Classic-Castle.com

So...I've been meaning to revise the Base8 article for some time now. There's a couple of 8cre standards I want to fix for more consistency and I want to re-write the article so it is easier to understand with minimal clarification. With two big cons coming up where its use is being discussed I think now is as good a time as any to start.

I would like to use this thread as a sort of work-space for Revision 2. Firstly, the standard's been in use for about a year and a half now, I've done 3 cons where we've used it, and I would like to get any feedback from anyone who has attempted to use it so far. What works? What doesn't work? Is it too open-ended? Too difficult?

Secondly, I'm going to start posting revisions here as I write them and I'd like to get feedback from everyone, especially those who've never used the standard. Any questions that come up, anything that's confusing or unclear, anything that can be clarified or expanded upon for greater comprehension. I'd like to see the standard used throughout the community, so I feel the more community involvement in its development the better.

So for starters: Base8 veterans, what are your thoughts? Any glaring inconsistencies that you feel should be ironed out? Anything that should be expanded on? For those who've read the existing article and never used it, is it easy to understand? What needs to be better explained?

Any response is appreciated.

Breadman,

Thats alot of good info on there. I think it is nice to be able to use smaller bases to build on to allow more people to participate. I especially found the section regaridng the level of bricks on baseplates and how to raise a baseplate to that level interesting.

I really enjoyed the CC description and like the look of it alot. I think this will be a good addition to the existing work out there. I am rather new to this so I have no real information to help only to say that I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

R

I think you should take the plunge and make BpB part of the standard rather than an option.

I've only used the standard once, at Brickfest '07. I liked how realatively easy it was to combine with each other. The overall effect was quite nice. However, while it worked well to combine everyone's contributions it made the landscape look quite flat, and the mountains look like large terraces. This may be an issue with the specific MOCs made, perhaps we just need to landscape better in portions, I dunno.

The thing that really sticks out, with the vast "studlessness" movement in the community, especially towards water, I cannot help but think perhaps we should attempt to revise the streams and waterways section to somehow include SNOT water?

That's really the only suggestion I have. Base8 is really an amazing concept, and works quite well for large cons. I think perhaps, that if it is a small display, that it would be better to just communicate well, and custom make the connections, to improve looks a bit. For Large gatherings I cannot think of a better system!

Hope all that rambling somehow makes sense.

wunztwice wrote: The thing that really sticks out, with the vast "studlessness" movement in the community, especially towards water, I cannot help but think perhaps we should attempt to revise the streams and waterways section to somehow include SNOT water?

That would be great news for me. I always prefer to use SNOT water and plan on using it in my BrickCon model.

RebelRock wrote:

wunztwice wrote: The thing that really sticks out, with the vast "studlessness" movement in the community, especially towards water, I cannot help but think perhaps we should attempt to revise the streams and waterways section to somehow include SNOT water?

That would be great news for me. I always prefer to use SNOT water and plan on using it in my BrickCon model.

As someone who is not jumping on the "studless" bandwagon, I don't mind the idea of SNOT water in streams and even small rivers but when we come to large bodies of water I think blue baseplates (NOT using BpB) are the best choice. I want to see whole tables filled with ships and boats and trying to brick build the equivalent of a dozen or more blue baseplates seems wasteful and unnecessarily time-consuming.

So, perhaps "sea shore" should be a special sub-section with examples of using the BpB height to advantage to create a sloping beach or other sea/land connection.

Ted has the right of it, we need to use baseplates if we're gonna do large bodies of water. I am not opposed to adding studless river 8cres to the standard though, since enough people seem to want it. I think transitions from SNOT to studded are perfectly feasible, I whipped this up in ldraw last night:



For those who want to bring modules with studless water to BrickCon: are you wanting to have a river / stream that flows from one side to the other? If your water's source is somewhere in your module and flows to the edge, if you have it end in a transition like this we shouldn't have a problem.

I think my SNOT water will be in the form of a moat so I don't need to worry about connectivity. Otherwise, I gather that the correct height for the edges of my "unit" is one brick(+baseplate) and in a multiple of 8 studs width. Correct?

RebelRock wrote:I gather that the correct height for the edges of my "unit" is one brick(+baseplate) and in a multiple of 8 studs width. Correct?

You have it exactly!

Yeah, I vote for baseplates in regards to large bodies of water. I will be doing SNOT water and I imagined a transition somewhat along the lines of what you built. Thanks for doing that, btw. I hadn't built a test piece yet and was wondering if it would turn out okay.

Josh

I definitely prefer to see studded water stay part of the standard. I actually like studded water since it retains texture. Studless water is good for some things, but not all.

Heck, because I like texture so much, I have built studs out waterfalls.

As to terraced mountains: I think the trick here is that we need some fairly large mountain/cliff modules that allow for much for variety in ground level, cliff lines, and lazy slopes.

Frank

Oh, I'd also like to get a wharf standard set up. My thought on wharf standard is that the basic wharf height would be one "hill/mountain" level up. I think my wharf scene is a plate or two shy of this (which may be just fine).

Frank

Hey, another thought. Make a pdf version of the spec (with larger pictures?)

That way those of us who don't have a computer handy to their LEGO room can just print it out.

Frank

ffilz wrote:Oh, I'd also like to get a wharf standard set up. My thought on wharf standard is that the basic wharf height would be one "hill/mountain" level up.

Hmmmm, I wonder if it a good candidate for inclusion as a standard?

When we tried the wharfside area at NWBC'06 we had both your very tall wharf sections and opposite was my modular wharf sections which were basically a couple of bricks high.

There are two sides to this issue (literally). The side that joins with adjacent land and the water side. The seaward side's primary concern is to align nicely with ships that are docked. The landward side dictates how high the "ground-zero" (for lack of a better term) must be built.

If we make the seaward side a full "hill level" up then it aligns nicely with very tall ships. Gangplanks are not at harsh angles and things like stairs for small boats, sewer grates and other details are easily added. It does however mean that now a large part of, if not the entire associated town must be built on stilts to raise the baseplates to a ground-zero above the actual table top.

If we make the landward side one single BpB then we allow for "ground-zero" to be the same as the table top. This makes the adjoining land sections much easier to build and reduces the amount of extra bricks needed. It does mean that ships with tall sides may have to accept steep gangplanks when docked or wharves would have to built that rise up higher like modern boardwalks.

There is actuall a third option which would be to do what the train guys do and make water a separate table for the water level that is X-bricks lower than the standard tables. Too costly and cumbersome for most situations but a possibility.

So, of the two practical options, I would favour the landward-side, BpB option as the standard BUT allow event coordinators to arrange for "hill-level" wharves/dockside in the same way any other terrain-level changes are agreed. Examples of both would be useful to include as a new section of the standard.

I think we could have a dual wharf standard. Have a BPB standard and a +8 standard (which, thinking about it, actually needs to be +9 over a baseplate because a hill tier is 8 an 8 brick rise - is that correct?).

Of course there's also the consideration that 2 bricks + 1 plate makes for a very nice dock height, but that's an easy step up from BPB, and not a bad step down from a higher dock (I have such a dock in my scene).

One thing I like about a +1 hill tier town is that buildings can have basements.

Frank