SNOT Obsession

[Mr Benn]

It's not a symptom of this particular forum at all, but there are, in some circles, a real impression that if your MOC isn't SNOTty at all, then it's a much more 'basic' build compared with those MOCs which are SNOTtier... it's as if for some reason having a little bit of SNOT raises your model an echelon higher than it otherwise could have been, even if it's really only very basic stuff... in comparison, sometimes it just isn't needed in a MOC - there are plenty of nice techniques that can be achieved through simple one brick on top of another stacking depending on the bricks and styles that are actually used...

So I'm interested to hear what other people think - whilst SNOT is a tremendously useful building technique and some brilliant effects can be had with it, is SNOTty becomeing a bit snobby?

[Ralph_S]

The subtitle of your post confused me a bit, because it doesn't seem to agree with the description of SNOT that you use in the actual post. Some people confuse SNOT building and building studless. They are not the same. Almost all of my models have studs on top but most use SNOT techniques.

That said, I'm generally of the opinion that the build techniques often don't really matter all that much for the overall look and feel of a model. I've seen stuff that used amazing techniques and that looked a bit rubbish and I've seem models that were built with fairly basic stacked bricks and plates and that looked amazing and I don't use SNOT techniques for the sake of it. However, I do think that there are plenty of things that I do that I don't think I could if I didn't build stuff sideways or upside-down.

Cheers,

Ralph

Edited November 1, 2011 by Ralph_S

[Hrw-Amen]

It seems to me that both SNOT and studless are becoming more normal and therefore cannot by virtue of that be snobbish.

Anyway, I don't think it matters as it is down to what individuals like and want.

For me I like as much studless as possible as I like a clean finish with just enough studs to hold the odd Mini-Fig or two. I don't do a great deal of SNOT but have used it on occasion.

That does not mean that my models are better or worse though, they are just what I like. Others may and do disagree, also I've seen plenty of stud'ier models than I would have built that look great.

[Aanchir]

There are definitely situations in which SNOT or studless MOCs are good and situations in which they are bad. For instance, I generally don't like SNOT builds that end up causing the model to be unstable or fragile. And I don't like studless builds if a model is designed to resemble a set and the studlessness makes it overly complicated or reduces play value. At the same time, SNOT allows for a lot of parts to be used in ways other than how they were intended, which adds to the creativity of a model, and studlessness allows for smoother details. Even sets nowadays tend to use a lot more SNOT or studless building-- for instance, the sidewalks of modular buildings are studless. And it's not just in AFOL-oriented sets-- some Atlantis sets tended to conceal a lot of the studs, even if they were occasionally uncovered, and used SNOT techniques plentifully to create curved or irregular shapes.

[lightningtiger]

For yourstruly, I use SNOT where shelving, special roof components, etc., are required. I don't think it's snobbish at all we who use SNOT as part of arsenal for MOC'ing.

I tile most of my creations, unless the style I have chosen is classic town or castle themed (now there's a hint at a comming MOC ).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion though.

[Ralph_S]

I don't think that using SNOT techniques is snobbish, but I think that the point Mr. Benn was trying to make is that the attitude that a model can only be good if it involves SNOT building (or is studless) is a bit snobbish.

Cheers,

Ralph

[lisqr]

I think it all depends on what you are building. I think buildings and castles can look great without SNOT technique. But if you are building animal or vehicles (cars, spacecraft...) without SNOT, intricate shapes are hard to pull off. Also lettering and small pictures almost requires SNOT.

[Aanchir]

I don't think that using SNOT techniques is snobbish, but I think that the point Mr. Benn was trying to make is that the attitude that a model can only be good if it involves SNOT building (or is studless) is a bit snobbish.

Cheers,

Ralph

Well, definitely, but that applies for any sort of MOC judgment that limits the creativity of the MOCist. Personally, I dislike using illegal connections, and it pains me to see ones where the parts might be damaged. But that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge talented or creative MOCs that use these connections.

There's similar snobbery in a lot of other fields of MOCing. for instance, BIONICLE/Hero Factory MOCs are often deemed inferior to System MOCs unless they're hugely complicated-- otherwise, they "all look the same", just like how some AFOLs feel about the actual sets in these themes. But that's just a matter of people's personal judgment, and from my experience people these days, at least here on Eurobricks, are a lot more open to many types of MOCs whether simple or SNOTted, studless or studded.

[Alasdair Ryan]

As a technic person i normally use the tecknic panels,but when i decided i was going to make one of my latest projects i wanted to use SNOT just because it will look realy cool.

This is my first moc with SNOT yes it is more expensive but it helps bring the vehicle,building,or whatever to life.

project page

Edited November 2, 2011 by Alasdair Ryan

[Dennimator]

Personally I don't feel like I can achieve much without using various SNOT techniques when building 5-wide cars, but that doesn't mean I can't like a model that doesn't use SNOT techniques. There are many great MOCs out there that isn't coming close to involving any SNOT.

[Ralph_S]

Personally I don't feel like I can achieve much without using various SNOT techniques when building 5-wide cars, but that doesn't mean I can't like a model that doesn't use SNOT techniques. There are many great MOCs out there that isn't coming close to involving any SNOT.

It certainly opens a lot of possibilities and I couldn't imagine building one of my aircraft without SNOT work, quite simply because it allows me to make shapes that I couldn't otherwise, but here are two of my own MOCs with little or no SNOT work, one of which is a five-wide car

Hot Rod (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr

(there's a tiny bot of SNOT work at the back, but the rest is done with half-stud offsets.)

Georgian houses (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr

(there's a window in the roof of the conservatory in the back that's built sideways and the green skip is a bit of SNOT building though.)

The houses in particular are nothing fancy when it comes to build techniques, but they're neither bad in quality or particularly easy to pull off IMO.

Cheers,

Ralph

Edited November 2, 2011 by Ralph_S

[Dennimator]

It certainly opens a lot of possibilities and I couldn't imagine building one of my aircraft without SNOT work, quite simply because it allows me to make shapes that I couldn't otherwise, but here are two of my own MOCs with little or no SNOT work, one of which is a five-wide car

Hot Rod (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr

(there's a tiny bot of SNOT work at the back, but the rest is done with half-stud offsets.)

Georgian houses (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr

(there's a window in the roof of the conservatory in the back that's built sideways and the green skip is a bit of SNOT building though.)

The houses in particular are nothing fancy when it comes to build techniques, but they're neither bad in quality or particularly easy to pull off IMO.

Cheers,

Ralph

A perfect example of that it is very much possible to build great MOCs without using SNOT.

The houses give a nice sense of simplicity at its best, not too jammed with details, but not too plain either.

And the hot rod.. Where to begin

I would like it better in black with light(medium) blue flames though. Probably because I like light blue, and the black would be a nice contrast.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Dennimator

[Clone OPatra]

The subtitle is a reference to the title of Dr. Strangelove. It's just a joke.

Good points have been brought up for and against SNOT. Personally, since it's a technique, I feel it can be used whenever necessary, but it isn't essential.

[Ralph_S]

The subtitle is a reference to the title of Dr. Strangelove. It's just a joke.

Good points have been brought up for and against SNOT. Personally, since it's a technique, I feel it can be used whenever necessary, but it isn't essential.

I realised that it was based on Dr. Strangelove, but your reference to studs made me think that you might have been confusing SNOT-techniques and studless building. This is a pretty common thing. Some people in this thread seem to not be aware of the distinction.

Studs Not on Top suggests, IMO wrongly, that a model that doesn't have studs on top therefore uses SNOT techniques and that a model that does have studs doesn't. My understanding of the term is that it is a name for a build technique in which you use elements with their top (where the studs usually are) pointing in a different direction, irrespective of whether the finished product ends up having the studs visible or not. Placing tiles on top of your studs is not SNOT building: it's building a studless model.

People sometimes see studs on my models which prompts them to ask whether I do any SNOT building. My standard reply is that I do lots of SNOT building, but I don't build studless models. Of course, if you want to build studless, SNOT techniques can be a way of achieving it

I actually haven't really read any arguments against SNOT building in this thread, but most of us seem to agree that it is possible to build good and interesting MOCs without it.

Cheers,

Ralph

[TomRoid]

Sounds like an unhealthy obsession...

[SNIPE]

when building a car for example id try to minimize the amount of sudds on the bodywork.

[wokajablocka]

Genrally SNOT building techneques are harder to cheive and deserves more credit. Although we are seeing more and more SNOT in sets and MOC's the technique is getting more easy to do with the addition of Lego SNOT elements and seeing how pepole use it gives yuo more ideas and becomes easy for you to pull off. I think more credit due for SNOT builds but as it gets more mainstream it will have less of a snotty factor.

[pp7]

I haven't seen much non-SNOT hate on EB, but what about this...

In building anything, we should always be concerned with texture. Sometimes we achieve texture with a variety of like colours, or have slopes or other bits jutting out of places to illustrate complexity or unevenness (think bottom of the Super Star Destroyer )

Studs are also a method of creating texture. You may make a placid lake or pond with tiles, but a rushing river would look much mighter with studs up (or, even partially studded). Similar principle with snow - trodden snow will likely be studs up, but undisturbed snow can be SNOTted for great effect. To reference the 'mad physicist's house above, the studs towards the roof present a subtle but important aspect of the architecture. Is it an ornate eavestrough? A Georgian stylistic norm? I don't know, but it definitely isn't the flatlaid brick that makes up the rest of the house!

So, texture! texture! texture! ...right?

[Werlu Ulcur]

Studs Not on Top suggests, IMO wrongly, that a model that doesn't have studs on top therefore uses SNOT techniques and that a model that does have studs doesn't. My understanding of the term is that it is a name for a build technique in which you use elements with their top (where the studs usually are) pointing in a different direction, irrespective of whether the finished product ends up having the studs visible or not. Placing tiles on top of your studs is not SNOT building: it's building a studless model.

People sometimes see studs on my models which prompts them to ask whether I do any SNOT building. My standard reply is that I do lots of SNOT building, but I don't build studless models. Of course, if you want to build studless, SNOT techniques can be a way of achieving it

Thanks for the explanation, Ralph! Being a newb I didn't understand what SNOT really meant, but your post makes it perfectly clear.

Very informative!

[SNIPE]

Thanks for the explanation, Ralph! Being a newb I didn't understand what SNOT really meant, but your post makes it perfectly clear.

Very informative!

at what point does it say in this thread what you quoted?

[KotZ]

Personally, I'm fine either way. I think it just depends on what I am building. Now, I can't speak for all, but I think that I am like a lot of MOCers. Some things look good with SNOT techniques, while others don't. For example, say somebody makes a house in Classic Town style, would that look good SNOTting? Not really. But say somebody was making a large expansive seaside hrabor with Imperial soldiers and pirates. That would make more sense to use SNOT techniques. I think SNOTting is interesting, but only when used in ways that actually benefit the model instead of having it just because you want to SNOT. Then it becomes "snobby."

[Ralph_S]

I haven't seen much non-SNOT hate on EB, but what about this...

In building anything, we should always be concerned with texture. Sometimes we achieve texture with a variety of like colours, or have slopes or other bits jutting out of places to illustrate complexity or unevenness (think bottom of the Super Star Destroyer )

Studs are also a method of creating texture. You may make a placid lake or pond with tiles, but a rushing river would look much mighter with studs up (or, even partially studded). Similar principle with snow - trodden snow will likely be studs up, but undisturbed snow can be SNOTted for great effect. To reference the 'mad physicist's house above, the studs towards the roof present a subtle but important aspect of the architecture. Is it an ornate eavestrough? A Georgian stylistic norm? I don't know, but it definitely isn't the flatlaid brick that makes up the rest of the house!

So, texture! texture! texture! ...right?

This thread has certainly become more interesting, but I emphasise again that SNOT does not mean studless. Here's an example of something I built full of SNOT techniques, but with studs.

UK Police Ford Focus (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr

The front bumper uses SNOT techniques, with bits mounted with their top mounted forward or upside down. The front mudguards are built upside down. The rear bumper is also a SNOT construction, with the tops of elements pointing aft. That's SNOT. Not a bunch of tiles.

The studs near the roof of the house are the result of me not bothering to cover them up. I generally don't build studless because I quite like the aesthetic that the studs give me. I do a lot of SNOT building, but I generally do have studs on top of my models. It's a conscious choice. It also allows me to make shapes that, to my eye at least, actually look rounder than stepped tile would, certainly if I combine plates with studs and tiles, like the tiles on the roof of the Police car, which give the impression that it is slightly curved towards the sides.

Thanks for the explanation, Ralph! Being a newb I didn't understand what SNOT really meant, but your post makes it perfectly clear.

Very informative!

You're welcome. I'm glad you find it useful. It's a rubbish acronym IMO.

at what point does it say in this thread what you quoted?

On the first page.

Cheers,

Ralph (aka. Mad physicist)