 | | | | | | |
| |
|
lester witter wrote:
> The containers look to be 2 studs wide which makes this about 1/2 minifig
> scale. Do you know if the design scales up? I mean if you had two (or three)
> sets could you build it wider and longer and have a minfig scale ship? I guess
> it comes down to the superstructure. Maybe you could pass this question on to
> the design team.
Well, this comes down to simple math: if you want to double a
threedimensional object in all dimensions, you basically need 2x2x2=8
times the material. Thats the easy answer.
Concerning scale:
The containers on the ship are 1.6cm wide and high.
A real container is 300cm wide and high (10ft).
-> This would be a scale of 1:187.5
The containers on the ship are 6.4cm long.
A real container is 1200cm long (40ft).
-> This also yields a scale of 1:187.5
Minifigs are about 1:42. A proper Minifig-scaled container would be 9
studs wide, 36 studs long and 7 2/3 bricks high.
I've seen containers made from Lego at approx. 1:47 (8 wide, 32 long, 6
2/3 high), which is the most usable scale for this kind of model,
fitting nicely with 8wide trains.
So, for usable and realistic sizes and scales to fit with a minifig,
that ship is nearly 1/4 Minifig scale, and therefor you would need
4x4x4=64 sets to make it fit the Minifigs (yes, this is a very simple
answer, and does leave out a lot of things, like "making containers
hollow", "different structural needs" and "some things won't scale,
anyway, like the windows").
Boy, you'll propably have to sacrifice your grandmother to get that
amount of sets ;-)
HTH, Christian
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> lester witter wrote:
> > The containers look to be 2 studs wide which makes this about 1/2 minifig
> > scale. Do you know if the design scales up? I mean if you had two (or three)
> > sets could you build it wider and longer and have a minfig scale ship? I guess
> > it comes down to the superstructure. Maybe you could pass this question on to
> > the design team.
> Well, this comes down to simple math: if you want to double a
> threedimensional object in all dimensions, you basically need 2x2x2=8
> times the material. Thats the easy answer.
That's true for a solid object, but as the 8wide fans point out to me all the
time when I use this scaleup against them, this object isn't completely solid.
you may not need 8 times as much hull brick to make a 2x hull, for example.
(howver you're going to need a lot more interior. (and you allude to that
below))
Interesting exercise! And one that matters to me, because thats going to be my
use for this set (after I build one copy and enjoy it)... making other stuff.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> > lester witter wrote:
> > > The containers look to be 2 studs wide which makes this about 1/2 minifig
> > > scale. Do you know if the design scales up? I mean if you had two (or three)
> > > sets could you build it wider and longer and have a minfig scale ship? I guess
> > > it comes down to the superstructure. Maybe you could pass this question on to
> > > the design team.
> > Well, this comes down to simple math: if you want to double a
> > threedimensional object in all dimensions, you basically need 2x2x2=8
> > times the material. Thats the easy answer.
>
> That's true for a solid object, but as the 8wide fans point out to me all the
> time when I use this scaleup against them, this object isn't completely solid.
> you may not need 8 times as much hull brick to make a 2x hull, for example.
> (howver you're going to need a lot more interior. (and you allude to that
> below))
Excluding all internal supports and bracing, what we are really concerned about
is surface area, since that's the brick we see. If an object is scaled up 2
times, its surface area goes up by a factor of 4. Thus, you would need, at
minimum, 4 times as many bricks to make the object twice as large. Use your own
to build the internal structure and you're good to go.
So, to scale this ship up to something approaching minifig scale, you'd only
have to buy 16 sets. The big problem would then be piece distribution, since
we'd have way more of those 1x4x1 wall panels than we need, and not enough basic
bricks.
How about that, my engineering degree is coming in handy :)
Adrian
--
http://www.brickfrenzy.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Adrian Drake wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
| |
lester witter wrote:
| |
The containers look to be 2 studs wide which makes this about 1/2 minifig
scale. Do you know if the design scales up? I mean if you had two (or
three) sets could you build it wider and longer and have a minfig scale
ship? I guess it comes down to the superstructure. Maybe you could pass
this question on to the design team.
|
Well, this comes down to simple math: if you want to double a
threedimensional object in all dimensions, you basically need 2x2x2=8
times the material. Thats the easy answer.
|
That’s true for a solid object, but as the 8wide fans point out to me all the
time when I use this scaleup against them, this object isn’t completely
solid. you may not need 8 times as much hull brick to make a 2x hull, for
example. (howver you’re going to need a lot more interior. (and you allude to
that below))
|
Excluding all internal supports and bracing, what we are really concerned
about is surface area, since that’s the brick we see. If an object is scaled
up 2 times, its surface area goes up by a factor of 4. Thus, you would need,
at minimum, 4 times as many bricks to make the object twice as large. Use
your own to build the internal structure and you’re good to go.
So, to scale this ship up to something approaching minifig scale, you’d only
have to buy 16 sets. The big problem would then be piece distribution, since
we’d have way more of those 1x4x1 wall panels than we need, and not enough
basic bricks.
How about that, my engineering degree is coming in handy :)
Adrian
|
Compare with my 40ft container 40’ x 8’ x 9’6” high:
Apart from it needing the Maersk blue bits for the star, I’d ideally like to
make a ship to 8mm:1ft scale with these containers onboard, multiplying all
dimensions by 4! The ship would be 2.8m long and would have to be transported
in sections, probably modules on 48x48 plates! I like the thought though,
especially if I had a warehouse full of railway to go with it!
The bow plate is 12-wide and you’d need to make a 48-wide one for a minifig
scale ship. Also, the containers start with 2x8 bricks but it’s 1-wide bricks
that you’d mneed for building large containers.
The ship is essentially a flat piece (the deck) with a cuboid piece (the bridge
etc...) on top, so the deck area scales up by a factor of 4 for every doubling
of dimensions and the bridge volume by a factor of 8.
Therefore this set doesn’t scale up very well :-( but does any set? Anyone who
really wanted to, and needed 16 ships, would have to get 3 friends to order more
for them!
Good to see more dark red pieces though. I’d like bricks and train windows in
dark red for doing proper British coaches.
All those floor studs (25 per ship) will be useful as train buffers if I use the
parts for other things later.
Mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Mark Bellis wrote:
| |
Compare with my 40ft container 40’ x 8’ x 9’6” high:
|
(snip)
| |
Apart from it needing the Maersk blue bits for the star, I’d ideally like to
make a ship to 8mm:1ft scale with these containers onboard, multiplying all
dimensions by 4! The ship would be 2.8m long and would have to be
transported in sections, probably modules on 48x48 plates! I like the
thought though, especially if I had a warehouse full of railway to go with
it!
|
Well, that’s sharp and all, but I think building to scale really misses the
point.
That container’s 8 wide! I prefer my scenes more packed with detail rather than
doing one 10 foot long ship so that I can fit my to scale containers on. (and,
arguably, 10 foot is too short if you want 6000 TEU worth of containers on it).
Absolute to scale realism is for scale models. This is a toy. I want to evoke a
scene, not get the rivet count right. Think tinplate, not scale.
Where on earth are you going to get space to show a 10 foot long ship, in
context with several others, and with containre cranes busily unloading, as just
PART of an overall layout? In the space you’d spend JUST on your ship, I can do
several, then fit in an engine yard, a farm and maybe a mountain.
Selective compresssion is clearly the way to go here. I’m just myself not sure
if I switch to 6 wide containers or stick with the LEGO standard (1) 4 wide
containers... I’ll ooh and aah at your models as interesting academic exercises,
but I won’t be building 8 wide containers.
That’s not to say that your way is wrong. I’ll grant you it’s not wrong, if
you’ll grant me that I’m not wrong either.
If you have fun with it, go ahead, have fun. It’s just that when people post
about stuff and leave the implication that if you don’t do things to scale
you’re all wrong, it rather gets up my nose a bit. Ask J2.
Sorry, off soapbox now.
1 - yes, there are older 6 wide containers, but if you consider the number of
different LEGO sets that use each standard, it’s clear to me 4 is the
predominant one.
| | | | | | |
