On the subject of SPUDs in MOCs...

[Fallenangel]

We've all seen this piece before:

As well as this piece:

I've seen relatively few TIE MOCs that don't utilize one of these two parts. Which brings me to the subject of parts that are molded and/or printed for a single purpose, or which are frequently utilized among less experienced builders as a conventional solution, which I suppose would fall into the category of SPUDs (according to our EB Glossary, 'Special/Single Piece/Purpose Ugly/Useless/unLegoish Designs/Decoratives'). Obviously there are a few other parts in the Star Wars theme that fit this description (the Y-wing canopy comes to mind). So my question is, would you use SPUDs when designing or building an MOC, and why?

I suppose this kind of question is probably more of a case-by-case thing, but I think it could also be like a specific building style. For example, perhaps someone who prefers MOCs that look like official sets would opt for SPUDs more often, while those wishing to deviate more from the set look would use a more unorthodox solution.

[LandShark]

This is a very good idea for a discussion, it'll be interesting to see everyone's opinions.

As for me, I don't make MOC's very often, but I will admit I used that first cockpit piece in my recent TIE MOC (that I'll be posting soon).

I generally try to avoid them though. That said, I have seen some very clever usage of supposed 'SPUDs' in other people's MOCs.

But I think you managed to sum it up pretty well:

I suppose this kind of question is probably more of a case-by-case thing, but I think it could also be like a specific building style. For example, perhaps someone who prefers MOCs that look like official sets would opt for SPUDs more often, while those wishing to deviate more from the set look would use a more unorthodox solution.

[Julandrius]

When I build my creations I try to make it myself as hard as possible. For 2 reasons, NPU - Nice Part Usage is a "style?" I really like. And originality is more appreciated by other people, so that's also nice.

For these canopies for example I'd first to try to make them out of all sort of greebles, light gray droid arms and maybe some flag poles might do the job.

If my trials look like shit and I can't get to fix it I will probably use the TLG-piece. Bt first of all I try to be accurate and original.

Same with the BURPs, I really hate those.

[Siegfried]

The worst thing about the big one is that it's angled wrong; it's supposed to rest on a point, not a flat. (Wookiepedia.)

(according to our EB Glossary, 'Special/Single Piece/Purpose Ugly/Useless/unLegoish Designs/Decoratives')

Glad to see my efforts to clean up the Glossary aren't a waste of time!

[Hollander]

I have to agree with Julandrius; I would try to make one with droid arms and/or bar pieces. And if it won't turn out nicely, I would have to use a so called ''SPUD'' piece. Of course I would rather use a neat self designed canopy than such a big ugly canopy piece. But if you want to design a TIE-fighter with some playabilty features, a construction of droid arms won't turn out the way you want it I guess, in that case a canopy would be more useful of course.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Hollander

[Mr Man]

(the Y-wing canopy comes to mind). So my question is, would you use SPUDs when designing or building an MOC, and why?

In front of me on my desk are two MOCs utilising the Y-Wing canopy piece. It is a useful piece for sci-fi ships. The TIE cockpit pieces, by contrast are more useful for window parts on MOCS, I don't own them (thank goodness) but I would probably make my own TIE front if I had to. As for whether I would use them it would depend on whether I had any better parts available on hand if I where to build a TIE.

[Brickdoctor]

That depends entirely on what I'm using it for. I probably wouldn't use it for it's intended purpose, but there are plenty who use prefab parts for other uses and make them look like they aren't prefab. Dump truck bins for space freighters are a good example.

[Julandrius]

That depends entirely on what I'm using it for. I probably wouldn't use it for it's intended purpose, but there are plenty who use prefab parts for other uses and make them look like they aren't prefab. Dump truck bins for space freighters are a good example.

I totally agree,

Sorry for the self-advertisement.

You mean this kind of thing?

Edited August 14, 2011 by Julandrius

[Brickdoctor]

[snip]

You mean this kind of thing?

If you mean what I think are cannon in that pic being used as forced-perspective nuclear reactors, yes, that's what I meant. Beautiful job there, by the way.

[Churchill]

I don't have a problem with it. But, I agree that it's a case by case thing. 35 years ago we had to use the clear bricks for all "canopies." They were just pieces of Lego that we could use any way we wanted, and that's what we had. I feel the same way about these pieces. They're just different pieces of Lego. If it works, great.

Now, if you're trying to build an A-wing MOC and using the Y-wing piece, it's not a good use of the SPUD. But for a generic ship, if you like the way the Y-wing cockpit looks, who cares?

I will say that I don't really like greebled windscreen/canopies. It's just a personal preference.

[Vindicare]

I have a question for you accuracy junkies, how can you really use droid arms, bars, poles and the like to create a windscreen when there's no glass? That's a big infraction in the accuracy department, wouldn't it be? I know if I were to pilot a starship, I'd want the canopy to have glass.

[Brickdoctor]

I have a question for you accuracy junkies, how can you really use droid arms, bars, poles and the like to create a windscreen when there's no glass? That's a big infraction in the accuracy department, wouldn't it be? I know if I were to pilot a starship, I'd want the canopy to have glass.

Not if to use transparent pieces would be even more inaccurate. And sometimes there's some other, more important factor. Such as in my T-16, where it was important to include the pilot, but not as important to include the windscreen, since there's no windscreen on the half-completed studio model, and I couldn't include both.

[Praiter Yed]

IMO it is a case by case thing. I used to have this issue with some pieces where I felt they were so specialised that they were no longer like Lego, but I've almost got over that now. So I don't have anything against SPUDs or BURPs if they can be used effectively.

Sometimes I look at these pieces and think it would be nice to use them as a starting point for an MOC. To come up with a creative way of using them just for the challenge/fun of it. I've not found time for that yet though.

I know if I were to pilot a starship, I'd want the canopy to have glass.

If I were to pilot a starship I'd want it to be built from something other than Lego.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Praiter Yed

[Julandrius]

I have a question for you accuracy junkies, how can you really use droid arms, bars, poles and the like to create a windscreen when there's no glass? That's a big infraction in the accuracy department, wouldn't it be? I know if I were to pilot a starship, I'd want the canopy to have glass.

Accuracy is a big thing. But as I stated before I try to find new echniques. I want to discover new things instead of using prefab stuff. It might look less accurate, but it gives a lot more pleasure to build it .

[Fallenangel]

First of all, Juladrius, that nuclear waste scene looks fantastic! That's a very clever use of the cannon, and the green skeleton to the left of the minifigure is a nice touch. You're quite the quality MOCer. If you were to have some smoke coming out of those cannons, it would be even better.

@Siegfried: Although you're right about the orientation of the canopy, there is a shot in the film when Vader is looking out at Luke's X-wing where the canopy actually does rest on a flat edge. ILM fudged there, I guess.

I have a question for you accuracy junkies, how can you really use droid arms, bars, poles and the like to create a windscreen when there's no glass? That's a big infraction in the accuracy department, wouldn't it be? I know if I were to pilot a starship, I'd want the canopy to have glass.

With Star Wars MOCs (or any MOcs for that matter) in which it would be unnecessarily difficult or aesthetically unpleasing to have 'glass' in a canopy, I don't think I would really mind if the canopy were 'open'. The canopies in many of the studio models have real glass but leave the pilots looking fully visible (the Fine Molds TIE/ln even gives you the option of leaving the glass off), so there are instances in which you could skimp on the glass but still maintain resemblance to the source material:

On the other hand, when it is difficult for the concept to be recognizable without 'glass' (as in the case of the Slave I or RZ-1) and brickbuilt solutions just won't do, one generally finds it more convenient to use a canopy piece, or even a SPUD:

That being said, if I were to attempt an RZ-1 or an N-1, I would experiment with varous brickbuilt solutions before using the generic canopy piece. I think Julandrius brings up a good point in wanting to use and develop new techniques - they often end up becoming something far better than the conventional method (the canopy construction on roguebantha's X-wing comes to mind).

If I were to pilot a starship I'd want it to be built from something other than Lego.

And for the record, I think using droid arms and flagpoles as a TIE canopy solution at the UCS scale would look great, if executed properly. As nice as all of Walter Kovacs' TIEs look, a more innovative approach would certainly be welcomed.

Edited August 14, 2011 by fallenangel309

[Hollander]

The SPUD canopy is no match for this beauty.

http://www.mocpages.com/image_zoom.php?mocid=9143&id=/user_brickshelf_resized/gallery/cre8ivejuan/Tie-Fighter/tie-fighter-02.jpg

Edited August 14, 2011 by Hollander

[Fallenangel]

I was just looking for that MOC. Some wonderful studs-up work there (though those perfectly hexagonal wing panels are unacceptable ).

[Brickdoctor]

That being said, if I were to attempt an RZ-1 or an N-1, I would experiment with varous brickbuilt solutions before using the generic canopy piece. I think Julandrius brings up a good point in wanting to use and develop new techniques - they often end up becoming something far better than the conventional method (the canopy construction on roguebantha's X-wing comes to mind).

And another thing to consider would be solid black canopies. If you don't want to fit a minifig in, it can open up a lot of possibilities.

[Fallenangel]

And another thing to consider would be solid black canopies. If you don't want to fit a minifig in, it can open up a lot of possibilities.

Depending on how accurate or detailed you like your ships, I think utilizing a solid black canopy could prove to be less effective than a no-glass canopy or even a SPUD. Among other things, the cockpit detail that would normally be visible in a studio model with a clear canopy would be lost (though that's not to say it isn't a good decision).

[Brickdoctor]

Depending on how accurate or detailed you like your ships, I think utilizing a solid black canopy could prove to be less effective than a no-glass canopy or even a SPUD. Among other things, the cockpit detail that would normally be visible in a studio model with a clear canopy would be lost (though that's not to say it isn't a good decision).

It really depends on the craft. Especially on models smaller than minifig-scale and not intended to hold minifigs, I think it can work quite well.

[Churchill]

I agree with Brickdoctor that on some smaller models, the all-black canopy works. It's pushing it, though, once you get to minifig scale. As I said before, I'm not a fan of the greeble canopy, but I like the way the UCS falcon looks. That TIE moc looks good, too.

In general, for playability, a prefab plastic canopy works best, and for the majority of the ships that Lego creates (aimed at kids) it's the best solution for playability/accuracy.

For a really detailed MOC, or a UCS set, the greebling might work best.

I think this is a discussion that we could go round and round about for pages. It just depends on the goal of the creator and the eye of the beholder. I try to be objective as I can, and I can think of MOCs using all these techniques that I like.

But a Lego piece is a lego piece, whether its just a clear brick, a prefab canopy, a SPUD or a BURP. We can make anything work!

[StoutFiles]

I don't get the Ugly in SPUD. Sorry, but I feel a specially-made piece with printing is going to look better than a non-printed one or brick-building the same part. I encourage their usage in MOC's because they look better, assuming the scale fits the piece and the piece was designed correctly.

Edited August 14, 2011 by StoutFiles

[Fallenangel]

I have a question for you accuracy junkies, how can you really use droid arms, bars, poles and the like to create a windscreen when there's no glass? That's a big infraction in the accuracy department, wouldn't it be? I know if I were to pilot a starship, I'd want the canopy to have glass.

Something interesting I thought I should bring up:

Look carefully through this gallery, and this one, and this one. I don't think there is any cockpit glass.

[StoutFiles]

Something interesting I thought I should bring up:

Look carefully through this gallery, and this one, and this one. I don't think there is any cockpit glass.

It wouldn't be surprising, glass would just reflect things, like large cameras filming them.

[Brickdoctor]

It wouldn't be surprising, glass would just reflect things, like large cameras filming them.

And interfere with the bluescreening.

Though as there is glass on some other studio models, my guess is that ILM was running out of time and/or money and decided the TIEs would work just fine without glass. I'm pretty sure the T-65s had glass.