def

How much accuracy do you demand in a SW MOC?

68 posts in this topic

gallery_101_23_908.jpg

What's all this garbage about 'intense level of accuracy'? I already stopped doing that.

You're going off of implications that weren't there; I see that my statement came off more harshly than I had intended.

I did not mean to say that KielDaMan's MOC doesn't make a conscious effort to resemble a BARC speeder, because it does. KielDaMan acknowledges that it does have inconsistencies with the source material (which is perfectly all right, to a certain degree), which is partly due to the need to sacrifice accuracy for aesthetic quality. The end result does have the look and feel of a Neo-Clone Wars-era BARC speeder, which is as good as any LEGO MOC gets.

This approach is different from MOCs that are disproportionate or misshapen on a level that borders on obscenity for no apparent reason other than that they were too lazy or uncaring to find some decent reference and pay homage to the source material. Yes, to strive for perfect accuracy is unreasonable, especially in a toy medium, but tossing accuracy out the window completely is just as extreme and can have disastrous results.

As for "how much accuracy we need", you seem to be implying that we need "none", whereas I would advocate "enough so that it feels like the real thing". Please note that this is considerably less tolerant than my previous position of "as much as possible within the limits of the medium" which you seem to be under the impression that I am still supporting. What's the use?

just because there's an intense debate over what a good SW MOC should be like, I'm starting this topic. You can follow the roots of this by clicking the link in the quoted portion, where you can see that apparently, according to FallenAngel, I think no accuracy is needed. Like, a 2x4 brick could legitimately called a Venator MOC :look:

I think it's pretty obvious that's not the case, but it seems to need clarification, and it's a healthy SW based discussion.

The target of your MOC is really important. I really love the ultimate Tie Fighter MOCs that Walter Kovacs did, and I love the mini-scale sets that Legostein does, and obviously they are going for very different scales, and the detailing and proportions are going to be very different, with the bigger the ship, the more we can hope from a MOC.

At the minifig scale, I really enjoy MOCs that look like they could be part of the LEGO line up. A good example are Kieldaman's starfighter series, which genuinely look like an extension of the existing series (four sets and counting). Novel new techniques are great, but I appreciate MOCs that would fit right in on my shelf.

How about you? What do you think?

If anyone has poll suggestions, let me know, I'll pop it in :wink:

From now on, let me be the guy who needs no accuracy :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A ship or vehicle that resembles or improves on (within reason) a star wars ship or vehicle, but no so much accuracy, remember some people might like to have a go but are limited with the amount or colour of their bricks, or just aren't skilled enough to produce it as accurate as some (:grin:) would like. If a person likes studs they should include them and not have to tile them up or SNOT just to make it look like the ship (that what Hasbro's for), fun little features, and cleaver techniques are better than 100% accuracy, to anyone I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From now on, let me be the guy who needs no accuracy :laugh:

Do I sense a new title there? 5417408574_9114cea78b_o.gif

As to the topic at hand - I definitely believe that it doesn't only apply to SW / Sci-Fi creations - if anything, with Town & Trains accuracy tends to become an even greater issue because, at the end of the day, things that City / Trains creations are based on actually exist in real life and not just on movie reels... Yeah that came out wrong, but I'm not bashing SW or Sci-Fi, just bear with me! :laugh:

The thing is, at the end of the day you can go for 1:1 perfection only by using LEGO and not modifying your bricks at all. Which will soon find you stuck in a terrible mess since more often than not the proper, 100% realistic proportions, can only be achieved by using scales that vary greatly from the 'regular' minifig-scale, no matter what you perceive that to be. So you either must end up creating an architecture-worthy MOC and be happy that you've managed to pull of an exact replica - or decide for yourself which are the parts you'd be willing to compromise in order to ensure that the MOC still fits the scale and comes as close to the original as possible.

For example, I don't believe that there's any way of packing all the details from an original car or train model in 6-wide. Which is why MOCcers take a representative approach - and use the respective object's strongest visual features as leads, on which they base their build. The same applies here, at least to me. As long as the MOC looks like the real (or movie-real) thing, and makes a conscious effort to deliver in terms of quality and visual aesthetics, it will surely grab my attention. Yes, of course, perfect replicas can really turn out jaw-dropping, but they require a perfect eye both for scaling and dimensions, and for detail - and I find that it is often a case of sacrificing one for the other, which is not really to my taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a person likes studs they should include them

Very true! I am impressed with some of the tiled MOCs I see, but they don't always look so 'fun' to me, and fun is one of the things I love with LEGO. So, when I see studs, I see youth and fun.

I guess that's one of the reasons I got into City and other series, is they don't get over serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really liked MetroiD's post, but this part in particular stood out to me as the easiest way to describe "how much accuracy I demand". (Bolding added for additional emphasis)

Yes, of course, perfect replicas can really turn out jaw-dropping, but they require a perfect eye both for scaling and dimensions, and for detail - and I find that it is often a case of sacrificing one for the other, which is not really to my taste.

When I build a model based off something real (Or a "fake" model like a Star Wars ship), generally, yeah, I want it to look as "accurate" as I can manage. But I think that there's three things that play into that, which MetroiD listed as two things. Scaling, dimensions, and detail are all different but very much needed. LEGO doesn't tend to allow all three of these. There's tons of cases where there's a perfect, obvious solution to all of them, and there's just as many if not more where the "solution" is a creatively unorthodox method. Whether to sacrifice scaling, dimensions, or detail is always up to the MOC'er, and what they believe looks best. And for me personally, which one of those I choose to sacrifice changes from case to case.

An easy example to point out (thanks to the start of this thread) is KDM's BARC speeder. While the skis on the side may be a tad big (out of "scale"), I think that they do a great job conveying "detail" as well as "dimensions". They're quite easily recognizable as what they are meant to be, and the "scale" isn't so out of proportion that it looks unsightly. One of the suggestions I saw regarding the MOC was to replace the skis with 1x2 plates. While it may fix the "scale", to some degree, I don't believe that the perfectly rectangular shape very well convey the detail or dimensions; and above all else, it probably wouldn't look as good.

In the end? I don't think there's any approach that's the definitive -best-. There's a lot to be said for people's personal taste and I'm sure everyone puts different importance on the various aspects. And even though I can be a bit of a stickler for accuracy in my own MOCs (My own My Own Creations....?), I don't think there's any problem with people building things the way they please. And if it ends up looking/being "inaccurate" but visually stunning and amazingly engineered...? I say, more power to you. The day we strive to constrain the limits of our creativity is the day we start down the road to kill it. Have fun with what you do. :)

EDIT: On the note of KDM's BARC MOC, I'm definitely going to comment. Just thought I'd wait and see the new/updated version first. :)

Edited by Daedalus304

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question let me think of this fantastic LEGO campaign of 2006.

imaginative-lego-clever-advertisement.jpg

I think imagination is everything! Sure its nice and challenging to work as close as possible to the real thing but it's not necessary.

For my MOCs I'm trying the best to achieve all possible details as you see in my current project. But thats just my personal way. I also like simple and smart solutions. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question let me think of this fantastic LEGO campaign of 2006.

imaginative-lego-clever-advertisement.jpg

I think imagination is everything! Sure its nice and challenging to work as close as possible to the real thing but it's not necessary.

For my MOCs I'm trying the best to achieve all possible details as you see in my current project. But thats just my personal way. I also like simple and smart solutions. :thumbup:

Imagination does make a huge impact but I know for myself accuracy in the figures is especially important to me for MOC's such as the Clone Wars. I think TLG did a great job making accurate figs for the movies but the CW ones seem to be lacking IMHO where they don't have many options outside of a few commanders and basic clones. I have found myself making custom figures to achieve a detail standard for figures such as Bacara, Wolffe, Locke, Cody, Rex, etc and I won't lie, it drives me nuts sometimes.

As for ships and those in MOCs I think that the imagination is what makes the builds interesting. Just my personal preference, I am a minifig guy to begin with :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think imagination is everything! Sure its nice and challenging to work as close as possible to the real thing but it's not necessary.

I'd say you hit the nail on the head there. We AFOLs do sometimes tend to become suckers for accuracy, detail, SNOT-ness, NPU usage, greebling, etc., and during the process we seem to forget that it's actually the enjoyment of it all that really matters at the end of the day - or at least that's how I perceive LEGO building / MOCcing. Once a project becomes a chore and finding solutions is not an inspiring and fulfilling way to channel one's creative energy, then I'd say that the border has been overstepped and I'd really question whether it's worth the effort.

In that sense - to return to def's initial idea here - I believe it's really best when fellow AFOLs appreciate each other's different views and takes on things, while trying to learn from one another, instead of criticizing / bashing approaches that they're not comfortable with. There's a very clear difference between constructive criticism and "Criticism gratia critiquis" (? :laugh: ) just for the sake of it.

@ Cpt. Dan: Thanks for the kind words :sweet: I fully support your view that those three should be considered as separate components to the building process, but I tend to bring scaling and dimensions together since they focus more on the "accurate portrayal" side of the story. That said, there are also tons of creative and detailed ways to solve the problems associated with them, while helping enhance the MOC's looks, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to write an essay, 'cause for me it's simple: As accurate as it can possibly be while still being aesthetically pleasing. Because an ugly MOC that's dimensionally accurate is still an ugly MOC. As far as studs, to me they're another form of detailing. I like to use them to represent small, round details or greebles, but apart from that I try to show as few as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accuracy to me is a bunch of crap. As long as I can recognize the ship even to the vaguest extent, I'm happy with it. For example, I modded the 2008 Clone Walker to resemble a AT-RT, and even though it barely looks like one, I'm happy with it because I know it is supposed to be a AT-RT. If I bring in a little 9-year-old cousin of mine and ask him what it is, he'll say AT-RT, so all's good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe i'm stepping out of line here, but to me it doesn't seem like the argument is that people don't want accuracy where possible, but it all stems from fallenangel alienating everyone and causing the default opinion to turn away from him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MOC should do one thing, make the creator happy. Hence "MY" own creation. Not "Creation for others to enjoy". Take my mini AT-OT. Someone commented on my MOC having big feet. Ok. Thanks. I like it that way. It is after all "MY" creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to agree with fallenangel that it is impossible to get 100% accuracy. I also agree with him on most cases where someone will build a MOC and there are faults they may not know. It seems like a lot of people consider him to just be this really cruel person who downsizes a lot of people's work. But you also need to take this from the non AFOL positition and imagine a little kid looking at a poorly designed X-Wing, and they'll just say. "Oh cool, I giant X-wing" and not relaly care about the inaccurate angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure we can all name names, and sometimes the method of telling someone they have a detail a bit wrong is sometimes a bit over the top, but I think Solscud007 has hit the nail on the head, MOC's not COTE's (Creation for others to enjoy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but if it's all MOCs, not COTEs, as you put it, then why invite people to "comment and criticize" in the first place? Simple - at least to me - it's because most of us are actually looking for that constructive feedback in order to improve the MOCs.

Once again though, feedback needs to be constructive, not observations that have more to do with taste than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MOC should do one thing, make the creator happy. Hence "MY" own creation. Not "Creation for others to enjoy". Take my mini AT-OT. Someone commented on my MOC having big feet. Ok. Thanks. I like it that way. It is after all "MY" creation.

Great answer. implosion%20du%20tibia.gif

Well, since it'is yours, keep it for yourself and do not present it on the forum. :sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question let me think of this fantastic LEGO campaign of 2006.

imaginative-lego-clever-advertisement.jpg

I think imagination is everything! Sure its nice and challenging to work as close as possible to the real thing but it's not necessary.

For my MOCs I'm trying the best to achieve all possible details as you see in my current project. But thats just my personal way. I also like simple and smart solutions. :thumbup:

Maybe that's ok for Joe Poor and his 12 bricks, but I'd never let my kid pass that crap off as something. We can't encourage stupidity!

As for MOC accuracy, enough to please the target viewer within a time/financial limit. Sometimes it's this forum, sometimes it's people that come over. If no one likes it then it probably sucks and I scrap it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO a MOC doesn't have to be accurate to be a good moc. A good moc, just looks really good. A ugly but accurate moc, is still a ugly moc ( I agree with brickdoctor). But a ugly moc can still ne a nice moc, to the person who built it. his imagination made this moc, so for him is it as good as he can make it. Also a ugly moc can be a great moc, because it is suposed to look ugly :laugh: .

Still I really like a moc to be very accurete, because it really represent the ship it's built from. But sometimes you just have to tweak/update/change the design of the ship to let it look good in lego.

So I think a MOC shouldn't be judged only by how accurate it is. Acuracy is just one part of the MOC, the look and feeling the MOC gives is just as important.

Edited by Blackknight112

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all I don't think it is necessary to call individuals out because of their opinions. I think that if this turns into a bashing someone thread it will get locked up real quick. As for the question asked it is up to the individual building, I think. I feel there is only so much accuracy one can put in any MOC. We are all building with a toy. Don't get me wrong, I think some creations are incredibly accurate considering what is had to work with. I think as long as the individual is happy with the MOC built and can take some constructive critizism good deal. And if that person chooses to use that critizism even better. In the end the builder's happiness is paramount to any opinion given. Just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several people here, including def, appear to be implying that because Star Wars MOCs are not based off "real" ships there is less reason for them to have to be accurate. Keep in mind that while the ships themselves may be fictitious the models used to represent them are not:

mf_top.jpg

kr_Xwing_side_right_top.JPG

rs_n1_4819.JPG

ms_M085.JPG

This is one reason "official" sources such as the Essential Guide and the Incredible Cross-sections books can largely be ignored, as they are imaginary and idealized representations of said models and thus contain many figures and dimensions that mean absolutely nothing. There is no way Vader's TIE Advanced x1 could have been 9.8m, for example, because the size of the 1/24 pilot used in the studio miniature clearly demonstrates that the x1 was intended to be much smaller than that. The same could be said for the ever-changing dimensions of the Executor that was intended to be eleven times the length of an Imperial Star Destroyer and stay that way.

Edited by fallenangel309

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several people here, including def, appear to be implying that because Star Wars MOCs are not based off "real" ships there is less reason for them to have to be accurate. Keep in mind that while the ships themselves may be fictitious the models used to represent them are ....

Since you name dropped me, I feel a need to set you straight. It's not that the models don't demand accuracy because the ships are fictitious. Remember that so you never have to say something so silly again. It's that when people think the key point is ACCURACY! to the point that they can be called a borderline obscenity (see the first post), a lot of fun is sucked out of the process, for me at least. Think about that: a bad MOC is an 'obscenity'.

So, while I absolutely respect people spending months perfecting every little detail of a highly intricate design, it's not the be all and end all to me.

I made my most elaborate MOC for my mafia game. It was a hospital. I had downloaded some pics off the Internet, and tried to copy a few architectural details, but largely just had fun with it. Because if I obsessed over details, it wouldn't have been fun.

So, the bottom line? I agree with the emphasis on MOCs being mine. Of course we share, and give and get suggestions, but it should be in line with the target the maker was going for, and not some futile attempt to perfect your toy ship. Build it how you like. (I'm getting flashbacks to that thread a few months back where that mother wanted to tell her kid how to play with LEGO, her idea? Glue it together! It takes all kinds! :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll use a comparison to adequately explain how I feel about accuracy, inspired by something MetroiD said.

Just like most LSW MOCs, many LEGO city vehicle MOCs are also based upon real things. However, given the general smoothness and roundness of real-world vehicles, it's impossible to get even near perfect in a City MOC that fits minifigures. In the case of City, a minifigure-size vehicle is a close enough approximation to a real vehicle that you can say 'Hey, I know what that is' but of course if you went and found a picture of the real vehicle the MOC wouldn't really look all that similar. The exact same should be true for SW MOCs of minifigure-size. The MOC should be an approximation of the 'real' vehicle that looks good, and that everybody can tell what it is. It should be good-looking however you define good looking, but it by no means should be able to hold up to a comparison picture of the 'real' vehicle. It's made out of pre-formed LEGO bricks; at the minifigure-scale, there's just no way it can be accurate.

The larger scale is a different matter. If your going to go UCS, you might as well get as close to those angles as you possibly can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that while the ships themselves may be fictitious the models used to represent them are not:

Man, what a stupid thing to say... :blush: I'm sorry everyone. I'm not an accuracy stickler anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't want to step out of line here, and I hate to go against the staff of eurobricks (fellows are staff right?). But in all honesty I feel as though this thread seems to have been made to just bash Fallenangel. Correct me if i'm wrong, but that is the message I'm getting from this thread.

As for the question, it all depends on what I'm building, I rarely make SW mocs based on anything from the universe, there mainly just ships of my own design. However when I do make a ship in universe (speaking of which, I have a pretty good one laying around that I should upload) I want them to be accurate, but to further illustrate my point I broke it down into a list, 1 being most important and so on

1. Colour

2. Shape

3. Details

4. Scale

5. Functionality (play features)

I think most of you may not realize the amount of effort and work put into creating mocs as accurately as possible. I haven't done many accurate ones, but I'm currently working on a stun tank made accurately (it's reminding me of something I'd compare to Dobbyclones work) and it is pretty hard, I keep pictures with me while I'm building, and I'm implementing new techniques that I haven't used before. It is a rewarding experience for me, and I imagine other mocers, like Fallenangel also want to take pride in their work and get the same rewarding feeling I have.

So, the bottom line? I agree with the emphasis on MOCs being mine. Of course we share, and give and get suggestions, but it should be in line with the target the maker was going for, and not some futile attempt to perfect your toy ship. Build it how you like. (I'm getting flashbacks to that thread a few months back where that mother wanted to tell her kid how to play with LEGO, her idea? Glue it together! It takes all kinds! :laugh:

I guess this is reasonable, but are you suggesting that when we post a new moc, we should say, "comment and criticize, but don't actually criticize, I'm happy the way it is" or "comment and criticize, go on, I can take it". I know that for the majority of mocs, people ask for criticisms, so that is what they should be expecting to get, whether it be one sentence, or a lengthy paragraph.

Sorry in advance if I have offended anyone. :blush: I really don't want to cause trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.