Building MOCs like official sets

[GregoryBrick]

I like creating things out of LEGO bricks which look like they could have been official sets. Most, if not all, MOCs I see do not do this. A recent exception on this forum is in the Sci-Fi forum where user Nuju Metru built an entire theme. Is there a term for this, or a group of builders who build in this style? Here's some clarification about what I mean:

Official LEGO sets feature:

• an economy of parts, both in the number of elements used to create something and the variety of elements in a set.
  
• stability. They don't fall over or fall apart in the hands.
  
• visible studs.
  
• 'legal' connections only.
  

Most MOCs from AFOLs I see feature or value the opposite:

• whatever parts the user sees fit, whether each element is only used once or a large proportion of the elements are all the same brick (e.g. 500 pieces of foilage). The same goes for colour - either a huge swath of colours or almost all bricks are the same.
  
• very dense construction.
  
• lots of greebles.
  
• no visible studs if at all possible.
  
• illegal connections, minifigure hands separate from bodies, bricks just laid in place or with fiddly construction methods.
  

There's nothing wrong with either approach, but I prefer the challenge and aesthetics of the former. Is there anybody building in this manner?

[Lego Spy]

There's nothing wrong with either approach, but I prefer the challenge and aesthetics of the former. Is there anybody building in this manner?

I must state that I typically build the latter. I'm actually building something right now that currently has at least 3 connections that would be considered "illegal". I think the purpose in "illegal" building techniques is that, well, they look good, whereas (no offense to Lego) official sets have a somewhat limited variety of building techniques. However I believe I have built some MOCs in the past that lean more toward the Lego-fficial side of things.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Lego Spy

[greeny]

Honestly I like building both ways. Most of my MOC's tend to be like 'official' sets (minus the flick fire missiles ) but sometimes I feel like making a detailed MOC.

[II5hyena]

Also, most Official Lego sets have at least one play feature included with them, so if you want to build MOC's like Official sets, then including play features would be a good challenge.

[Saint]

I build like the latter too.. Part Heavy, currently working on a new project ( I like to call it "project CTT" ) . The wheels alone are over the 10.000 count , rinse and repeat, copy paste, there the same.

I want to build as sturdy as possible, don't do much in the "illegal connections" department , however, I like experimenting with my LEGO.

• whatever parts the user sees fit, whether each element is only used once or a large proportion of the elements are all the same brick (e.g. 500 pieces of foilage). The same goes for colour - either a huge swath of colours or almost all bricks are the same. check
  
• very dense construction. check
  
• lots of greebles. check
  
• no visible studs if at all possible. check
  
• illegal connections, minifigure hands separate from bodies, bricks just laid in place or with fiddly construction methods. not yet
  

I think everybody does at one time use a kind of illegal connection of sorts, and really , if I had the chance to fiddle about with 10.000 hands in tan ( for example ) I would try my hands ( ) on some roof of sorts.

I use really everything what I can get my hands on, only better if I've got about a gazillion of the same sort, usealy I only start out with a fe of one sort, search through my bins like crazy, just to find a few more, and see the opportunity to use a lot more because I think the part is very cool to use.

Another small example : A few years back I had the chance to pick up a 40 or so bricks 6x5 with the snake on them from the HP-series, Never found a use for them untill recently, I flipped them around and use the grey side for my project, and in responce to that, I found out that I wanted a LOT more if possible..

So I try to bulk up my parts.

I like to create models that can be build with a good collection of bricks, not sets.

Hope my story is a bit clear for you, I'm a bit fuzzy in the head right now ( bit sick )

grtz Saint

[LiamM32]

Nice topic to find, Gregory. I think that I have done a bit of this, as well as the other category. I like to make concepts of products. I think that I've done a bit of models with both physical parts and LDD (mostly LDD), intended as an idea for a set. When I do this, I stay mostly on the lines of what's normaly seen in Lego sets, but also place in my original ideas of features that should be in sets. I have also thought of ideas for themes, but never put-down much being a slow builder on a limited budget. I also have thought of ideas for products that aren't building kits, like gear and accessories. Those ideas are typically expressed on paper, as they often relly on new elements and the way that they're sold. On Google Sketchup, I have made some 3D models of element concepts. When I decide on the right place to host images and find time to write about them, I plan to post the element concepts on this topic.

Lego Cuusoo has probably boosted the popularity of this MOC building field. But some members there may go too far off. I have not posted any projects there yet, but want to in the future. Do you have any Cuusoo projects active or planned, GregoryBrick?

[CP5670]

There's nothing wrong with either approach, but I prefer the challenge and aesthetics of the former. Is there anybody building in this manner?

I almost always build like this. I consider stability and strength especially important, and ensure that any fine detailing and greebles I build make no compromises there. I often build MOCs around official Lego themes as well. I like to think of them as "extending" my collection of those themes, as if they had been actual Lego sets.

I think people's styles depend a lot on whether they build playable models or static scenes. Both types of MOCs are common here and I like them both, but build the former myself. Models of this type have to be more like official Lego sets and can't fall apart easily. Scenes, on the other hand, are essentially meant to be photographed and tell a story of some kind, so there is more of an emphasis on fine details.

Edited October 13, 2013 by CP5670

[Andy D]

I think you can find examples of each type of building here on EB. Lots of the smaller dioramas and many of be modulars look like they could be sets. But, many of the larger scenes tend to be things that could not be sets because of extensive use of parts to make it look more realistic, more like art and less like a set.

I tend to think of my LEGO as art, therefore I am not concened with the number of parts I use. I am sure many of us tend to think of our LEGO as art. All LEGO is art to me. It is just wheither it is viewable art (don't play with it) or art that is meant to be touched and played with.

Andy D

[VBBN]

Lego has some categories, like the 5000 pc MF and the Cafe Corner series of sets that are more "adult" themed, and I like to think of the latter style of MOCs as fitting to that category.

Personally I MOC more in the lego-style category, mostly because I have very few system parts to work with, and as a result my MOCs are usually a mess.

VBBN

[Werlu Ulcur]

I think the most important feature in my MOCs is swooshability/playability. Of course the model has to look like what I was aiming at, but it has to be sturdy to the point that I think I could use maybe 20% less parts then I usually use. It has to look good but it CAN'T be fragile.

Like Gregory wrote, I see a LOT of MOCs where I have the impression that they need to be kept behind glass because a breeze may brake them. No problem with that, whatever floats your boat, but for me a fragile model just doesn't work.

[Aanchir]

I dabble in both kinds of building. I often like to challenge myself with a very specific piece count or parts palette, and I love the challenge of trying to build something to resemble a potential set. But if a MOC is looking particularly good and I can't find any way to "finish" it without using dubiously-legal building techniques, I am usually not afraid to forfeit the challenge for the sake of what I see as a more elegant MOC.

My Hero Factory Canine Buddy, Koboldon (both forms), Sophia Blaze, and Blacktron Concept all stuck mostly to parts and building techniques that might be at home in an official set, though only the first and the last of these were designed specifically to resemble potential sets. Delwyn Buckler is constructed with feasible parts and building techniques, but an actual set might have more exposed studs and simpler building techniques. Kit Martello and Bogwaddle have parts held in only by gravity/compression: it might not TECHNICALLY be illegal depending on those parts' specific tolerances, but it's definitely something that would not be approved in a set. And Cyril Starlight and Natalie Breez (custom) use very definitely illegal connections. So as you can see, my MOCs tend to cover a pretty wide spectrum.

It should be noted that even official LEGO designers don't eschew connections that leave parts slightly compressed in their own MOCs. And no builder can possibly know all the details of what would be acceptable or unacceptable in a set — for all you know, that part that hasn't been used in a while might have been discontinued due to serious structural flaws, not just no longer being necessary. Why build things to resemble potential sets, then? For the challenge, of course.

I don't think MOCs should be judged positively or negatively according to whether they're set-like. Even if some models' fragility or illegal connections make me cringe, the model should be judged according to the context in which the builder constructed it. If it was meant only as a display piece, then it need not be held to a high standard of structural stability. At the same time, ANY MOC should be judged positively for achieving what it set out to achieve, and as such MOCists who set a challenge for themselves and meet it deserve praise for that achievement, even if you think the model could be better without adhering to that MOCist's constraints.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Aanchir

[GregoryBrick]

Thanks to everyone for the replies. No, LiamM32, I don't have any CUUSOO projects at the moment - but this is one place where I see the two styles of building, or at least a difference between AFOL MOCs and official sets. I much prefer the official BTTF DeLorean to the proposal model, and this includes the hood. Hopefully I will have some time to make a CUUSOO proposal of my own soon.

I don't judge MOCs strongly on illegal connections (or any of the other criteria I listed), but when I do see such an approach it makes me wonder, did the builder have to do it that way, or does it mean that they missed an alternative solution? Some of my favourite builds are set alternates, as the constraints are fairly obvious and one has to be quite creative to stretch the limits of what you can do with one set.

[dr_spock]

If it is for public display at shows and events, I'd prefer to use the sturdy construction method. Young kids and some adults do not understand the do not touch signs. I think there is a limit to number of times you can rebuild your MOC before going postal.

[mon-o-mat]

I prefer building like it could be a set. I want to let MOCs stay side to side to official sets, so I try to "copy" the style of the theme

[snaillad]

I like my models to be stable even though they don't move from my desk after I've built them. I'm an 'engineer' in real life and I think I apply this to my models even if it's unintentional. I use a lot of SNOT in my buildings but more for aesthetics rather than supporting other bricks

I've seen amazing uses of hands/tubing and the such but I don't really copy those methods. It sounds boring but I like to experiment more with combining colours and textures. It's probably the modular buildings that set me off this way.

Although I will admit to using perhaps more bricks than I should, but if there is an area that is going to be hidden I just stick any old bricks in! If no one see's it, who cares?

[Carrera124]

I prefer building like it could be a set. I want to let MOCs stay side to side to official sets, so I try to "copy" the style of the theme

+1

I admire the advanced building techniques that MOC builders have developed, but personally I stick to the classic building style of the 80ies / early 90ies.

[bacem]

i don't really know in which category i am, but all of my MOC is either a combiner of two sets, or a B-model, if the sets has many parts. i never use parts outside of the respective sets i use. and i never use illegal connection, more like, i can't. just don't know how to do it.

[Carrera124]

I also own a number of older sets that were never mixed up with other sets. Because I want to keep them in original state.

It's quite an interesting challenge to create MOCs when using only a limited amount of parts/bricks, given by the original inventory of the respective set.

[LiamM32]

One thing that I have done a bit of is making alternate models to MOCs. Alternate models aren't included as instructions in all sets, but it's much more of something for sets than MOCs. Thinking back to what I used to do on Digital Designer, once I designed a Creator freight train set, where each individual car had it's own alternate model.

For play features; I actually like to put more/better play features than what's typicall in official sets. I think that Technic functions are underutilised as play features in sets, which I like to put more of in my creations.

I mostly mean for system MOC's, but you can see the page of my Bionicle MOC Toa Leham. Click on it in my signature.

Edited October 16, 2013 by LiamM32

[CP5670]

For play features; I actually like to put more/better play features than what's typicall in official sets. I think that Technic functions are underutilised as play features in sets, which I like to put more of in my creations.

I mostly mean for system MOC's, but you can see the page of my Bionicle MOC Toa Leham. Click on it in my signature.

I try to do the same thing with my MOCs, like this one. There is definitely a lot of potential here. I think there aren't many people who build both Technic and system/minifig-scale MOCs, so we don't see it more often.

[Paul B Technic]

Different people like different things and as such the two different "styles" you asked about are used. Some people even build both ways.

I think it is more about building a MOC which YOU like, what style it is and if somebody else likes it should only be a secondary consideration :)

[Faefrost]

I like to think I am a fairly common MOC'er. I tend to be a bit liberal in parts usage and colors within a reasonable budget. I don't get overly exotic in terms of technique or connections and never use anything that would be considered an "illegal" connection. I tend to strictly engineer my stuff. I like it to be able to safely move or to be able to swoosh it. I tend to cover up studs in some ways (I tend to heavily tile floors), and ignore them in others (they don't bother me as much on roof's. It's a texture thing).

[TheOrcKing]

When I feel like going all out for a design (or just don't care), I put it together any which way I please. However, I do enjoy the challenge of working within limits and trying to make the build appear as if Lego had designed it themselves so what I typically do is build the concept out then go over redesigning it a few times until the whole idea looks pretty much what I was striving for in the most efficient manner possible using 'legal' techniques.

I love thinking outside the box yet somehow manage on staying inside it at the same time.

[Ritsz]

For me there are two styles.

1. When I want to expand a specific theme by adding extra vehicles, buildings... I like it to be in the same style as the original, and that particular vehicle or building has to look like it came originally out of that theme.

2. When building a MOC appart from any specific theme, I let my imagination flow and even use ''illegal'' techniques. Although I prefer using the ''legal'' techniques as much as possible

[AmperZand]

I tend to mod official sets and try to keep the changes sympathetic to the original. I might verge on the boundaries of what TLG might do in the density/variety of parts. But I suspect a non-FOL wouldn't be able to tell where TLG's contribution ended and mine began. An example of one of my mods can be seen in the Dragon Mountain modification thread in the Historic Themes forum here on EB.