[MOC] Desk-Scale Star Wars fleet

[simplethinker]

The dang topic won’t accept the pictures of my junker U-wing for some reason so here they are:https://www.flickr.com/photos/simplethinker/28397242477/in/dateposted/

Edited October 21, 2018 by simplethinker

[Kristof]

On 10/20/2018 at 9:33 AM, simplethinker said:

Funny, I’ve had some say the falcon is too thin, so thanks for the compliment.  proportions are very important for this collection’s purpose.

Could have well been me on Flickr :D I suggested it's flat and on some renders. I have to say I am a believer in complementing two aspects when it comes to designing small models, where spatial restrictions apply and one faces the resolution limit of lego part sizes. One is keeping the dimensions and proportions correct, but the other, and for me equally important one, is giving significant design features enough 'room' to fully develop. That may sound wordy and nonspecific, so here some example:

Your falcon design has 5 plate thick mandibles, which, I have no doubt, corresponds pretty well to the desired proportional thickness according to some dimensional drawings or whatever you used for reference. However, I think that one of the key visual features of those mandibles is the greeble along all its sides, which is, sadly, only represented by 1 plate thick 'gap' in your model. In my view, it makes the mandibles look flatter than they might actually be in reality, just because the side profile is missing the 'beef' of the greebling. I would much prefer having 1 stud wide greebling and just 1 plate thick panels on the top and bottom (plus some plates on top if needed), similarly to i.e. this model. Similar thing applies few time on your falcon model, hence my comment about flatness :)

This phenomena, to me, seems only to be present in small scale, where sometimes it is beneficial to deviate from the maximum dimensional accuracy in order to get some key characteristics in. Sure, anyone can disagree, but that's how I see it.

Bottom line, you have a great model collection :D Pleasure to look at.

[Brick-Wombat]

2 hours ago, krisandkris12 said:

Spoiler

 

Could have well been me on Flickr :D I suggested it's flat and on some renders. I have to say I am a believer in complementing two aspects when it comes to designing small models, where spatial restrictions apply and one faces the resolution limit of lego part sizes. One is keeping the dimensions and proportions correct, but the other, and for me equally important one, is giving significant design features enough 'room' to fully develop. That may sound wordy and nonspecific, so here some example:

Your falcon design has 5 plate thick mandibles, which, I have no doubt, corresponds pretty well to the desired proportional thickness according to some dimensional drawings or whatever you used for reference. However, I think that one of the key visual features of those mandibles is the greeble along all its sides, which is, sadly, only represented by 1 plate thick 'gap' in your model. In my view, it makes the mandibles look flatter than they might actually be in reality, just because the side profile is missing the 'beef' of the greebling. I would much prefer having 1 stud wide greebling and just 1 plate thick panels on the top and bottom (plus some plates on top if needed), similarly to i.e. this model. Similar thing applies few time on your falcon model, hence my comment about flatness :)

This phenomena, to me, seems only to be present in small scale, where sometimes it is beneficial to deviate from the maximum dimensional accuracy in order to get some key characteristics in. Sure, anyone can disagree, but that's how I see it.

Bottom line, you have a great model collection :D Pleasure to look at.

 

 

 

Your Venator is another good example of this design decision. It's not as narrow as it appears in references, but I assume you deemed it a worthy trade-off in order to add the greebling and detailing along the side. It might be considered more cartoonish by some, but I think the overall aesthetic is improved. 

OneCase did something similar with his ISD. His original version had greebling along trench, but, in his final design, he recessed it to get the sharper edge. In this case (no pun intended), I think he made a good decision.

 

Edited October 21, 2018 by K_W

[Kristof]

@K_W,

You are absolutely right, It was deliberate in my case and it is indeed chubbier than the reference side profile. And there are more things where I decided to go with subjective looks over accuracy. I agree on the @onecase's ISD as well. These things are very object specific, in this case I think the greebling thickness on ISD is proportionally smaller than on Venator (on most reliable references anyway). Nonetheless, I liked how on original version @onecase inset the greebling more inwards... now that I look at it, for me it might be close to tie between the visual impression of the two :)

[simplethinker]

@K_W, @krisandkris12

This is what I love about building small.  It presents a unique problem solving scenario where you can’t have everything.  You have to break down what you’re doing to its most basic form, kinda like pixelating it in your mind, where only the things that make it recognizable are left. @krisandkris12, I totally agree about some design elements being important enough to forgo size considerations.  Trade offs, trade offs.  For me, it’s good for the brain because it’s like a puzzle to make these decisions.

But putting in the community is where it gets interesting.  What one person deems important to include may be less important to someone else.  Leads to very juicy discussions and a great variety of slightly different, but all respectable interpretations. This thread is a good case in point. 

As far as capital ships go, I’m almost on the edge of the size where brick-built greebling isn’t feesable at all.  Sometimes I have to use elements of parts to approximate it, like the “teeth” at the bottom of wedge plates.  In the case of the venator, I put some translucent 1x1s in that gap so the greebling or window effects are just slightly recessed.

@krisandkris12, Yeah, it was you.  I didn’t realize it because your handle is different on flickr, but on second look I recognize the symbol.  I thought you meant the whole thing.  I definitely can see how the mandibles can seem a bit thin.  It came down to what I thought represented the greebles while also keeping the proportions as close as I could to the reference material I had.  I figured the gap plus the “teeth” on the bottom of the wedge plates would break up the edge enough to do that.  Abstracting something in lego is not a science.  Anywho, as I think about it, perhaps I could get away with putting a few 1x1 plates with horizontal clips in that gap like I did behind the air locks.  What do you think?

Edited October 21, 2018 by simplethinker

[Kristof]

Yeah :D Like some generic Jedi once said:

'Only the Sith deals with absolutes!'

And there is no absolute when it comes to what is the better way to represent things in lego. You know where I stand in this - I would always go for proper 1 plate thick stud-on-side based greeble for mandibles on falcon this big. Mainly for looks but also because I always struggle finding a sufficient way to reverse the stud orientation in just 1 plate thick area (since I don't allow myself to use the old style hinges or some non conservative techniques to execute that). But I agree that in your narrower case some more texture in the gap might improve the looks. either the clips, or maybe some fun elements like rollerskates? 

 

[simplethinker]

Oooooo!! I like the rollerskate idea. I’ll tinker around and try that as well as see if there are some other novel pieces that I could find to work in there.  I’ll also see if perhaps instead of having a one wide plate inside the wedge pieces, perhaps I can get it outside.  I’d use one of those pieces that is a 1x1 round plate with a bar on it and a 1x1 round plate with a hole in it.

[sed6]

6 hours ago, simplethinker said:

It came down to what I thought represented the greebles while also keeping the proportions as close as I could to the reference material I had.  I figured the gap plus the “teeth” on the bottom of the wedge plates would break up the edge enough to do that.

I agree completely! The teeth add a lot IMO. I think you nailed it. 

[simplethinker]

34 minutes ago, sed6 said:

I agree completely! The teeth add a lot IMO. I think you nailed it. 

'preciate it!

[YodaSkate]

As I said on Flickr, love these, especially that Ghost! My favorite scale of all.

[thockin]

I'd pay for instructions for First Order Star Destroyer, Ghost, U-Wing...

 

If you want to share more details, please let me know.

 

[Seyguh]

These are wonderfully made! So simple and elegant, whilst still capturing the details of the movie versions of the ships. Very impressive!

[simplethinker]

On 3/3/2019 at 4:37 PM, thockin said:

I'd pay for instructions for First Order Star Destroyer, Ghost, U-Wing...

 

If you want to share more details, please let me know.

 

Sorry for the late reply.  I already have instructions for the Ghost and the Millennium Falcon up on Rebrickable.

On 3/3/2019 at 6:09 PM, Seyguh said:

These are wonderfully made! So simple and elegant, whilst still capturing the details of the movie versions of the ships. Very impressive!

Thank you very much!

[thockin]

FO Destroyer and U-wings next? :D