Subject:
|
Re: New Space MOCs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 Jan 2003 05:17:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
555 times
|
| |
|
|
> This has been a fascinating discussion about the various pros and cons of
> greebling. I'm replying to the discussion in general, but posting in reply
> to this specific one mainly due Adrian's use of the phrase 'it's a little
> too engreebled'.
I think this was a very well thought out post Allister. let me reply to it.
> I'm certainly no expert on greebling, but it seems to me that really there's
> no such thing as too much greebling, or if there is, it's an entirely
> subjective judgement. Sometimes a ship suits heavy engreeblement, and I
> think JHK's heavy fighter (or whatever you want to call it) is just such a
> ship. Even in the shot with a lot of the greebling removed, it still looks
> fairly heavily engreebled, and I think it'd look wrong without them.
it is really something that suits individual models. if you were building
a sleek interstellar racer then you really wouldn't engreeble it. However
if you were building a one man recon craft you might. there are no hard
and fast rules
> The thing about space fantasy, which I think includes this ship, is that you
> can invent any imaginary or outlandish technology to solve any problems that
> would reduce the credibility of an otherwise cool looking design in the
> 'real' world that sci-fi has to deal with. Too many vulnerable parts
> exposed? - it has force fields a la Star Wars. Problem solved.
I think that that really justifies the use of the word Fantasy. it's our
own creations, as long as we are happy with it, then there you are. not
that this invalidates anyone else's opinions of our models. if we didn't
want to know other peoples opinions we would not post them
> The only critisism I'd offer is not how much greebling there is, but that,
> especially around the front end, they look like a bit of an afterthought,
> like after finishing the model he's seen a handful of greebling parts and
> stuck them on any bare stud. Clearly John's having a lot of fun with the
> lage pile of grey greebling parts courtesy of the new ISD, and I for one
> don't hold that against him.
if I had the ISD I would be doing the same thing I think. I'm more
surprised that he has one that isn't put together as an ISD.
> But back ot the point. From what I've recently learnt about greebling (but
> have yet to actually practice) is that it works best when it has a
> deliberate look to it. Even though by nature greebling's purpose is
> undefined, it works best if it looks like it does have some purpose, if it
> looks like a real machine. Randomly placing small grey parts never seems to
> look right - I've done it enough times myself to realise this. This, I
> believe is the problem with the heavy fighter, at least in the front
> section. The stuff around and under the engine cowling is excellent.
yeah, I agree, geebling is part of the model, not an accessory to it.
but I actually love the engreebling on this model, I have been over it and
everything seems to looks, functional. but that is just my opinion
> Having said that, greebled or ungreebled, it's a fine looking ship. I
> especially like the engines.
beefy!
> If you've read this far, thankyou for indulging this .space neophyte in
> voicing his possibly erroneous opinions.
All opinions are possibly erroneous. especially when compared to mine ;-p
Trav (-|-)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Space MOCs
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
