Hi all.

I've been browsing MOCs for a few months now and always feel disappointed when I discover on closer inspection that what I thought was a real Lego model is actually a render (a computer generated image).

I don't mean it's a big issue here on Eurobricks. This is the place for general Lego discussion so I thought I'd post my issues with and questions regarding virtual Lego renders here.

On a lot of MOCs it's not stated by the builder that it's a render. I feel that Lego is a physical medium and I am puzzled by small virtual models. I often think what's the point? If you want to build a German Panzer in a 3D program why not just model it in 3DS Max, Lightwave or something?

I mean I can understand the need to design something first and then build it with real Lego. Or the desire to see what something would look like if built from 100 000 bricks and you are a kid and don't have the funds available to purchase the bricks required.

Why the little models though? I don't get it. I could paint an oil panting of a wonderful MOC but that's just a good painting, not a good MOC. Why is a render any different?

Maybe this is an old debate but it has me curious as to what other people think about Lego renders.

When you design something in LDraw or LDD or any of the many digital LEGO tools, the medium is still LEGO. The goal is not to create a digital model of a Thing; the goal is to create a LEGO model of a Thing and the best way to do it (for reasons of convenience, expense, whatever) is digitally.

Hi.

If I sculpt a model of a classical Greek statue in Z Brush (a 3D modelling program with can simulate cray etc.) the medium is not clay or wax, it's pixels and polygons. The end product is not a real 3d statue. I can't put it in my garden.

The same is true for any 3D program, including the Lego ones. So I would argue that the medium is not Lego when using a 3D program.

Personal I feel that the best way to make model from Lego is to use actual Lego.

I would also be very disappointed to find a render of a Lego AT-AT under the Christmas tree. It's just not the same.

Honestly, I think it is pretty easy to know what's a render or not and if some people don't have the funds or whatever else reasons to build IRL then why not using a software. Most people design them in them before buying the parts to build them IRL.

And I must say, some times you'd like a LDD version just to learn how the person did his MOC. But all in all, a render or not, as long as your creation is cool/interesting, I don't mind at all. It's art with LEGO no matter what n.n!

Yes usually you can see the ploys on the curved areas and the quality of light and the shadows give it away. Well for the time being, eventually it will get harder to spot. That's the nature of computer generated imagery. Which I happen to love, don't get me wrong. I have spent many hours producing myself. I'm not against it.

I feel in relation to producing any art the medium is one of the most important components. Here it's Lego, plastic bricks. Getting rid of the bricks from the equation for me undermines the medium. I don't think that's a good thing.

Lego after all is a medium used (mainly) for representation (and playing, phew phew!) to recreate objects, communicate messages, or illustrate scenes in plastic bricks.

That's the creative or clever bit, that you can do these things with plastic bricks.

I think CGI's place in the Lego world is a means to an end and not an end product. Hmmm, maybe I have been thinking about Lego too much today. It's just so darn cool though..

Imagine if you went to a Lego show and everyone simply had ipads with their digital creations on it. Not everyone has the money to make what they really want, which is understandable, but part of the challenge is making something with what you have.

If it's not out of bricks, then it's not Lego. Sitting at a computer is not the same as putting the physical bricks together - you can't know if the parts are available, or if it would really stay together. The modelling programs are for planning and design to assist in making your model a reality, not a final product.

Speaking of under the Christmas tree, some times a part like the bauble doesn't appear to exist in the LEGO Digital Designer program. So a render is not possible. Had to buy the real part and take a picture. The other easier thing with rendering is you don't have to be a good photographer.

ldd vs render vs photo by dr_spock_888, on Flickr

Rather than type everything out again, I'll just link to my post in another identical discussion.

Sometimes when you are limited by the actualy bricks you have, you use LDD or smillar tools to make your model become real in another way... Also its usefull for ordering parts, so you know exactly what you need.

@pinioncorp, I agree LDD has it's use as a design tool. That's where it should end.

@Dr Spock, that's charming. It's true that having a few basic photography skills is necessary for a good MOC presentation.

@Gnac, thanks I enjoyed reading that post a lot. It's good to hear why people do things. That's what I was wondering about.

Here's my further two cents. Digital tools should serve the medium and not become the medium.

I use Photoshop and a digital camera to record an MOC for upload. I don't radically alter the original image. I remove the background and blend the shadows if they are messy. That's it. I stop there. I could go further. But then I would be creating a digital artwork and not an Lego artwork.

I think if you are beginning to concentrate on the digital side of things too much ask yourself "What am I actually doing here? What am I trying to produce?"

Using rendering software etc is really moving away from the original medium. It's about the bricks. Not your skill and knowledge at using a digital tool set.

The "Don't constrain my creativity man." argument is not valid for me as creativity always about working within a set of constraints.

Be that painting, learning how the actual paint responds and changes during the process of painting, 3D modelling, having a polygon budget and texture size. And of course an actual monetary budget.

Builders tend to turn there noses up at renders because the central and most important concerns of the hobby has been missed. The bricks and the process of building an actual Lego object.

You wouldn't turn up to a cake making contest and wonder why no one likes your fibreglass cake you spent 2 weeks making.

The "Don't constrain my creativity man." argument is not valid for me as creativity always about working within a set of constraints.

The only constraint of creativity is your imagination.

Rather than type everything out again, I'll just link to my post in another identical discussion.

And I'll just leave this long winded thread by yours truly here.

@ pinioncorp, amen brother. A visual presentation of exactly what's been on my mind.

Seems like in the 21st century the lines are becoming so blurred that what the "real" is and why it's important anymore is fading. How strange. And interesting.

Like this guys work. Bruceywan on Flikr. There's something relating to this theme present there. He reproduces real world objects.

(Sorry on tablet, no link option).

@ CallMePie, that sounds like a cat poster.

With something like LDD, you're still building within the constraints of the Lego System though, the pieces have to exist and physically fit together. In some ways LDD is stricter in this regard, connections have to be "legal", in others less so because gravity/stability play no part.

I don't see either of them as inherently "better" than the other from a creative perspective, they are just different ways of expressing your Lego based creativity. The fact that you can take a digital only model and make it for real is an added bonus in that regard.

I feel like you are setting an awful lot of arbitrary constraints on the concept of creativity, and failing to distinguish between design, medium, and presentation.

@pinioncorp, I agree LDD has it's use as a design tool. That's where it should end.

Why? This is really as arbitrary as me saying: "New pieces have their use as a design tool. But that's where it should end. Real LEGO constructions use only 2x2 and 2x4 bricks."

Here's my further two cents. Digital tools should serve the medium and not become the medium.

I think if you are beginning to concentrate on the digital side of things too much ask yourself "What am I actually doing here? What am I trying to produce?"

Using rendering software etc is really moving away from the original medium. It's about the bricks. Not your skill and knowledge at using a digital tool set.

The "Don't constrain my creativity man." argument is not valid for me as creativity always about working within a set of constraints.

This is where you are misusing the term "medium". For LEGO constructions, the medium isn't plastic, it's the LEGO System. Which exists in digital format (in fact, in a whole number of different digital formats) and physical format. But they are both the LEGO System. They use the same basic building blocks, connected using a pre-defined mating system, which ultimately becomes a model. The constraints that you are trying to impose have nothing to do with the LEGO System. They are constraints that are part of the plastic real-world.

Again, skill and knowledge using a digital tool is, as far as the medium is concerned, the same skill and knowledge to use the real world: you have to understand the limitations of the pieces and connections in the LEGO System. The actual manipulation of that system is different depending on the tool used in the medium. But that is no different then, say, the skills of wood carving with a chisel vs. a chainsaw: the tool is different and each tool has its own skills and knowledge, but the medium is the same, with the set of skills and knowledge that exist no matter the tool used.

If you believe that a set of constraints enhances your creativity, then, for the sake of your creativity, I would encourage you to embrace those constraints. But again, your constraints are an arbitrary addition to the ultimate constraint, which is building with the LEGO System. And by arguing that digital creation isn't "real" creativity, then you are disenfranchising countless members of our community who, for reasons of space, time, budget, or other complications, are dependent on digital design to express their creativity with the LEGO System.

I use Photoshop and a digital camera to record an MOC for upload. I don't radically alter the original image. I remove the background and blend the shadows if they are messy. That's it. I stop there. I could go further. But then I would be creating a digital artwork and not an Lego artwork.

Now, we're stepping on the distinction between medium and presentation. Why is it where you stop is the exact line between "just a picture" and "digital artwork"? I say that any alteration as extreme as removing a background makes that a piece of digital artwork! But both of these are arbitrary lines in the sand. In fact, it as soon as you took a picture of your creation with a digital camera, it became digital artwork. However, in this moment, we don't care about the digital artwork, because we are simply using it as a mechanism (or medium, if you will) to present the MOC. In other words, you always have the picture (which is artwork) of a model (which is artwork). The former is usually the tool to display the latter. But, often, the former is also a quality work-of-art in and of itself.

Be that painting, learning how the actual paint responds and changes during the process of painting, 3D modelling, having a polygon budget and texture size. And of course an actual monetary budget.

Learning how actual paint responds is an important part of learning the skills and knowledge of that medium. Having a monetary budget is never a part of any medium. It may be limit the scope and scale of the project, but in is not inherit to the medium.

Builders tend to turn there noses up at renders because the central and most important concerns of the hobby has been missed. The bricks and the process of building an actual Lego object.

Says who? Only "real" LEGO builders? Sounds like a "no true Scotsman" fallacy to me. This community has an entire subforum dedicated to construction tips for digital models. And you'll find

You wouldn't turn up to a cake making contest and wonder why no one likes your fibreglass cake you spent 2 weeks making.

That's because fiberglass isn't even remotely part of the cake medium. This is a straw man fallacy. However, you'd probably be interested to learn the term "cake dummy", which are (generally) Styrofoam bricks in the shape of cakes. These are widely used in cake decorating contests because the medium there is the frosting, fondant, flowers, etc. used to decorate the cake. The point here is that you have to understand the medium you are talking about before you arbitrarily ascribe certain limitations or constraints to it.

Edited September 28, 201410 yr by Nick2253

Maybe they should be called MODs - My Own Design.

When I have lego time, I prefer to use bricks, rather than do it virtually. I also like to know if a model is actually viable, for which real bricks must be used.

Honestly, I think it is pretty easy to know what's a render or not and if some people don't have the funds or whatever else reasons to build IRL then why not using a software. Most people design them in them before buying the parts to build them IRL.

Rendering technology is improving all the time and if you're viewing the image on an old or small screen (such as a smartphone), it most certainly isn't always easy to tell it's not real. As a courtesy to others, posters here at EB and elsewhere should always state in a thread's title if it's a render or should post in dedicated rendering forums. Trying to pass renders as real is dishonest.

Why not use software? I'm currently restoring/reconstructing a long defunct set. It's taken me a significant investment of time, money and effort to get the pieces on the secondary market and restore them. I could have recreated the set quickly and easily using rendering software but I wouldn't have the set as it was originally released, only an image of it, and the project wouldn't require restoration skills or much dedication.

As to your point that most real MOCs start as renders, I very much doubt that. For one thing, most MOCs are created by kids who usually lack the patience, planning or desire to render the MOC first. Even among TFOLs and AFOLs, I think it's very unlikely that most start with a render, maybe for large/complex MOCs, but not otherwise.

Edited September 29, 201410 yr by AmperZand

I personally have never used LDD or similar however I enjoy viewing LDD creations and appreciate the building techniques involved.

I don't see a problem with the idea that digital MOCs should be clearly labeled as such. I'm a HUGE fan of digital creations, and since much of my collection is inaccessible, most of my own building is done digitally. Digital MOCs are no less creative than physical MOCs, but there are different constraints, and so it's a good idea to know what you're looking at.

For instance, digital MOCing allows for builds too colossal to be constructed in real life, which means that obviously the creator is not limited by their physical resources, but at the same time it means that the amount of time and work put into the design may be vastly greater than what would even be feasible for a physical model. The UCS Helicarrier on Lego Ideas is absolutely a work of art—but in real life it would likely be the size and weight of a full-size coffin, something supporters should be aware of before considering its viability as a purchasable set.

Also, digital MOCs are not always able to be built with real parts, since they allow for customized parts or prints as well as parts in colors that aren't available. That's not a bad thing, necessarily—it allows a builder to simulate the kind of detail Lego can afford to put into official sets using new, decorated, or recolored parts, which is not physically feasible for most fans outside of the most skilled customizers. But it DOES mean that a person who looks at the MOC and wants to borrow a part of its design should be aware that doing so with official, physical bricks may well be an impossibility. When I build digital MOCs for Lego Ideas, I often build them with the knowledge that a limited number of recolors and custom prints might be not just viable, but necessary for accurately depicting licensed characters and settings, and that Lego would have the capability of introducing those parts if my project were to succeed. But if I wanted to build these models in real life, I'd need to use expert customization techniques to achieve the same result, or make do with existing parts and prints.

Finally, not all digital MOCs are created equal. Building digitally frees the builder from real-world constraints like part durability or gravity, and as such even a digital model which uses only existing parts may be fragile if built in real life, or might not be able to stay together at all. Most good digital builders take that into account in their designs, imposing constraints on their models that the software itself does not. But not all builders comprehend or care about applying real-world limits to their digital creations, and as such knowing which MOCs use stable and reliable connections and which may supported solely by skyhooks and prayers is important for those viewing any model, and knowing whether it's digitally or physically constructed is a big part of that.

Personally, I use LDD to work my models so that when i do build them, I know the instructions from memory. (well, sometimes it works, sometimes not!) I figure LDD is a extra test, as it can work there, but not in real life. Plus, I can use LDD Manager to list the needed parts on a spreadsheet to make ordering parts easier. If I have a part already, I just delete it from the model. (Usually I keep two of every model I build: one for the completed build, one for parts lists and actual building instructions, if needed)

Without LDD, I would have to build it in real life first, changing things as I went with no real instructions except a vauge direction in my head of what I want to build. It's not much different than using graph paper to sketch out the basic design for your model, or even imagining what your model will look like... and who hasn't done that?

Just think on this: the virtual build is your imagination on a computer, a cost-free realm where your only limits are the ones you determine (okay, and the approx 20,000 piece limit on LDD) you can build a purple castle with black spires and gold, window frames or a big black 2-8-8-2 Y6a steam locomotive from Norfok & Western.

It's all up to you, all you have to do is "Just Imagine..."

I don't normally build with LDD unless I am planning to share the design or co-ordinating a group project build. I find that I can build faster with an idea in my head and real bricks. LDD seems like an unnecessary extra step if I am doing my own thing.

Maybe they should be called MODs - My Own Design.

MOD is already used for "MODifications". Most people here use "LDD" in the subject line if they are showing a virtual creation.