BARC Speeder - Clone Wars Version

[XimenaPaulina]

Sorry KDM, didn't mean those remarks that way. From what I've seen in your other models, I think that you go for a more aesthetically pleasing approach. For example, the references pictures you link show clearly the BARC being grey, yet you use white because it looks better as a piece of eye-candy to the viewer. I think your model looks nicer, and more appealing to the viewer than any of mine. You're right about my approach of going for the more aesthetically pleasing model, yeah I do sometimes compensate accuracy to achieve a better looking model, and as you'll see some of my responses below will be based on that approach.

With regards to the color, I used white since IMO, it is the more accurate color than light bley, considering when you compare the color of the body with the clone's armor (like in this image), they look both white/dirty-white. And Hasbro models and even the LEGO one are colored white, so I guess the choice of the color white is the proper one since it has the approval of the Lucas license.

Onto the model, here’s what I think needs work:

Right now you have Z-74 handlebars on there, which aren’t accurate. They deliver the wrong shape and Minifig hand angle.

The handlebars stem from the area, brick building the sloping nose portion would render better results, and then you could leave a plate gap to attach the new handlebars onto. I agree on both points, I actually have an earlier version of a more accurate minifig handle bars placed on top of the brickbuilt sloping nose, but I ditched it since I liked this double steering vane set-up better.

The front-Right now you have those extra bulky 2x4 inverting pieces there. Using the white piece that you have on the underside on the back of your model(Which if removed will make the back more accurate, we’ll get to that later) And stick on the front it would slim down that portion. Then place a modified 1x1 brick with studs on 2 sides there to put jumper plates on for the thickening front portion.

Your repulsors are massive; compare the ones on the Salucami reference pic to a clones torso. Then hold the ski piece next to a lego minifigs torso –you’ll see what I mean. I know it's too wide, but for me it's the best looking set-up to approximate the shape and design, so I'm sticking with it for the moment unless there will be new pieces that would give that look at a slimmer width.

The Back- The use of the two 1x4 sloping white pieces side by side looks abnormally blocky, try putting 1 on there and using a modified 1x1 with studs on two sides to attach the correctly shaped plates on and capture the rounded back portion. This solution will also render a smoother transition to the 1x2 45 Grey brick, which is transitioned to abruptly. I actually revised the back portion already (because I also thought it was blocky), following a modified version of the 7913 model with 1 slope-wide and following Mr Man's suggestion of using cheese slopes for a more continuous slope transition (I will post photos tomorrow). However, I will no longer use the side plate approach that you employed in your model.

The width of the back is incredibly too high, 8 studs? I think 6 is pushing it. Try replacing that ski piece with a 1x2 tile, and reducing the Repulsor size. I also think it's too wide, brought about by the wideness of my side air intake design, which I will stick to. I might look at using 1x2 tiles at the back.

As you've seen, my approach is more focused on getting the more aesthetically-pleasing model even with some sacrifices in dimensional accuracy. Anyway, thanks for the criticism, I may or may not follow everything you said, but I appreciate hearing your side.

I appreciate your clarification, if only you have worded your comments a little bit better then I wouldn't have taken it the wrong way. Giving constructive criticisms is perfectly normal, but the manner on how it is delivered is important, so as to prevent any conflicts. I hope everybody understands that. Anyway, my responses are in blue.

[Sisco]

It's so great to see you MOCing again, Kiel!

I absolutely love your BARC speeder. I've been looking for a good-looking and somewhat accurate model (though the sacrificing of an amount of accuracy is fine for a good-looking model), and this fits the bill magnificently. I liked Dobbyclone's speeder, but in my mind yours is just a tad bit better. I know that Dobbyclone was going for accuracy, but as I've already said, I'm willing to sacrifice a little accuracy for an aesthetically beautiful model. I love the steering vents (vanes? I get confused on the wording, sorry. ), even if they are a little wide. Your model looks so much better than the battle pack model as well!

Great work as always, I always enjoy seeing stuff from you.

[Fallenangel]

I know that Dobbyclone was going for accuracy, but as I've already said, I'm willing to sacrifice a little accuracy for an aesthetically beautiful model.

But it doesn't have to be a tradeoff. I guess this is really what I've been wanting to say every time I made a jab about accuracy. A certain degree of accuracy can have a positive effect on aesthetic quality, and there are many MOCs that reflect this idea. What's more, there's really no point in calling an MOC by the name of a Star Wars ship if you're not going to make a conscious effort to make the MOC resemble that ship.

[PhantomX]

I love it, so much detail compared to TLC version. Great Job.

[XimenaPaulina]

KDM, this is probably the most accurate and best BARC speeder I have seen. Great job it really is awesome.

I'm not too well versed on BARCs but this certainly looks better than Legos effort.

Great job Kiel. I really think you perfected the BARC Speeder with this one.

I love it, so much detail compared to TLC version. Great Job.

Thanks guys for the positive feedback, much appreciated.

It's so great to see you MOCing again, Kiel!

I absolutely love your BARC speeder. I've been looking for a good-looking and somewhat accurate model (though the sacrificing of an amount of accuracy is fine for a good-looking model), and this fits the bill magnificently. I liked Dobbyclone's speeder, but in my mind yours is just a tad bit better. I know that Dobbyclone was going for accuracy, but as I've already said, I'm willing to sacrifice a little accuracy for an aesthetically beautiful model. I love the steering vents (vanes? I get confused on the wording, sorry. ), even if they are a little wide. Your model looks so much better than the battle pack model as well!

Great work as always, I always enjoy seeing stuff from you.

Thanks cralegoboy, it took me a while to get back so I hope this little build will translate into more MOCs in the coming months (granting real life premits it).

But it doesn't have to be a tradeoff. I guess this is really what I've been wanting to say every time I made a jab about accuracy. A certain degree of accuracy can have a positive effect on aesthetic quality, and there are many MOCs that reflect this idea. What's more, there's really no point in calling an MOC by the name of a Star Wars ship if you're not going to make a conscious effort to make the MOC resemble that ship.

I think we just have to respect each others' approach. Some go for accuracy, some for aesthetics, some in between, each MOCer has his/her own way of doing things, and whatever rocks their boat is what's important.

[def]

What's more, there's really no point in calling an MOC by the name of a Star Wars ship if you're not going to make a conscious effort to make the MOC resemble that ship.

You make an interesting point here. Perhaps MOCs that fail to live up to the intense level of accuracy demanded by a handful of SW fans shouldn't be classified as SW MOCs. Maybe they are more fitting in the Space Forum. Furthermore, considering the first few years of SW are so wildly clunky and inaccurate, perhaps KimT should consider removing those from the SW set index. After all, as Fallen Angel has so concretely stated, there's no point calling it SW since they didn't make a conscious effort to replicate those ships. Some food for thought.

[BrickArtist]

You make an interesting point here. Perhaps MOCs that fail to live up to the intense level of accuracy demanded by a handful of SW fans shouldn't be classified as SW MOCs. Maybe they are more fitting in the Space Forum. Furthermore, considering the first few years of SW are so wildly clunky and inaccurate, perhaps KimT should consider removing those from the SW set index. After all, as Fallen Angel has so concretely stated, there's no point calling it SW since they didn't make a conscious effort to replicate those ships. Some food for thought.

I can't tell if that's sarcasm, or not. Fallens point just stated that a MOC isn't really SW looking if it's supposed to be a BARC, yet looks like a freeco.

[def]

I can't tell if that's sarcasm, or not. Fallens point just stated that a MOC isn't really SW looking if it's supposed to be a BARC, yet looks like a freeco.

Actually, that wasn't what he was saying. He was saying one shouldn't use the name of a SW ship if there's no conscious effort to resemble it. Should this thread be retitled not a BARC speeder?

Anyway, you two should consider starting a new thread, something like, "how much accuracy do we need?" where you can get into great detail about the dimensions and details average collectors and MOCers demand in toy replicas of imaginary ships. It would be more mature than hijacking Kiel's thread. That's a non-sarcastic suggestion.

[BrickArtist]

Actually, that wasn't what he was saying. He was saying one shouldn't use the name of a SW ship if there's no conscious effort to resemble it. Should this thread be retitled not a BARC speeder?

Anyway, you two should consider starting a new thread, something like, "how much accuracy do we need?" where you can get into great detail about the dimensions and details average collectors and MOCers demand in toy replicas of imaginary ships. It would be more mature than hijacking Kiel's thread. That's a non-sarcastic suggestion.

He didn't say anything about KDMs BARC specifically, actually. I think this whole discussion was maturely handled.

[Fallenangel]

You make an interesting point here. Perhaps MOCs that fail to live up to the intense level of accuracy demanded by a handful of SW fans shouldn't be classified as SW MOCs. Maybe they are more fitting in the Space Forum. Furthermore, considering the first few years of SW are so wildly clunky and inaccurate, perhaps KimT should consider removing those from the SW set index. After all, as Fallen Angel has so concretely stated, there's no point calling it SW since they didn't make a conscious effort to replicate those ships. Some food for thought.

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

I didn't say anything about sets. The consensus here is that System sets, like Hasbro toys, are exempt from accuracy, and I can see how that would make sense. I guess the reason for my phrasing the statement the way I did is because many members with whom I've brought up the issue of accuracy have always argued that there is a greater priority in aesthetic appeal, while not necessarily acknowledging that one can help the other. Please note also that I used resemble as opposed to replicate. You've changed the intended meaning of my statement in replacing that verb and have apparently built a jab off of that, which I do not appreciate.

Actually, that wasn't what he was saying. He was saying one shouldn't use the name of a SW ship if there's no conscious effort to resemble it. Should this thread be retitled not a BARC speeder?

Anyway, you two should consider starting a new thread, something like, "how much accuracy do we need?" where you can get into great detail about the dimensions and details average collectors and MOCers demand in toy replicas of imaginary ships. It would be more mature than hijacking Kiel's thread. That's a non-sarcastic suggestion.

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.

You've used that word "replica" again, which I did not mention at all. I did not intend to go so far as to consider MOCs as being "replicas".

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?

Edited March 31, 2011 by KielDaMan
Removed striketrough of the text

[XimenaPaulina]

Guys I would appreciate it if you continue this debate over 'accuracy issue' of SW MOCs on a separate topic (as def suggested). My only intention was to share my MOC and do not wish for this topic to be abruptly locked due to this heated discussion. Thank you.

Now back to general programming. (I shall post a slightly revised version tomorrow when I'm done with the photos).

[WhiteFang]

I just wanted to let you know that I enjoyed your version alot. Perhaps, it is because I begin to open the recent new BPs last night and finished the simple built. I am always a fan of such speeders as it is compact and easy to assemble. So I decided to explore around until I found yours. Your enhancements is much better than the simplified official version as you have included the control pedals and a much longer sleeker front. It is pretty good for the proportion equivalent to the minifigure scale.

Thanks for sharing!

[XimenaPaulina]

I just wanted to let you know that I enjoyed your version alot. Perhaps, it is because I begin to open the recent new BPs last night and finished the simple built. I am always a fan of such speeders as it is compact and easy to assemble. So I decided to explore around until I found yours. Your enhancements is much better than the simplified official version as you have included the control pedals and a much longer sleeker front. It is pretty good for the proportion equivalent to the minifigure scale.

Thanks for sharing!

Thanks Fangy! Funny thing is, this small 'project' also started when I finally opened my 7913 Clone BP which has been lying around the house for a couple of months now. I appreciated the build of the BP BARC, but as usual I felt the need to modify it to the point that I overhauled the design and came up with this one. I'm quite happy with it, and when I find some solutions to the 'other' slight inaccuracies I still continually modify it along the way.

Though one disclaimer to those who will build this - this is an extremely fragile model due to many illegal connections, and that clip connection beneath the driver area is the most fragile of 'em all.

[Anio]

What a fun discussion. Or not.

Since few days, I noticed that Fallenangel has come to the right side of the Force.

He looks models differently than he used to.

But before coming on the right side, I think he trained well a joung padawan called Dobbyclone.

I think that building a good model requires to take some distance with the real ship.

You have to look the Star Wars ships in a Lego-y way.

Thus, you can get a well balanced model, in terms of shapes, colors, building techniques, and inventory, etc. ;)

I remember a quote of a German artist, Paul Klee. My translation is probably not perfect, but he said that the artiste does not reproduce the visible but make things visible.

As for your MOC KDM, it is pretty good. You have very good details and nice shapes for the size (edit : well, maybe the noze could be 1 or 2L longer for the ship to look thinner, but that's not a big deal /edit)

On the contrary, I think that UCS model of Dobbyclone could be significantly improved (compared to KDM set).

Edited March 31, 2011 by Anio

[Scalifano]

So back to the topic of BARC Speeder, are there any new pics?

I rather liked the pictures in the original post. Probably my favorite of all the BARC Speeders so far.

[Cpt. Dan]

Let's not discredit brickartist now.

BrickArtist's was excellent as well and I couldn't build either one of these models and I think both are phenomenal builds. Cheers to both

[Kendo]

I've built my own BARC too , and I think that what you said about liking our own mocs is really important . I 've heard bad ( and good ) CAC about my BARC too , but I like it , and I think that's really important. The moc itself is really nice , like it as much as mine ( or maybe a bit more ). Also , although brickartist/dobbyclone seems to be good deep in his heart , he must be fallen angel's padawan ...

[BrickArtist]

Anybody who's criticizing my criticism, read the comments. I said I appreciated KDMs approach, I didn't say anything else. I understand we all approach models differently. I also asked him if he did want criticism, which he said he was okay with.

Weather it's my Minifig Scale version, or my UCS, version, both are not comparable to KDMs. We used different refferences, and made different styles of attempts.

KDM isn't quite going for 100% accuracy, as I was. He also appears not to want to evolve his model to a point of perfection, as I did. We both took our own unique approach.

BTW KDM, do you want a couple of easy points to make your model better? I have a couple in mind

I said that to stop people from comparing our models, which they did

As KDM said, not many people out there are going to evolve their model to the point of 100% accuracy, and I stated here, our models aren't to be compared.

I did ask if KDM wanted advice before I gave it.

Stop using this thread to compare our models! If you want to start a "Which BARC do you like better" thread, then do so.

Amazing job, as usual KDM. It seems your not too picky about the scale to the minifig, since it is quite large (compared to Dobbyclone's version), and I think it's good since it allows for better detail, and this is great. I especially like your intake design

It's KDMs, not mine

I know that Dobbyclone was going for accuracy, but as I've already said, I'm willing to sacrifice a little accuracy for an aesthetically beautiful model.

What a fun discussion. Or not.

But before coming on the right side, I think he trained well a joung padawan called Dobbyclone.

As for your MOC KDM, it is pretty good. You have very good details and nice shapes for the size (edit : well, maybe the noze could be 1 or 2L longer for the ship to look thinner, but that's not a big deal /edit)

On the contrary, I think that UCS model of Dobbyclone could be significantly improved (compared to KDM set).

[sok117]

wow, I can really see why they made a separate topic now.

The model looks really good! The illegal connections are slight and they don't hinder on the appearance to much, which is something I like! The size looks good to me too and I love the colours. The only part I don't like, and this goes for a lot of other creations, is that you split the legs to have the clone straddle the bike. This is entirely my own issue though. It in no way hinders the model. But as a personal preference, I dislike it. I can't wait to see your updated pictures, I'm not sure it can get much better then this, but you always surprise me KielDaMan!

[XimenaPaulina]

The model looks really good! The illegal connections are slight and they don't hinder on the appearance to much, which is something I like! The size looks good to me too and I love the colours. The only part I don't like, and this goes for a lot of other creations, is that you split the legs to have the clone straddle the bike. This is entirely my own issue though. It in no way hinders the model. But as a personal preference, I dislike it.

Thanks sok! With regards to the decapitated legs, I just experimented trying brickdoctor's technique, but the minifig can be positioned in the normal sitting pose in the model.

are there any new pics?

I can't wait to see your updated pictures, I'm not sure it can get much better then this, but you always surprise me KielDaMan!

I made a silly mistake and forgot to copy the new photos in my flash disk. I shall post the slightly-improved version when I get back at home after work.

[Bricks2000]

Nice! The air intakes are better than TLG's version.

[lefty]

Well, it's definitely beefier and I like what you did with the engines, the flash-speeder-cannons with the grille slopes on the bottom look great. It's unfortunate you have to rip the dude's legs off to get him to sit but it does give an accurate seating position :p

[Anio]

KDM isn't quite going for 100% accuracy, as I was. He also appears not to want to evolve his model to a point of perfection, as I did. We both took our own unique approach.

Then it seems you didn"t succeed.

[Fallenangel]

Then it seems you didn"t succeed.

... which is why he's still reworking his UCS BARC.

[BrickArtist]

Then it seems you didn"t succeed.

Mine was going for 100% physical accuracy, not most aesthetically pleasing. So while mine may have been more proportionate/accurate scale, KDMs is more of an eye-candy piece. That's just how I see it. KDMs is more attractive. Now stop talking about mine!