of the story is considered impossible, then it’s fantasy. Not
“improbable” or “currently unavailable,” but impossible. He asserts that
no hard, fixed distinction between the two is possible, because our notions
of the “impossible” tend to fluctuate.
|
The extreme definition: Science fiction is an extrapolation, linear perhaps.
Fantasy is a random point, connected to nothing.
| |
The self-consistency aspect is less of a distinction, since a good story in
either genre must entail sufficient self-consistency to maintain a
comprehensible plot, IMO.
|
Self-consistency of pseudo science is a drag on the plot. It spoils the fun in
Fantasy realms. :-)
| |
I’m not a physics guy, so forgive me this question: we’re talking about the
“net” center of thrust being directly behind the center of mass, right? As
opposed to an engine placed exactly there?
|
Yes you can certainly have motors on pylons hanging way out, but if you add up
the 3D thrust vectors you’ll want them to not make your ship spin around like a
pinwheel (over taxing your attitude control thrusters to compensate for the
misaligned main thrust). People have a more instinctive feel for what sort of
things can walk without keeling over than what can fly well in space.
K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Brian Cooper wrote:
| |
This is like the difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction, which I
often like to explain. :-) Science Fiction requires some intellectual rigor
and logic. You can certainly make up weird new science, but it has to be self
consistent. Similarly, you can come up with a totally bizarre mecha, unlike
anything that has ever existed, but every single detail has to conform to
some sort of rationale or it’s just a form of junk art - interesting to look
at, even beautiful, but not in any sense realistic (conforming to any
possible reality).
|
Hmmm... Science Fiction has little to do with reality. Allow me to use my
absolutely most favorite sci-fi space ship, Imperial (Imperator) Class Star
Destroyer. I love Star Destroyers, I drool over any image of a Star Destroyer,
however, at the same time, it is the most idiotic design when it comes to real
physics: ISDs have no maneuvering thrusters, have no thrusters to stop the ship
out of light speed or any other speed for that matter, the main cannons are
aligned, they can’t fire forward at the same time!!! the main hangar bay has no
door, the bridge, which is quite exposed has a clear see through windows with
nothing as simple as an armor plating that can go over them in case of shield
failure or even better, the whole bridge can simply sink into the internals of
the ship. Continuing further: the armor to internal system ration is terrible,
shield generators are exposed, no practical device for fleet control ever
illustrated, heavy reliance on computer controled inaccurate beam weaponry with
no alternatives... do I have to keep going further? Yet with all its flaws and
stupidity, there is no ship in the sci-fi universe that I will ever love or
respect more than the Star Destroyer!!!
So is it fantasy or sci-fi makes no difference to me, and please don’t let me go
into Gundams and how ridiculously improbable it is to build one with current
technology (hence, fantasy, the idea behind new materials that will allow cheap
mobile suit construction).
| |
If you look at anime mecha designs, even the outlandish ones, the best ones
(IMO) have reasoning behind their details, and are thought out to the level
of having practical internal structures, even if they are never shown!
K
|
Anime mechas have the advantage of being animated, we get to see how they move!
Sadly, with Lego we rarely have this luxury.
| |
ps - If a rocket motor isn’t positioned to give thrust behind a ship’s center
of mass, it isn’t going to fly very well, and a top heavy mecha with tiny
legs also isn’t going to walk very well. Realistic considerations. ;-)
|
Let me say clearly that I completely agree with you. I like mechs in general,
but I LOVE mecha where I can see the actual details: power supply, extra fuel
tanks, sensor array, power transfer system, protection of the frame vital
points, good articulation even if the mecha will never be animated, correct
balance... but at the same time there is a flaw with this reasoning and
competitions because: I have never seen a 3meter + robot in real life!
example of above idea: how thick should the iron mecha legs be? I believe that
the legs shown in the image are absolutely, unquestionably too large, too bulky
and far too long, impractical, no wheel mechanism even! yet, I can bet that
there are many people that thought the legs were either just right or perhaps
even too small!
So, for the past week I have been toying with the idea that for the next contest
there could be multiple categories. For example:
Best Color Design,
Best Copy of Image,
Most “Playable” (Sturdy to handle by kids)
Best microscale
Best minifig scale
Best large
and why not,
Most realistic/believable
Most unusual brick use (example: helm visors for armor plating / brick separator
for legs)
why have all these categories? Because we all interpret mecha differently.
Bobby
p.s.
I haven’t posted in a while so once my enthusiasm starts wearing off a bit my
posts should become much shorter and more to the point : p
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Bobby Marinov wrote:
| |
Hmmm... Science Fiction has little to do with reality. Allow me to use my
absolutely most favorite sci-fi space ship, Imperial (Imperator) Class Star
Destroyer...
|
Sorry, but Star Wars isn’t science fiction.:-) Really, it isn’t. The technology
is contrived for the sake of the story, which is why it’s unrealistic. The space
ships have windows! Cap ships exchange broadsides a few feet away from each
other! Dramatic but absurd. It seems realistic because they are familiar
terrestrial concepts, but they are inapplicable. Read true science fiction and
you’ll have an image of a realistic space battle. Even old fashioned sci-fi like
EE Doc Smith had a better grasp of space battles. Star Wars so pales by
comparison, it’s... staggering, even though it rips off many if its ideas from
him. These are the sci-fi concepts the “Doc” invented, in the 1930’s!:
Science Fiction
Inventions I think I’ve read all his books. :-)
| |
So is it fantasy or sci-fi makes no difference to me, and please don’t let me
go into Gundams and how ridiculously improbable it is to build one with
current technology (hence, fantasy, the idea behind new materials that will
allow cheap mobile suit construction).
|
If you had a compact fusion powerplant you’d have no problem building virtually
any kind of anime mecha with current technology (materials, computers, joint
actuators...).
| |
Best Color Design,
Best Copy of Image,
Most “Playable” (Sturdy to handle by kids)
Best microscale
Best minifig scale
Best large
and why not,
Most realistic/believable
Most unusual brick use (example: helm visors for armor plating / brick
separator for legs)
why have all these categories? Because we all interpret mecha differently.
|
I’m not sure it could still be described as a contest then. Everyone would win.
;-) But if that’s what it takes to encourage building, then that’s good.
K
|
|
|
