[MOC] Initiateur - 100 gun french man o' war

[kurigan]

5 hours ago, SteamSewnEmpire said:

Lol, well this is an old topic.

Oddly enough, I was looking at this very thread only like 8 hours ago.

He just SNOTted out some curved bricks, gaining about a stud's additional width on each side. Most people probably don't do it because it would dramatically increase the part count for only a modest payoff. It also fancies up the sides far more than a lot of people may want, potentially drawing the eyes away from more detailed parts of the build. 

On this particular model, though, it's amazing to look at.

What are you on about? I have, literally, never heard of anyone complaining that a ship build is too fancy. Any amount of greebling, faceting or detail is lauded as masterful and superior. The near-universal sentiment is "more is better". It doesn't even need to be well done, just get more shapes in there and they all go nuts. Furthermore, I hardly think you can call the pay-off here "modest" unless your goal is to make the thing less ship-shaped..? Dunkleosteus did a lot of great work with this style and received little but high praise.

 

@Brickander Brickumnus While Dunkleosteus doesn't hang around much anymore but @Kolonialbeamter did some great stuff in this style as well and is more active these days.

 

Cheers!

Dave

[SteamSewnEmpire]

5 hours ago, kurigan said:

What are you on about? I have, literally, never heard of anyone complaining that a ship build is too fancy. Any amount of greebling, faceting or detail is lauded as masterful and superior. The near-universal sentiment is "more is better". It doesn't even need to be well done, just get more shapes in there and they all go nuts. Furthermore, I hardly think you can call the pay-off here "modest" unless your goal is to make the thing less ship-shaped..? Dunkleosteus did a lot of great work with this style and received little but high praise.

 

@Brickander Brickumnus While Dunkleosteus doesn't hang around much anymore but @Kolonialbeamter did some great stuff in this style as well and is more active these days.

 

Cheers!

Dave

1) Many ships of this era were NOT that fancy. Not line ships, obviously, but, smaller vessels? No. (It also bears pointing out that almost no line ships had really ornate detail on their sides, where they could expect it to be pulverized every time they fought an action. Even Sovereign of the Seas - arguably the fanciest warship in history - had a clean beam face).

2) It really depends on where you perceive the model's waterline to be as to what the payoff is. Doing this further heightens the ship, making the place where the tumblehome turns further above the stock Lego ship keel parts, so there definitely is a tradeoff in terms of design.

3) Similar to 2), this technique obliges the builder to incorporate sheer into the setting of the gunports, which - in most cases - is exaggerated when compared to real world men-of-war. When you look at line drawings from the age of sail - even the 17th Century, when hull curvature was most pronounced - gun ports are in a fairly straight line down the length of a vessel. The hull is extremely curved, but the internal decking much less so. So, again, there is a give and take with this approach.

4) I praised the model. I will praise it a second time below.

I'm getting really tired of the indignant attitudes of a vocal minority on this website. You cannot say anything - ANYTHING - without someone injecting ego into the matter.

It's a great ship. It is undoubtedly a great ship, and better than anything I have ever done. But there are definitely things to consider with that design. And you don't have to get into a huff on the OP's behalf because I said that and only that.

@Brickander Brickumnus asked a question. I answered honestly. It wasn't an attack; it was never intended to be an attack. It was - and remains - an observation. That's all.

Cheers.

Edited September 22, 2020 by SteamSewnEmpire

[kurigan]

Wow, dude, wow. Was I that insufferable when I showed up all those years ago. I'm sorry  I've be put do far back into my place, I don't think I'll ever get back out again. 

Its not my ego, what's been bruised here, mate. Must be yours. Go back, read with the facetiousness with which it was written, and you'll see there's no attack. Tip: People, at least I, don't normally put things they agree with in unnecessary quotation marks 

[SteamSewnEmpire]

13 minutes ago, kurigan said:

insufferable

You didn't respond to anything I said, and continued to make it a personal attack. Welcome to ignore.

[kurigan]

19 minutes ago, SteamSewnEmpire said:

You didn't respond to anything I said, and continued to make it a personal attack. Welcome to ignore.

 

 

Edit:

It's OK mate; when your blood simmers back down you don't need to apologize. I know how you're feeling and I've been you, right now, plenty of times before. Come back in a couple of days, read through my own history a bit as I advised, and you'll get it. I'm not your enemy. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by kurigan

[Brickander Brickumnus]

18 hours ago, SteamSewnEmpire said:

Lol, well this is an old topic.

Oddly enough, I was looking at this very thread only like 8 hours ago.

He just SNOTted out some curved bricks, gaining about a stud's additional width on each side. Most people probably don't do it because it would dramatically increase the part count for only a modest payoff. It also fancies up the sides far more than a lot of people may want, potentially drawing the eyes away from more detailed parts of the build. 

On this particular model, though, it's amazing to look at.

Yes, it's great build and I look this thread from time to time!

It's a pity we don't have more high quality pictures of it.
 

12 hours ago, kurigan said:

What are you on about? I have, literally, never heard of anyone complaining that a ship build is too fancy. Any amount of greebling, faceting or detail is lauded as masterful and superior. The near-universal sentiment is "more is better". It doesn't even need to be well done, just get more shapes in there and they all go nuts. Furthermore, I hardly think you can call the pay-off here "modest" unless your goal is to make the thing less ship-shaped..? Dunkleosteus did a lot of great work with this style and received little but high praise.

 

@Brickander Brickumnus While Dunkleosteus doesn't hang around much anymore but @Kolonialbeamter did some great stuff in this style as well and is more active these days.

 

Cheers!

Dave

I'll check @Kolonialbeamter builds.


Thank you both for your answers.

 

Now, let's all get to the inn, drink some rum and beer... and shake hands.

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Brickander Brickumnus

[Wurger49]

10 hours ago, SteamSewnEmpire said:

1) Many ships of this era were NOT that fancy. Not line ships, obviously, but, smaller vessels? No. (It also bears pointing out that almost no line ships had really ornate detail on their sides, where they could expect it to be pulverized every time they fought an action. Even Sovereign of the Seas - arguably the fanciest warship in history - had a clean beam face).

2) It really depends on where you perceive the model's waterline to be as to what the payoff is. Doing this further heightens the ship, making the place where the tumblehome turns further above the stock Lego ship keel parts, so there definitely is a tradeoff in terms of design.

3) Similar to 2), this technique obliges the builder to incorporate sheer into the setting of the gunports, which - in most cases - is exaggerated when compared to real world men-of-war. When you look at line drawings from the age of sail - even the 17th Century, when hull curvature was most pronounced - gun ports are in a fairly straight line down the length of a vessel. The hull is extremely curved, but the internal decking much less so. So, again, there is a give and take with this approach.

4) I praised the model. I will praise it a second time below.

I'm getting really tired of the indignant attitudes of a vocal minority on this website. You cannot say anything - ANYTHING - without someone injecting ego into the matter.

It's a great ship. It is undoubtedly a great ship, and better than anything I have ever done. But there are definitely things to consider with that design. And you don't have to get into a huff on the OP's behalf because I said that and only that.

@Brickander Brickumnus asked a question. I answered honestly. It wasn't an attack; it was never intended to be an attack. It was - and remains - an observation. That's all.

Cheers.

I like your constructive feedback, especially this: "this technique obliges the builder to incorporate sheer into the setting of the gunports, which - in most cases - is exaggerated when compared to real world men-of-war. When you look at line drawings from the age of sail - even the 17th Century, when hull curvature was most pronounced - gun ports are in a fairly straight line down the length of a vessel. The hull is extremely curved, but the internal decking much less so. So, again, there is a give and take with this approach."

I see a lot of people's models where gun ports are concaved towards the middle, while it's a nice Lego model, but it's not accurate. 

[kurigan]

2 hours ago, Wurger49 said:

I like your constructive feedback, especially this: "this technique obliges the builder to incorporate sheer into the setting of the gunports, which - in most cases - is exaggerated when compared to real world men-of-war. When you look at line drawings from the age of sail - even the 17th Century, when hull curvature was most pronounced - gun ports are in a fairly straight line down the length of a vessel. The hull is extremely curved, but the internal decking much less so. So, again, there is a give and take with this approach."

I see a lot of people's models where gun ports are concaved towards the middle, while it's a nice Lego model, but it's not accurate. 

But it's 7 years out of date. It's all moot, because the builder, said as much was the plan, and moved on. Later builds were far more realistic. It's just rude to come in so long after the fact and start judging obsolete elements with out at least acknowledging the further development that went into the system there after. This is exactly why bumping old topics is discouraged here.

 

Though we do appreciate your interest and enthusiasm we do ask that you refrain from bumping old topics. For your edification please revisit the Site Guidelines as well as this topic on Bumping Old Topics. Thank you for understanding. 

 

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/topic/18718-site-guidelines/ 

 

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/topic/19004-revisiting-old-topics-bumping/#entry776009 

 

now, if you don't want to do the work to get caught up on the last 15 years or so, leave it alone.

 

[Wurger49]

5 hours ago, kurigan said:

But it's 7 years out of date. It's all moot, because the builder, said as much was the plan, and moved on. Later builds were far more realistic. It's just rude to come in so long after the fact and start judging obsolete elements with out at least acknowledging the further development that went into the system there after. This is exactly why bumping old topics is discouraged here.

 

Though we do appreciate your interest and enthusiasm we do ask that you refrain from bumping old topics. For your edification please revisit the Site Guidelines as well as this topic on Bumping Old Topics. Thank you for understanding. 

 

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/topic/18718-site-guidelines/ 

 

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/topic/19004-revisiting-old-topics-bumping/#entry776009 

 

now, if you don't want to do the work to get caught up on the last 15 years or so, leave it alone.

 

Yes, I agree with not bumping old threads in general, but why not if one has a question? I do MODs and love to learn from others. 

I just want to point out that a question was asked by @Brickander Brickumnus about the SNOT technique, which @SteamSewnEmpire replied and commented on directly. 

[Brickander Brickumnus]

So from what I understand this design has outdated techniques.

Can you point me to a similar style MOC ship (2 rows of cannon ports, 3 masts, good curvature of the hull) with updated techniques?

[Wurger49]

6 hours ago, Brickander Brickumnus said:

So from what I understand this design has outdated techniques.

Can you point me to a similar style MOC ship (2 rows of cannon ports, 3 masts, good curvature of the hull) with updated techniques?

 

[Brickander Brickumnus]

20 hours ago, Wurger49 said:

 

Thanks!

I've seen that. It looks a lot like Pirates of the Barracuda Bay (enlarged version).

I'm interested in something with different style than Pirates of the Barracuda Bay.

[SteamSewnEmpire]

15 minutes ago, Brickander Brickumnus said:

Thanks!

I've seen that. It looks a lot like Pirates of the Barracuda Bay (enlarged version).

I'm interested in something with different style than Pirates of the Barracuda Bay.

Are you looking for a specific era? Sailing ships changed a ton over time - the amount of sheer (the curvature in the hull) they had, the amount of sternwork, how many guns, sail arrangements, etc. There's a huge difference between a man-of-war from, say, 1640 (when they had only just begun to evolve into their own from previous galleons) and 1815.

[Brickander Brickumnus]

Just now, SteamSewnEmpire said:

Are you looking for a specific era? Sailing ships changed a ton over time - the amount of sheer (the curvature in the hull) they had, the amount of sternwork, how many guns, sail arrangements, etc. There's a huge difference between a man-of-war from, say, 1640 (when they had only just begun to evolve into their own from previous galleons) and 1815.

Hmmmm, solid point.

I think I'm more interested at the moment for ships with elevated the front and the back of the ship. 

[SteamSewnEmpire]

10 minutes ago, Brickander Brickumnus said:

Hmmmm, solid point.

I think I'm more interested at the moment for ships with elevated the front and the back of the ship. 

So more like a galleon?

Here are three:

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/6e8ac19b-d7d7-4052-ac65-f6f9448a5b02

https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/93668-gilded-crow-22-gun-galleon/

[Brickander Brickumnus]

Maybe not so much elevation.

More like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-rate

[SteamSewnEmpire]

59 minutes ago, Brickander Brickumnus said:

Maybe not so much elevation.

More like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-rate

Okay that's like early-to-mid 18th Century. 

 

There are a few.

*Edit*

One more:

https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/174150-esl-class-8-princesse-margot-a-74-gun-third-rate/

Edited September 29, 2020 by SteamSewnEmpire

[Brickander Brickumnus]

@SteamSewnEmpire

Thanks!