What are your opinions on building digitally vs. physically?
In my opinion, Stud.io can be very useful for building with parts you don’t have IRL, but it just doesn’t provide the same feeling as building IRL, which is one of a kind.
I’ll always prefer building with physical parts, but many times I don’t have parts available when I’m testing a build. That’s when I find Stud.io the most useful.
5 Likes
Stud.io is useful for 3d printed pieces you don’t have, official pieces you don’t have or recolours that don’t exist. Rendering is awesome too.
The main problem would be it being somewhat buggy from time to time.
The rotation system can be messy and doing something like pistons is just impossible.
Though the main problem are that flexibles, like Mahri tubes, are just sticks and the rest is super hard to use.
If you have a lot of patience (which I don’t) that might not be a problem.
Also custom colours are a thing (for most people).
Building in real life forces you to be more creative with what you have.
And you have that feeling of actually getting something out of it when you are done. Also gear functions are nice to have.
Also a lot of important pieces are missing in Stud.io even if you include parts packs.
And some Stud.io colours suck.
Oh and sometimes connections hate me
7 Likes
I’m more of a studio builder, so I think that it’s pretty useful when you don’t have that many parts irl. Building irl is a pretty unique experience though
2 Likes
Both are equally viable. I feel like it’s very easy to “cheat” in stud.io, because you have infinite parts in every color. That often works around the creative challenge of limited parts and/or colors.
6 Likes
i like the feel of plastic against my salad fingers.
so yeah, IRL building is better.
5 Likes
Honestly, I think physical building is a much healthier experience. You learn a lot more when you have limited pieces, and have to constantly come up with different ways to do things.
4 Likes
I like both. Studio 2.0 for tests, and for making models that I can’t make in the real world, while I love challenging myself to build with my much more limited part collection in real life.
1 Like
I prefer irl building as you can do things like piece trapping that Stud.io doesn’t recognize.
4 Likes
For me, studio is a draft design program. But sometimes things that seemed possible in the studio are impossible irl because of loose connections or interference.
1 Like
Both have advantages and limitations.
Digital gives you whatever colors and parts you want but the limitations of physical building can help to stimulate creativity.
Digital models are easier to make presentable renders/images of if you’re not a skilled photographer but physical models are easier to pose.
Digital building gives you easier access to custom parts and colors but physical building gives you the novelty of those parts being… well… physical.
The balance that works best for me personally is prototyping a model physically and then finalizing the colors and details digitally.
Also prejudice against studio moccists is dumb.
3 Likes
I enjoy both (physical and digital) for different reasons as, like you said, there is a very different feel to them. Growing up, and even until a month ago, I kept almost every set I received together as instructions intended. After all, I wanted it for the model as is, nothing more. Meaning that I only had spare parts to work with, which wasn’t much. So LDD allowed me to explore more, especially with newer parts I knew I wouldn’t receive. Though having done both to a decent extent, I find the lack of understanding between the environments alarming.
Building digitally, be it through LDD, LDraw, Mecabricks, Stud.io or whatever your favorite Lego CAD software is gets a very unfair rep. Most often by elitists who spend hundreds to thousands on Lego each year and have massive collections and space. For some reason, the idea of “infinite” parts in a digital medium feels like cheating to these people. And they often cite or give reasons that really don’t apply, so let’s address some complaints and then some more direct comparisons between Digital and Physical building.
Complaints of Digital Builds:
1. Infinite or Unlimited Pieces
For some reason, people believe that it being digital means unlimited. It can’t even be touted in theory as having infinite parts, because that doesn’t work. Like every 3D or CAD software, LDD and other programs can only render so many objects on screen. Make something have enough elements or a model too large and the programs will begin to severely lag, freeze, or outright crash and no longer operate. LDD, for example, can struggle to have even six standard 2.0 Heroes all in the same file.
You might try and argue that, with better hardware, a computer could show or run more objects on screen. While that’s true, it’s down to how the software handles those resources. Even the world’s greatest supercomputer wouldn’t be able to get Halo’s original engine to render a hundred to thousands of enemies and battle effects on screen at 30 FPS because the engine was not designed to handle that many objects. The same applies to LDD and friends; some are better at handling it than others, but you’re going to find that even with the best computer the upper limit is realistically around the Death Star set(s) before they become unusable.
Similarly, the larger the pieces, the more strain is put on the software. Even if the pieces are small, if you spread them out far enough apart, the applications will struggle to continue rendering everything. These programs are intended for smaller builds that don’t take up a ton a space, like plenty of real Lego sets. Go beyond and you’ll find it’s a lot easier to place twenty feet of baseplates IRL than in LDD.
2. Unlimited Color Options
This complaint always struck me as odd. Digital builders are expected to be more purist for some reason, but if you’re some rich or lucky chump who happens to have a prototype part, miscolored or misprinted piece then it’s somehow perfectly acceptable to use. Even though such parts were never supposed to be released and could be argued as being impure when used.
Or the plenty of builders who paint pieces or even break and cut pieces into smaller versions since they don’t exist in those colors. Like cutting up the really long white axels into something 2L in size. For some reason, this is considered more acceptable by physical builders than a digital program that can just change what hues are available in its library.
So aside from the hypocrisy, yes, digital building does allow people to make pieces whatever colors they want. It’s a necessary compromise for the environment being used. True, they could build out a library and has a unique entry for every piece and every color they come in, but that’s a waste of memory. It is far easier to have everything be one default color and let the builder alter the colors as necessary. It also future proofs the program in case those pieces come in new colors.
If they’re purist builders, they will make it only in official colors. Some even inform the builder what colors they come in IRL, so this is a nonissue. If it must only be in official colors, play it fair on both sides in the rules.
3. Digital Building Stifles Creativity
This often goes hand in hand with the unlimited parts complaint, with colors usually being an aside. For some reason, it is believed that it takes more creativity to use whatever random pieces are physically around than having a massive library of digital parts. This is wrong on a fundamental level; it doesn’t take more creativity, it uses different areas of creativity.
Indeed, in a physical space you have work with the limitations of ownership (unless you’re rich enough to where that’s a nonfactor). But even if you had unlimited parts physically, like you were a Lego Designer, it’s not the parts but the eyes that are the limiter. You might think of a certain piece or a method of doing something, but then notice a different part that would work just as well. Or had no particular plan in mind and just shifting randomly through pieces until something speaks to you or randomly grab and just work with it. It’s more tactile, physical building relies on a sensory experience. Even if overwhelmed by choice, feeling alone can get you through.
Digital building can’t do that. Even if your parts are highly organized, there is no shifting through pieces or randomly grabbing stuff, there is no random spotting with the eyes. None of that, digital loses pretty much every sensory feeling. It is just a series of categories, a mountain of options. It can be overwhelming and has no physical compensation to account for being plagued with no idea what to choose or use.
As such, digital building requires more thinking, more planning. It requires a builder to look at parts a whole other way. To know the pieces intimately, where each one is located, what ones would work for the vision trying to be achieved. And while one can experiment and do random things in the digital space, it still requires a lot more intention than physical pieces demand.
Which means that a seasoned and good builder is already doing this. They’re thinking ahead, they have ideas of what parts are needed, how they’ll go together, etc. It just becomes a matter of locating those parts and then putting it together. And in that sense, there is no difference between digital or physical when it comes to the creativity aspect of building.
Part of this complaint, often by more elitist builders, is due to the number of samey or clone builds found in digital models. Especially if they’re Toa builds in the Bionicle fandom or Hero from Hero Factory because of things like Hero Recon Team. As if suddenly the thousands upon thousands of identical and very similar looking Toa, Heroes, and other builds haven’t existed physically and don’t continue to populate galleries. Simply put, some builds are popular and people don’t find a reason to change it, so a lot of creations and characters look the same. The medium doesn’t matter, it happens in both. The only reason why, perhaps, it seems to be happening more often in digital builds now is due to the increasing rarity and cost of physical constraction parts.
Comparing Digital and the Physical
1. What are Physics?
An often used complaint, and a large contributing issue to the other comparisons below, is the lack of real world physics in the digital space. Kind of like Minecraft, parts can just float in space, suspended by nothing in digital building. Weight, clutch power, different surface types, weakening friction; these are all things digital applications don’t take into account.
This is a legitimate issue with digital building. A builder needs to be well versed in how the parts and their creation would work IRL. Sometimes, even the best builders can find that their digital works don’t operate quite as expected when presented physically. With physical building, this can be tested or fixed on the fly. Digital building, it needs to be replicated IRL first and then fixed with more parts if available or go back to the digital version and alter to what might fix it.
This does not make digital builds worthless or lesser than physical ones. Just like engineers, it will just take longer to make sure their theoretical model holds up. They can’t account for everything, nor does everything go to plan. Which is also part of the problem with programming such features into building programs.
Is it possible for such physics to be included? Yes. However, that would take away from the easy of building in a 3D space. It could make building less fun in a virtual world. And that’s a lot of programming resources that would likely go to waste. While Stud.io does include a feature to guess how well a model will hold up, given nothing has really been done to improve it in a long time tells me they also think it isn’t worth the effort.
Would it be neat for the program to simulate ball sockets at differing levels of stiffness/strength/hold like we find IRL? Sure, but that variable is such a gamble it’s not worth including. It will just have to rely on the builders being aware of this. Speaking of which…
2. I Can’t Go There Here, but I Can Out There
The biggest limitation of any Lego CAD software is the programming of the part object themselves. Some, like LDD, have objects restricted so they snap to preprogrammed areas to make building easy. A 3D space in a computer environment is difficult for many, so it’s a necessary compromise. Unfortunately, this means how parts can connect are limited to the connection points in their programming. Meaning if they didn’t think of someone making a type of connection they could physically (e.g., putting Minifigure legs into a 2x2 brick), then the program simply can’t do it. Or if it does allow it, it probably is clipping through or giving some other error.
However, this also means that parts which otherwise couldn’t connect in real life can suddenly do so digitally. Take the Hero Factory 2.0 shield piece as an example.
It has an axel there, so it’s programmed to allow pieces with axel holes to connect as long as it doesn’t violate the physical space required. Which means you can pull off something like this:
That is impossible to do in the real world…Legally anyways. It’s technically possible, but you’ll probably damage the axel in the attempt. But under reasonable circumstances, there is not enough space to insert a Technic connector inside the shield like that. LDD is correct in thinking that’s enough space to put it in there, but there’s not enough space IRL to physically jam it inside. It’s impossible.
Similarly, you can stick axels into peg holes and they’ll hold. Although they would just fall out IRL. Or you can put a Minifigure chainsaw bar inside the lightsaber bar holders in the shield above, even though the bar in that chainsaw is nowhere near long enough to be kept in place. It’s unfortunate, but these are the limitations of the digital systems without far more dedicated programming.
So in that sense, digital builders can cheat here…but that sort of “cheating” is doing things they might not know aren’t possible. But hey, if you want some “advantage,” I’m sure you can do fun things with that shield configuration above.
However, physical builders can cheat in many ways that digital building wouldn’t allow. Because physical pieces can be forced to connect or shoved in other parts. Car tires are the go-to example, because how many physical builders use them would be impossible in the digital world. Not only do they lack the programming to go around something like a CCBS limb, it doesn’t replicate the stretchiness or ability to turn some tires inside out, etc. Simply holding parts or chunks together by pressure rather than proper connections just cannot be done digitally. So many techniques, and quite frankly almost all illegal ones at that, are not allowed digitally.
This doesn’t even begin to account for the ways many physical builders actually cheat. Such as cutting and damaging parts, using glue, wires, or even stitching builds together in photoshop. I ask you, at which point does that make digital the lesser of the two if you go to such lengths?
3. I’m Sorry Dave, but I Cannot Allow You to Stress These Pieces
One of the other large complaints against digital building is clipping. The real deal can’t clip through themselves. While most digital programs try to prevent parts from clipping, there’s just a small problem when it comes to constraction builds…It’s that, you know, the entire ball and socket system works by clipping.
To explain what I mean, in the real world the ball pieces stress the sockets parts. That’s how they hold on, by making the socket smaller than the balls by however much Lego made them. Same situation with any clip pieces, like Minifig or Exo-Force robot hands. It’s also why these sorts of piece are more prone to breaking, because of the stress.
So if the balls are larger than the sockets, and the CAD software tries to prevent clipping, how does that work? Well, it doesn’t. You’ll see in LDD that CCBS and similar parts are programmed to just allow the parts to clip through. The 3D models are fixed, they can’t bend or change like the real things, so it just has to clip in order to work. Stud.io is primarily System based and was never altered to account for stuff like CCBS, which is why you can’t put torso shells on a CCBS torso…And still can’t last I saw. All of that is custom programming because it goes against the normal system for how other Lego parts function.
Thus, by necessity, clipping sometimes happens. Plastic bends, the real parts can move and be positioned in many ways the digital model cannot. Yes, there is clipping done by some digital builds that wouldn’t work IRL either. But again, those are instances more easily spotted by physical builders who know how the parts work.
That said, I use all that as an example for the larger picture. Because, yes, physical parts can be flexed, bent, and moved in ways the digital version doesn’t replicate. Like stressing parts, aka IRL clipping. With physical pieces, instead of the programming telling you they’re too close together, you can just shove and force them together anyways and have to deal with the stress damage on those pieces. For some reason, causing stress and damage to parts is considered fine and acceptable by some, but when parts clip because the program recognizes that the physical builder is wrong, somehow that build is lesser for it.
4. I Can’t Flex Like That
As previously stated, the parts in digital programs can’t bend. However, I partially lied. Most can’t, but a few are programmed to flex. Though it’s only some of the tubing pieces and the amount they can bend and flex is limited. For what should be an easy-to-use building program, I’m sure it’s very impressive from a technical standpoint. But it’s still clunky and very painful to use.
If your build relies on rubber bands or flex tubes to hold together or function, the digital world can’t help you there. Quite unfortunate, but it’s not the only thing it can’t flex. Posing figures is also difficult in digital builds.
Now, I am terrible at doing poses both IRL and in the digital world, but digital is more clunky. Sometimes it doesn’t include the rest of the model and will only move that piece separate from everything else. Due to lack of physics, it won’t force other parts to move in response to something else. Meaning if you, say, had three movable parts in the knee, each of those sections would have to be changed manually in a digital build and constantly altered if they conflict with each other. Whereas in real life you can just move it and tada, it’s moved.
On one hand, this does mean you could be more aware of what will or can move with your digital model. One the other, perhaps parts will move that you didn’t expect when it’s IRL. Ultimately, posing and using flexible materials is simply easier with physical parts than digital.
Also string. String and net pieces aren’t really a thing digitally and far easier physically.
5. I Have to Take That Apart?!
This is an unfortunate reality, especially with large or very tight builds. At some point, you probably need to take it apart to redesign or fix some issue. But which is more painful, digital or physical builds?
Well, physical ones can cause physical harm, but ignoring that, it depends. In digital programs, you can just select and delete entire sections. Or just hide away pieces to get into the area you want to change. You could select large chunks and just rip it out/move it elsewhere in the program, but the select tools can be finicky. Along with the lag, depending on software and model size. Not necessarily terrible, but can be time consuming.
In physical building, at least for me, it can be dreadful sometimes due to the amount of time it took to build in the first place. So taking it apart just to fix some minor issues is annoying, but doable. If impatient or doing it wrong, can ruin other parts of the model unintentionally. That can happen in digital as well, but more so from not realizing a part was selected than physically ripping things out and stuff flying across the room.
Overall, I think they’re about on equal footing when it comes to rebuilding or dismantling models.
Although, in LDD you can make the model explode on a whim. 10/10, best building experience. Real life sucks.
6. Could I have the Instructions?
Now, this probably isn’t a factor for most builders. Plenty just make a MOC, upload some photos, and that’s it. But others, either by request, kindness, or some other motive, like to share instructions for how to build their stuff.
Digital is easily the best in their regard. Aside from being able to just send the files and allow people to poke around and figure it out (or just order the parts via Bricklink these days), some auto-generate instructions. LDD’s instruction generator is…questionable at best, and while Stud.io’s custom instruction maker takes time, they are far easier to do than physical.
Physical builds, you need to tear it apart and rebuild it. Most will only show chunks rather than step by step due to the tedium. Though it could be argued that the chunks is a better method to force builders to figure it out for themselves…Sure? I guess? Doesn’t really give it a leg up over digital in this regard, but I suppose it’s another view point.
7. Storage and Space
I know, shocking, but digital takes up less space. And that’s on purpose, as most of these were designed to be easily shared on the web. So file sizes are designed to be small. Thus in a ratio comparison of memory to hard drive space on a computer against the space of a dwelling and the area needed to store it, digital always wins.
But is that always good?
Digital models might take up less space, both physical and in a mathematical comparison, but it might be less pleasing. For some, being able to see their collection throughout the room is very pleasing. Sure, it takes up space, but brings some happiness. You don’t quite get that by staring at a bunch of files.
So it’s a toss up really. If you like seeing your Lego out and about and don’t mind the physical storage it takes up, great. If you do care, digital is always an option.
Similar thing with displaying models. Not to say it’s impossible to display digital models, but I don’t imagine most have random screens or monitors looping through their models. Or printed out posters or something of the sort.
3 Likes
I prefer to design MOCs in Stud.io then essentially recreate them IRL. I’ll usually then tweak the physical builds when I can see what actually works and what doesn’t. This process can lead to some expensive Bricklink orders, but generally makes MOCing easier for anyone without a massive parts collection at their disposal.
Stud.io is a useful tool, but I see it as only a tool. Through Stud.io renders you will never truly be able to gauge the true appearance your MOC will have. Stud.io renders also aren’t always the most presentable. But for those of us with shallow wallets, sometimes our visions can only be half realized.
2 Likes
This is also what I do. However, almost none of mine are actually completed due to my current limited budget.
2 Likes
Like everyone else, Stud.io is used to make prototypes and eventually physical MOC.
However, I don’t like the part where the connection of Stud.io pieces is about, so I often make MOC by the following procedure.
- Design prototypes with older software LEGO Digital Designer (LDD).
- Import the file into Stud.io to supplement the missing parts and piece connections not possible with LDD.
- Import the file into Bricklink’s Wanted List to list the parts used.
- Collect physical parts to create a MOC.
1 Like
Or when you have a moc with three different parts that all have to line up and go together at the same time.
Although said moc would’ve been impossible to build digital anyway., due to nonstandard connections.
2 Likes
Yeah, I’ve done a MOC or three where that was the case. One of them I had to take apart about five times to redo. It was a nightmare, so since then I avoid it best I can.
1 Like