Subject:
|
Re: Greeblies: Pros and Cons (was: New Space MOCs)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Jan 2003 01:47:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
649 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, John Henry Kruer writes:
> In lugnet.space, Adrian Drake writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Curt Tigges writes:
> > > All of these are very nice MOCs. The "Heavy Fighter" is very cool. The only
> > > fault I can find with it is that there are so many greeblies that the the
> > > fighter would be very vulnerable, with so much machinery exposed.
> > > But overall, very good job.
> >
> >
> > I had the same thought. While the heavy fighter looks nice, I think it's a
> > little TOO engreebled. There ought to be a few patches where it's smoothish
> > because, as Curt said, if this were a real ship, all those little bits would
> > be very vunerable. Despite the criticism, it still is a really cool looking
> > craft.
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> >
> Thanks for the feedback, guys. I'm gonna go think about the whole
> engreeblment idea. I guess that it depends on a person's idea of a spaceship.
>
> I've always imaganed a spaceship as a clunky bit of machinery that needs
> large amounts of just plain Stuff to work, and whenever I see a ship with no
> greeblies at all, and with a smooth, studless exterioir, I think, 'Nice, but
> no cigar.' I've never thought of greeblies as vital equipment, just as sort
> of add-on sensors and radiators, etc. And I've always thought of space as a
> 'one hit, one kill' place in which the best tactic is speed and agility,
> rather then sheer armour.
>
> Of course, being 13 and never seeing any major sci-fi movies or books such
> as Star Wars, Star Trek, Anime, etc, my views might differ. I'm opening
> this up for debate. What do you guys think?
My designs take in a great deal of various Sci Fi sources. Most space
vehicles on TV and movies are typically fairly uncluttered, or at least have
large expanses of smooth surfaces. Most likely because it's easier to make
models that way. But there are practical reasons to try and avoid having
too many bits out.
When you're travelling fast in space, even the smallest bit of dust will
cause huge amounts of damage if it hits something important. I have always
envisioned space vehicles to have armor that would protect vital systems at
least from the dust. Plus, most, if not all smaller ships I'd think would
spend some time in atmospheric flight, where aerodynamics become important.
Plus, if you have a delicate sensor or engine component dangling off your
ship and you go zipping through air, bad things will happen. Of course this
whole discussion is tossed out the window if you start talking about shields.
Even something as simple as landing in a carrier or docking would be
dangerous if there's too much engreeblement. Would you want every sensor
and engine component exposed where J. Random Technician could accidentally
break something off?
Regardless of the perceived function of a ship and thinking strictly of Lego
design, I think a vehicle that looks too cluttered has almost too much going
on and makes things too busy. See, for example, the ISD. Even though there
is heavy engreeblement along the seams, there's still a lot of simple, flat
spaces that serve to break up the busy-ness of the design.
The moral of the story, though, is build what you like. If that's your
style, go with it!
Adrian
--
http://www.brickfrenzy.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Greeblies: Pros and Cons (was: New Space MOCs)
|
| (...) Thanks for the feedback, guys. I'm gonna go think about the whole engreeblment idea. I guess that it depends on a person's idea of a spaceship. I've always imaganed a spaceship as a clunky bit of machinery that needs large amounts of just (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
