 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Shiri Dori writes:
> > In lugnet.castle, Rob Drechsel writes:
> >
> > > Too bad most of us don't have
> > > the pieces to make castle the size of Bloodstone. Mine is on <cough> one of
> > > the 48x48 baseplates.
> >
> > If it's any consalation, my "castle" is on a 48x32 BP and I can't complete it
> > for lack of pieces.
> >
> > > By the way, I thought your inn was pretty good.
> >
> > Thanks! It's just that near such an amazing thing like the Blood Stone • Castle,
> > it shrivels away and transforms to a meek little mouse. :-)
> >
> > -Shiri
>
> That's what I'm talkin' about. Sometimes it's downright depressing. I mean,
> it's awe inspiring and incredible how huge and intricate some of those • "OPOC's"
> are, yet at the same time it's kinda dis-heartening.
>
> But, the more I think about it, isn't that exactly why we're all so hooked: • the
> fact that the acquisition of "more" is so goal oriented; and that building the
> biggest and best MOC yet is an ever moving target. In the future they'll be
> making an ABS patch (like those nicotene patches) for those of us who file
> bankruptcy because we couldn't get enough.
>
> "I'm NOT PLAYING, I'm CREATING!!"
> Bill
Actually, I think building on such a large scale is actually less satisfying
than smaller scale projects. Huge works such as my castle take years to build
and progress can be annoyingly slow. For example, it can be exciting to come
up with cool innovations like half-stepping out the turrets on my watch towers,
but then having to repeat the process identically five more times really sucks.
Also, each one of the merlons on my castle uses more than 50 pieces and I had
to repeat the design over 100 times around the tops of the walls and towers.
Talk about tedious!
The most satisfying castle project I built was a simple tower keep that
measured only 32x24 studs. I'm keeping this in mind when I build the keep for
my Black Falcolns, which will site on top four standard green baseplates -
fully 1/5 the size of the big red beast.
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Daniel Siskind writes:
> Actually, I think building on such a large scale is actually less satisfying
> than smaller scale projects. [...]
I wouldn't REALLY know but I tend to agree. My inn is fun and I love it, but
creating Helfire in two hours and having it come out nicely was MUCH more
satisfying. I think my inn could be great when I'm done with it, but meanwhile
it's incomplete and pretty weird looking. (Of coure the ratio between my inn
and microtown are very different than Dan's castle and a small castle... :-)
That's why I'm trying to build my inn in parts. First I completed the first
floor walls, and did not begin the interior until I was completely satisfied
with the walls. Then, I built the 1st floor interior as a switch from wall
designing... for refreshment etc. Now that's done, I like the way it looks and
it *could* stand alone if I wanted it to, so that I don't feel like I have
something unfinished in my hands. I'm on to the 2nd floor now, and it's
unattached to the rest of the inn, so the inn is like a finished product in a
way. I like it and that gives me some excitement, seeing that it came out
nicely.
So my advice to you: when dealing with big structures, build them in parts if
you don't want to be discouraged along the way!
-Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Daniel Siskind writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Bill Farkas writes:
> > In lugnet.castle, Shiri Dori writes:
> > > In lugnet.castle, Rob Drechsel writes:
> > >
> > > > Too bad most of us don't have
> > > > the pieces to make castle the size of Bloodstone. Mine is on <cough> one • of
> > > > the 48x48 baseplates.
> > >
> > > If it's any consalation, my "castle" is on a 48x32 BP and I can't complete • it
> > > for lack of pieces.
> > >
> > > > By the way, I thought your inn was pretty good.
> > >
> > > Thanks! It's just that near such an amazing thing like the Blood Stone • Castle,
> > > it shrivels away and transforms to a meek little mouse. :-)
> > >
> > > -Shiri
> >
> > That's what I'm talkin' about. Sometimes it's downright depressing. I mean,
> > it's awe inspiring and incredible how huge and intricate some of those • "OPOC's"
> > are, yet at the same time it's kinda dis-heartening.
> >
> > But, the more I think about it, isn't that exactly why we're all so hooked: • the
> > fact that the acquisition of "more" is so goal oriented; and that building • the
> > biggest and best MOC yet is an ever moving target. In the future they'll be
> > making an ABS patch (like those nicotene patches) for those of us who file
> > bankruptcy because we couldn't get enough.
> >
> > "I'm NOT PLAYING, I'm CREATING!!"
> > Bill
>
> Actually, I think building on such a large scale is actually less satisfying
> than smaller scale projects. Huge works such as my castle take years to build
> and progress can be annoyingly slow. For example, it can be exciting to come
> up with cool innovations like half-stepping out the turrets on my watch • towers,
> but then having to repeat the process identically five more times really • sucks.
> Also, each one of the merlons on my castle uses more than 50 pieces and I • had
> to repeat the design over 100 times around the tops of the walls and towers.
> Talk about tedious!
>
> The most satisfying castle project I built was a simple tower keep that
> measured only 32x24 studs. I'm keeping this in mind when I build the keep for
> my Black Falcolns, which will site on top four standard green baseplates -
> fully 1/5 the size of the big red beast.
>
> Dan
One nice thing about building on a small project, is that you can do the
interiors without having all of your small pieces disappear. Another is not
having to spend a week or two laying out the foundation so you can move the
model without breaking it.
Rob
| | | | | | |
