Subject:
|
Re: Building Rant One
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Mar 2003 06:52:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
284 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog writes:
>
> This is very important to me as a builder. Some folks
> (no names plz) like to keep prodding me to build big,
> and of course I will (in fact, I am planning a series
> of ships that are each a little bigger than the last).
> But there is an obsession with me, that if the level
> of detail diminishes merely because the ship is a SHIP,
> then there is a problem.
It depends on the real purpose behind designing the ship. You describe it as
'details'. I see it as something different: features. I always design the
ships with what features I want in mind. Sometimes big ships are the result.
For instance, I wanted to build minifig-scale ships that would carry smaller
minifig-scale vehicles: one is a carrier for minifig-scale fighters and the
other has a hangar bay for minifig-scale vehicles. For such features I _had_
to build big, and if I had to sacrifice some hull/engine detailing to do it
I'm completely happy with that decision. As it turned out, one ship's engine
was sparsely detailed on purpose because I wanted the engine to have that
particular form, not as any sort of design compromise.
That being said, if I wanted to build a ship that had a particular feature I
would build the smallest one that could show the feature off, because there
are many good practical reasons to build smaller. Easier to carry, easier to
photograph, uses less of your parts, etc. etc.
>
> I am trying to develop a comprehensive philosophy/theory
> of building through my work, that will involve technic
> chassis, plating/greebly techniques, etc. and in my
> opinion, a large ship would have much of the same design
> approach as a smaller ship (visually, not structurally)
I disagree. I think the main purpose behind building bigger is to help
justify a different design approach. I do _not_ detail fighters the same way
I would detail a frigate, for instance. If anything, it sounds a bit like
you think that a particular design approach is "the right one". Personally,
I plan to make ships in the future that, for example, have no greeblies at
all. They will be all sculpted shape and form. Does this mean it wouldn't
look as good as it could? I don't think so. It's all subjective.
How we build our spaceships is much like how we decide what clothes to wear
- partly functional, but still greatly subject to what's fashionable at the
time. Currently, greeblies are very fashionable, but that may change in the
future.
I'm not picking on greeblies, though. I use them frequently myself!
Cheers,
Paul
P.S. Looking forward to the battlecruiser "Rant One" ;-)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Building Rant One
|
| howD all, just a little building rant here hoping to stir up some cool discussion and sharing of ideas and approaches... Some of you may have noticed that I don't build big. Now that I've posted the Mako, some of you may also have noticed that as my (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.space)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
