Subject:
|
RE: Bram Lambrecht 's spaceplane
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 May 2001 04:31:03 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
<bram@po.cwru!saynotospam!.edu>
|
Viewed:
|
331 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Large is easy. Small is hard.
That's oversimplifying a bit. Large can be very hard, especially if it has
to be able to be picked up and flown around the room. It's also difficult,
IMO, to fill in all the empty space in a large construction with interesting
detail and plenty of moving parts. With a smaller creation, especially one
modeled after an existing thing, "all" you have to do is simplify the
detail--you don't have to invent more. Structural elements are not as
important in a small model either.
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht
bram@cwru.edu
http://home.cwru.edu/~bxl34/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bram Lambrecht 's spaceplane
|
| Hey Bram, I think Larry was focusing more on the statement "But a 100 piece MOC that makes you go wow is WAY more remarkable.". I mean, I do the same thing...while models like your space plane TOTALLY blow me away in detail, size, design and obvious (...) (23 years ago, 29-May-01, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bram Lambrecht 's spaceplane
|
| (...) Ya, that raises a good point. When you're checking out a 1000 piece MOC it's bound to be somewhat impressive if only because it's large. But a 100 piece MOC that makes you go wow is WAY more remarkable. Large is easy. Small is hard. ++Lar (23 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.space)
|
42 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
|
|
|
|
