Starfighter Archetypes

Newer Older

I thought it might be fun to post categorical examples of the different body types that I tend to build.

Of course this is just for fun and is not meant to try and put constraints or definitions on starfighters. I think it does help with clearing the cobwebs and maybe helping others with generalized places to start.

Sgana, The Legonator, r a p h y, and 48 other people added this photo to their favorites.

  1. Colourbrand 38 months ago | reply

    THAT - is utterly brilliant - I like mindsets in ideas and how they are shaped.

    Brilliant stuff as ever Peter.

  2. pasukaru76 38 months ago | reply

    Now there's a bias towards symmetrical shapes.

  3. Motian 38 months ago | reply

    You interestingly avoid the front-based cockpit concepts. While the pod cockpits taper to the nose, the pods themselves keep that cockpit from being afore the center of gravity. I think you should give a front-based concept a shot, giving it your requisite degree of awesometude.

  4. peterlmorris 38 months ago | reply

    Oh, good point. I left out asymmetrical types, as well.

  5. SuperHardcoreDave 38 months ago | reply

    Nice classifications system! I think your system can be applied to almost any builder's starfighter's but there is always an odd duck or two that escape any attempt at classification or make you create a new catagory.
    That said, I was just thinking about what Motian said, and I also agree that you should try a front based cokpit design, if you havn't already.

  6. Shannon Ocean 38 months ago | reply

    Mmm this is most cool. I really dig the gradient within each type, from basic to elaborate, nice work matey!

    I had an idea while ago to make a table similar to this, comparing starfighters in general, good v bad guys to see how many good-guy ships have the traditional single nose while bad guys usually feature twin booms (Vic Vipers being an exception).

  7. legovaughan 38 months ago | reply

    Nice breakdown. When do we get a chart of your cockpit box assemblies, pretty please?

  8. peterlmorris 38 months ago | reply

    The problem I have with most forward-biased cockpit starfighters is that they tend to look like moving vans, with the exception of R-Type style fighters.

    For instance, the Magnaguard, Y-Wing, and Havoc from the Star Wars universe all have more of a utility feel to them (to me) than other fighters like the X-Wing, A-Wing, Delta-9, and so forth.

    On the other hand, some of LEGO's classic space sets are forward-biased, and they look great - like the original FX-Star Patroller and Gamma V laser craft. I sketched out some ideas last night on paper, so we'll see if I can bring them to life with the new V-wing canopy piece.

    I'll whip something up this week, though I do have instructions in the "How-To" collection in my photostream.

  9. Shannon Ocean 38 months ago | reply

    The rear-cockpit design works because it's reminiscent of a Roadster, I think.

  10. peterlmorris 38 months ago | reply

    Ah yes! Which itself perhaps comes from the nautical tradition!

    Very interesting to think about.

  11. нawк 38 months ago | reply

    Oh man, this is way cool, Peter. I really love seeing people discuss the inspiration and aesthetics of their LEGO models, and this doesn't fail to impress.

  12. Praxio 36 months ago | reply

    Umm... aren't you forgetting verticle-builds?

  13. peterlmorris 36 months ago | reply

    Only if you're forgetting how to read.

  14. Praxio 36 months ago | reply

    Oh, okay. I must have overlooked the last part of the paragraph. This is great, by the way. I always enjoy seeing the way things are catagorized, so this was really fun to look at.

keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts