Subject:
|
Re: How was the BrickFest moonbase?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:42:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1019 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Daniel Rubin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.space, Keith Goldman wrote:
| |
In lugnet.space, Tony Hafner wrote:
| |
The only comment I’ve seen about the moonbase at BrickFest this year was on
Keith’s MOCPage:
“...but the ccc system works pretty well for a large display...certainly
better than the moonbase system that looked like a jumbled mess.”
|
Let me explain that comment before things get too heated. The modules
couldn’t be connected because the tables were not of the same uniform
height. This seems like a small thing, but some of them weren’t lined up
very well. There was no monorail, space train, or those car-tracks that were
present at PDX. I’m not complaining about the quality or coolness of the
individual modules, there were some great new modules like the “Hall of
Justice”, and Daniel Rubin’s Inquisitor module, and there were plenty of old
favorites. I just thought the lack of ‘neighborhooding’ and the lack of an
extra hallway segment here and there made it look jumbled and crowded. All
I have to compare this layout to was the PDX layout, and I thought that one
was much more pleasing to the eye. As systems go, I think the ccc works
better for large displays. My comments were not intended to disparage the
work of those people (don’t know exactly who it was) who were responsible
for the layout. I’m sure they did the best they could, with the resources
they had. Since I wasn’t there to help, one could make the argument that I
have no place to complain. My comment wasn’t a complaint so much as an
observation, with a side-order of smack. Above everything else, the public
really loved it, and thats probably the most important thing.
-Keith
|
Like Keith said, the moonbase layout suffered from visual disaray. It didn’t
help that they couldn’t be linked because of the table height disparity.
Also, there was over 80 large baseplates worth of modules. This made for
issues of clutter, because plenty of modules didn’t match eachother. Also,
the moonbase was on a big group of tables in the middle of the room, this
caused some modules to get buried on the inside. While the moonbase is an
awesome concept, once it starts getting very large, I think it can be tough
to make it look good. By contrast, the CCC display was a bunch of medieval
buildings that all had similar visual style, were much smaller (for the most
part) than a moonbase module, and had lots of green space between them. Also,
a large CCC building was about one small baseplate, and no more than a foot
tall, while there were 2x2 moonbase modules as tall as 4 feet (blacktron
module) this meant that there were several different visually dominant
modules which dwarfed most of the others. In the future, I think the moonbase
might benefit from the same sort of display as trains, a long skinny layout,
so nothing can be more than a couple of feet into the center. Still, it was
cool that so many people got involved in the layout, and the space room was
awesome (if hot and stuffy).
|
I’ll take the credit/blame for the space room. We had a limited space that had
to allow for the public day (I was thinkin upwards of 800 would be through and
it was twice that). I had wished we could have had a more open design... but in
the end a borin’ ol rectangle ruled the day. Due to our larger modules (a plus
if you ask me) we had to set the width as it was. I’m sorry there was a
“jumbled look” to the base, but there again there is an open ended design to the
moonbase project. No module looks like another and each is a story into itself.
We can change that and make each module a certain size and certain range of
colors if you all like. On the issue of monorail, that’s my fault because I
didn’t call for it. I assumed one might be coming. Jon’s the real moonbase
transport expert and we missed his design sense on the base.
On the other hand, I personally thought the moonbase was groovy and had some
very cool additions. The layout was at least 5 plates wide x 16 plates long.
(at last count... I do believe it was up to 18 long thanks to Viagra and a
couple of late additions.) Modules were so impresive and many had lots of
playablity that really had the kids attention (as well as some adults :-D )
Thanks to Eric for bringing some extra baseplates that were given to us(thanks
to those who donated them) Thanks to all who participated and all who came by to
view. It’ll be mo betta next time!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: How was the BrickFest moonbase? (awesome)
|
| (...) As the first moonbase I've ever seen in person, I found it most impressive. Chris, Nick K, Blacktron Dude, Dan Rabin and many others contributed some sweet modules, not to mention the chess-module, with amazing greebling between each square. (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: How was the BrickFest moonbase?
|
| (...) Like Keith said, the moonbase layout suffered from visual disaray. It didn't help that they couldn't be linked because of the table height disparity. Also, there was over 80 large baseplates worth of modules. This made for issues of clutter, (...) (20 years ago, 19-Aug-04, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
