Subject:
|
Re: Building Rant One
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:53:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
393 times
|
| |
|
|
I'd like to chime in on this discussion. Partly because I'm a subSHIP builder
(a SHIP being 100 studs, and mine usually got at ~70), and I know the
difficulty in designing and building anything that big. I've got four attempts
under my belt and I haven't yet reached anything I consider *really* good.
For me the primary difference between a fighter sized creation and a SHIP sized
one is the design element. I can build a fighter by just taking some pieces
and playing around with them until the creation starts to take form. There is
a connection with the LEGO itself that helps in the building process, but when
I build a ship, because of the size and resultant magnitude of the project, I
must design it out on paper before hand. So key moment of the building process
are reduced to paper and not to the LEGO itself.
Then why do I build SHIPs? because I grew up on Star Trek and not Star Wars,
and so I want to build things for people to live in and fly around in, not just
a wee little fighter. Also, and I don't mean this to put down
fighter-builders, but bigger is better. The 'Duvernay', if made 1/4 the size
and at the same level of quality wouldn't have gotten the reaction it did. The
sheer impact of seeing a lego creation more than 3' long gets a responce.
But it seems like one of the things you were asking was if building mainly
fighters was 'as good' as building SHIPs. In my opinion 'yes, definately yes!'
the two things are so different to me, that to compare them is like comparing
mosaics to watercolors. Mosaics tend be very large, and can communicate on
that level, while watercolors are smaller and communicate on a different level.
The same with SHIPs v. fighters. They are both so beautiful, but in different
ways.
-lenny
> 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 (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
