Subject:
|
Re: My Starcruiser
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.build
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 01:42:40 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JSPROAT@ihatespamIO.COM
|
Viewed:
|
1233 times
|
| |
|
|
Alex wrote:
> Hey Jeremy,
> how about rating my ship?
Well, I don't generally rate other peoples' models; I'm typically more of a
selfish and anti-social type. But you asked. :-, I'm not going to be
gentle, but please bear with me...
A starship that size would need really big engines. Take a look at Star
Wars and Star Trek, the majority of their ships have large and cool-looking
engine parts. A comparably-sized real-world vehicle -- say, an AH-64 Apache
Longbow -- has a very large and noticable drive section (the main rotor).
Plus, what I take it you indicate is the bridge (the globe on top) looks
more like a mission module, easily detached and so on. Also, a mid-size
combat ship such as this needs at least one YBBG (Your Basic Big Gun, the
bigger the better), otherwise it would be little more than a glorified
transport.
For reaslism (accounting for sci-fi), I'd give it a 5.
Looks -- this is the second hardest part of modelling. It has the general
shape of a brick, with some flimsy attachments. (1) Good base, okay
peripherals. However! The cockpit section is way cool. I am seriously
coveting the double Explorien wing design, and I will steal the idea at some
point. Plus, I see a couple of largish cannons on the forward set of wings
that also look veeery cool. (I wish I could see the hinge better; I may
borrow that design also.)
For looks, I'd give it a 7.
Presentation -- this is the killer and is difficult to master, impossible
for some (2). There's just the one semi-blurry photo; it doesn't show many
details. I suspect some (or many) close-ups will greatly improve anyone's
rating of this ship.
For presentation, I'd give it a 3.
If these categories were weighted with looks being most important and
presentation being the least important (3), I'd give your model an overall
rating of about 6. Meaning: there is definitely room for improvement, but
it has a lot of inherent coolness. I'm really excited to see more Lego
models from you. :-,
Cheers,
- jsproat
1. I know how this is; I've done it hundreds of times: you've put a lot of
work into putting together the bulk of the body, and you're tired, and so
you snap some wing pieces on. However, the day after I am generally
disappointed, so I re-build the external bits and really beef them up. It's
always been worth the time.
2. For an example of bad presentation of models, take a look at my Web
site!
3. Looks = 50%, Realism = 40%, Presentation = 10%; which I suspect is close
to how we all rate our own models...
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com>
http://www.io.com/~jsproat
Darth Maul Lives
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: My Starcruiser
|
| (...) Realism, hmm, the engine? well, there's a cocpit in the back... no room. Believe me, my newer version of this ship HAS a ybbg.(but no bridge.) I'll admit that the bridge is lame. (...) What hinge? HAH. Everyone falls for this...see the top (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.build)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: My Starcruiser
|
| (...) something (...) No, that was the cold cuts. Nitrates, nitrites and other nitrogen-based oxygen compounds used as food preservatives were widely banned by 12070, but it took a few generations of holdouts (such as the Opoptians out on the (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jul-99, to lugnet.build)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
