Subject:
|
Re: The INRI Deep Space Starfighter: Salvation is at hand!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sun, 3 Oct 2004 04:23:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
960 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Peter Roberts wrote:
| |
First of all, being a Christian, I do object to the design.
|
Why?
| |
However, as a
critique of the model, the structure is not very interesting. Your method of
building requires virtually no SNOT at all.
|
The only studs upward bits are the external structure (and the methods to the
studs to secure it), and the pilot’s seat & controls. It has studs forward,
studs right, studs left and studs aft. The landing gear when extended is studs
down.
Not much at angles other than 90 degrees...
| |
Most of it is in standard studs
up configuration and, well, I like SNOT.
|
As above, there is SNOT in abundance. Admittedly, they’re not great photos
though, so I can understand that you might have missed it.
| |
The greebling isn’t very
interesting and all in all it is a bit of boring ship to look at.
|
Absolutely. The Calvin version is more boring, but that’s only to be expected.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The INRI Deep Space Starfighter: Salvation is at hand!
|
| (...) First of all, being a Christian, I do object to the design. However, as a critique of the model, the structure is not very interesting. Your method of building requires virtually no SNOT at all. Most of it is in standard studs up configuration (...) (20 years ago, 2-Oct-04, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
