Subject:
|
Re: Space MOC: Teardrop
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:36:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1612 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Paul Baulch wrote:
| |
In lugnet.space, Tony Hafner wrote:
| |
Here’s the tiny Tadpole:
I’m very happy with the appearance, but the features are lacking.
|
Landing gear is a feature. And the ship uses a pair of my favourite element
;-)
|
That would be the big curvy slope, right?
| |
| |
The landing gear is of
questionable stability and the canopy doesn’t open- and with 8 studs of
binding surface and no good edges to grab, it’s actually pretty tough to
remove. (grumble, grumble, stupid canopy part design...)
|
Dude, that’s my favourite canopy! Three of my MOCs have just such an opening
canopy, in a similar size range (using two different solutions). I guess I’ll
just have to post some pictures of them so’s you can see how it’s done... ;-)
|
Sure, I’ll take that bait...
The problem is not that you can’t make opening canopies, it’s just that you
have to overengineer it to do so. The old canopies had areas that didn’t have
binding surfaces so that you didn’t have to tile or SNOT the area under them to
allow them to open easily. And they didn’t have angled rear edges so that you
can’t fit hinges back there without gaps. And they didn’t require another
specialty piece on each side. I’ve done a couple ships similar in size using
opening canopies of this type. But I’ve also seen a ship that incorporates the
rope bridge and raft parts well. My point is that you should be able to work
with the parts you have, not against them. A really great part makes itself
easy to use.
| |
| |
There is way more than the usual amount of techno-babble and other
pointless rambling.
|
Well, frankly the blurb-to-picture ratio gets a bit high for some MOCs... I
always find my eyes glazing over after the first couple of sentences, so I
try to keep it to one or two sentences on my own pages. I usually try to
include something outlandish or unusual to help keep the reader’s attention.
|
That’s why I put just enough at the top of the page to put the model in context,
and then if I have more I want to say I put it after the images. I don’t really
expect most people to read it anyway. The people who care will enjoy what’s
there, and everyone else will ignore it.
When people have their own pages but
host the images on BrickShelf, I really appreciate comments for each image (on
the same page)- that way I have something to look at while I’m waiting for them
to load.
| |
Actually, with regards to that point, I kind of feel that if I can’t write
something exciting about the MOC, then I haven’t thought of a good concept
behind the creatiuon in the first place. Building something exciting in
concept is better than building something unexciting in concept, right?
|
Sure, though I don’t think it’s always necessary. And in many cases, I just
write up what comes to mind when I’m typing up the pages rather than thinking it
out beforehand.
And yes, I caught that “Tadpole” edit. I dunno... that isn’t a bad
characterization of the shape- it just needs landing gear that folds out and
back. Perhaps with minifig flippers on the ends.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Space MOC: Teardrop
|
| (...) Landing gear is a feature. And the ship uses a pair of my favourite element ;-) (...) Dude, that's my favourite canopy! Three of my MOCs have just such an opening canopy, in a similar size range (using two different solutions). I guess I'll (...) (21 years ago, 25-Mar-04, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
