Sci-fi builders, do you prefer angles or curves

[fr33manator]

And why?

Me, I'm an angles guy. Not a real fan of the newer bubble cockpit screens.

Don't get me wrong, curves have their uses, but I prefer angles.

To me, they're sleeker and more mechanical.

Rounded edges don't sit right with me for some reasons, on ships at least. I save roundness mostly for

Minifigs

Unless I'm going for an organic look on a ship that is.

What's your preference?

[Bricksandparts]

And why?

Me, I'm an angles guy. Not a real fan of the newer bubble cockpit screens.

Don't get me wrong, curves have their uses, but I prefer angles.

To me, they're sleeker and more mechanical.

Rounded edges don't sit right with me for some reasons, on ships at least. I save roundness mostly for

Minifigs

Unless I'm going for an organic look on a ship that is.

What's your preference?

You know, I feel exactly the same way. I don't know what it is about it, but curves just make things look, Awkward, I guess is the word. when I'm building a model everything is pretty much angles. the only thing that really is curved is things like engines and other things like that.

[Bricksandparts]

here is an example of one of my models:

ldd file: http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/bricksandparts/MOC/small_crane_2.lxf

[fr33manator]

You know, I feel exactly the same way. I don't know what it is about it, but curves just make things look, Awkward, I guess is the word. when I'm building a model everything is pretty much angles. the only thing that really is curved is things like engines and other things like that.

I think it's the cold, harsh, mechanical feel of space, as opposed to the round, curvy, organic feel of things related to nature.

And space is inherently an unnatural environment, so roundness as a whole, feels out of place.

Of course, you can achieve pseudo roundness with angles, which feels much more spacelike to me.

[Scorpion]

Angles, definitly! Gimme big, sharp, blocky angles everyday of the week and twice on Sunday! fr33manator, I like your reasoning and I 100% agree with it! Oh how I long for those old octogonal cockpits and the other 90's space cockpits...

Edited September 6, 2011 by Scorpion

[fr33manator]

Angles, definitly! Gimmebig, sharp, blocky angles everyday of the week and twice on Sunday! fr33manator, I like your reasoning and I 100% agree with it! Oh how I long for those old octogonal cockpits and the other 90's space cockpits...

I ALWAYS end up buying the old style angled cockpits when i get on Bricklink. Trans-neon orange and trans-dark blue get scooped up wherever i see them. love the octagonal bubbles. so many uses!

[OrangeKNight]

I have a touch more complex view on it.

Part of it is just that I don't have much in the way of curve parts, but I can't deny they have their uses, as can be see here;

The Orange Curve really brings out all the other angles.

It also comes down to the fact that for most/all of the things I design, Angles just make more sense(to me at least).

On this hardsuit there are many places I could have stuck in curves of varying sorts;

Its a small military hardsuit, and angles make it feel a lot more fierce than curves would.

But like almost any topic concerning design, Everything has it's place, and if I were to design some freaky-deeky alien ship, I'd cram in curves and odd shapes everywhere possible.

Mike

[Bricksandparts]

you can see that some people just like curved things, while others like boxy, angled things:

[/url]

Edited September 6, 2011 by Bricksandparts

[fr33manator]

With mini models, curves definitely have a place. But I focus mostly on minifig scale stuff and just like angles better. To each his own I guess.

[tchuk-norst]

For me, it really depends on the model. I really do more boxy, angular stuff, but I love the curves too.

[Aanchir]

For me, when possible, both. I really liked how Space Police III differentiated good guy and bad guy vehicles by giving the good guys sleek star cruisers while giving the bad guys rugged, boxy automotive designs with beefy engines. "Curves vs. Angles" is one of the easiest ways to stylistically differentiate two factions.

Similarly, Alien Conquest gives the ADU boxier vehicles, while the aliens have smooth and futuristic flying saucers. A similar dichotomy existed in many years of BIONICLE, where heroes tended to have more mechanistic designs and villains tended to be inspired by animals or monsters. There it was a lot less rigid than in Space Police III, though, given the overall tendencies to reuse parts and the need for new parts to have stylistic consistency with old ones. So in BIONICLE the overall looks were differentiated, rather than going for organic-versus-mechanical shapes for the individual components chosen. It's a similar contrast to the one used in the first year of Aquazone, where the Aquasharks had quite obviously animal-inspired vessels while the Aquanauts had stylish futuristic submarines-- despite the two themes using many of the same parts

Overall, I like color-coding, but I think when it comes to differentiating factions there should be more to it than that. So in LEGO Space we see content differentiation (such as Spyrius's robots and flying saucers, which made that theme fairly unique), part differentiation (Space Police III's use of sleek windscreens for the good guys and boxier ones for the bad guys), and color differentiation (almost all themes). This has always been important to LEGO space, just to ensure that new factions don't feel like rehashes of old ones, but in today's two-faction themes it's a lot easier (and arguably more important) to establish a strict two-sided contrast in almost all aspects of set design.

[Brickdoctor]

Considering that I like the Star Wars OT better than the PT, it should come as no surprise that I prefer the angular look over the organic. Organic curves are okay for alien technology, I guess, but angles with lots of greebles always seem more realistic to me. The 'used universe' look that I love of the OT certainly doesn't combine as well with the curves.

I do agree with what Aanchir has said - angular human vehicles are great opponents aesthetically for curved alien craft, especially when we're talking retro alien saucers.

[Fallenangel]

Being a Star Wars fan, I do prefer the angular Incom and Kuat craft as opposed to the more organic Trade Federation or Naboo designs but at the same time feel that the best-looking ships are those which combine both in a way that is innovative or aesthetically pleasing, such as the Tantive IV, Falcon, or B-wing, as well as non-Star Wars craft, like the Klingon Bird of Prey. I think I may be biased due to the fact that angular craft generally translate better into LEGO, though. That and the fact that as Brickdoctor mentioned, angular craft with kitbashed detailing feel more realistic.

Here's a parting shot that I think gets the point across (my apologies to Staff):

[Scorpion]

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/kg_2010_studio_leonov-008.jpg[/iurl]

Interesting design! What movie is it from? 2010?

[Brickdoctor]

Interesting design! What movie is it from? 2010?

2001.

[Fallenangel]

The ship on top is the Leonov from 2010, the ship on bottom the Discovery from 2001. Both are beautifully designed.

[Delta62]

It depends on what alien species it is because they come in all shapes and sizes, organic or mechanicle. To be honest, I'm not picky when it comes to curves and angles. Both are great in my opinion but I mostly enjoy a ship built with angles.

[fr33manator]

It depends on what alien species it is because they come in all shapes and sizes, organic or mechanicle. To be honest, I'm not picky when it comes to curves and angles. Both are great in my opinion but I mostly enjoy a ship built with angles.

my point is, anything mechanical is, by definition, non-organic.

spaceships are reliant on mechanics, whether theoretical or actual

therefore, in a angled world, angles should be emphasized.

organics are more prone to curvature

[Fallenangel]

my point is, anything mechanical is, by definition, non-organic.

spaceships are reliant on mechanics, whether theoretical or actual

therefore, in a angled world, angles should be emphasized.

organics are more prone to curvature

Bit of an oversimplification, isn't it? Obviously one must take into account the futuristic, pristine look that curvature can offer on a starship... after all, there's nothing organic about a flying saucer. This is why I favor Corellian designs above Incom - they successfully blend the kitbashed angular look of most Star Wars ships with the curvature indicative of technological prowess:

[fr33manator]

Bit of an oversimplification, isn't it? Obviously one must take into account the futuristic, pristine look that curvature can offer on a starship... after all, there's nothing organic about a flying saucer. This is why I favor Corellian designs above Incom - they successfully blend the kitbashed angular look of most Star Wars ships with the curvature indicative of technological prowess:

sure, but up close, they are still all angles. just curves made with angles

am i making sense?

[Fallenangel]

sure, but up close, they are still all angles. just curves made with angles

am i making sense?

I understand the point that you're trying to make, but that's simply not the case with the Tantive IV. Up close, they are curved surfaces mixed with angular shapes.

It's funny you should mention "curves made with angles", because in the case of the X-wing, you've got angles made with curves. 3D modellers must have beat their brains in frustration when the technology had advanced enough for them to discover that none of the lines of the X-wing's fuselage were truly straight (the curvature is quite subtle, but it's there).

[Aanchir]

my point is, anything mechanical is, by definition, non-organic.

spaceships are reliant on mechanics, whether theoretical or actual

therefore, in a angled world, angles should be emphasized.

organics are more prone to curvature

Well, from an art/design perspective, "organic" doesn't have to mean actually made of organic matter or anything. It basically refers to shapes that imitate the curved and non-geometric shapes of many living things. A lot of Mars Mission spacecraft used heavily organic shapes (and, for all we know, might have actually included organic matter in the form of some sort of bio-technology). Even a lot of today's automobiles, like the Volkswagen Beetle, have what could be considered "organic" shapes. So an organically-shaped spacecraft isn't such an unrealistic vision of the future as it would have been in the early days of space exploration, where mechanical and geometric designs were often the most pragmatic.

Of course, one argument often made against organic shapes to spacecraft (at least in deep space) is that there's just no point. A ship that never enters an atmosphere has no need to be aerodynamic, and so for things like space stations or other large vessels a boxy shape is still the most realistic. Needless to say, though, LEGO is a children's toy, and children like it when vehicles "look fast". Even many traditional Space sets thus used pointy cockpits like this to give sets a speedy look. Now that curves are so common in all LEGO themes, it's only natural that TLG would take advantage of the many curved pieces at their disposal to continue making their spacecraft as sleek-looking as possible.

[brickmack]

Depends one what I'm making. I also sometimes use a mixture.

[CMP]

Like it's been said, comes down to PT vs OT for me. (Everything seems to lead there... )

Well, it depends on the feel the theme is trying to bring. If it's alien kinda stuff, curves, if human, angled. SPIII kinda went the opposite way, but I prefer the former.

[fr33manator]

Like it's been said, comes down to PT vs OT for me. (Everything seems to lead there... )

Well, it depends on the feel the theme is trying to bring. If it's alien kinda stuff, curves, if human, angled. SPIII kinda went the opposite way, but I prefer the former.

True.

I think this whole question stemmed from my dislike of the round bubble canopies.

Silly, I know.