Subject:
|
Re: Building Rant One
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:41:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
284 times
|
| |
|
|
Great topic Paul...and one that constitutes many of the challenges I find I
face in my own building. A few people have asked why I haven't really built
anything longer than 25 studs or so. The answer is not from lack of desire,
but rather the difficulty in applying my approach to a larger scale.
For me, the 2 things I strive for are economy of design and uniformity of
purpose. Most things I build are conceptualized, sketched, resketched and
mentally broken apart several times before the bricks even hit the floor.
Most of them revolve around a single element that expands outward into the
design. As an example, the Krayt T'wilek ship was based on the basic shape
of a Chinese dragon. The jointing and curve of the landed ship was the
backbone, from which the cockpit, reactor housing, tail thrusters etc all
evolved around it. Because of the scale, this progression is easier to
achieve for me.
When I've tried building on a larger scale, I get lost the farther away I
get from the central inspiration. One ship I have been wrestling with for
ages is a medical frigate with it's primary design element being a patient
transfer area. I've built this a few times, but when I start divesting out
into the drive, living quarters, cockpit area, it seems to lose purpose and
organic connection with the transfer area. The result is a ship that looks
like 2 or 3 ships mushed into one.
From what I can see, the excellent large-scale builders here can visualize
the project in it's entirety, seeing the outer skin as a pre-existing unit
that just has to be sculpted....Michealangelo's 'freeing the figure from the
marble', if you will. This is a process I'm trying to get my head around
and experiment with. The hope is that I can try and merge the primary
design function of my current building habits with the 'big picture' process.
That's the hope, anyways.
Cheers,
-G
In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog writes:
> 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 ships get bigger, I am very
> carefully maintaining the same level of detail as
> in my smaller stuff.
>
> 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.
>
> 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)
>
> anyway,
> please chime in and share your opinions :-)
>
> -paul
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
