| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
(blather blather blather... as if analysing the *height of a minifig* gets you
anywhere... analyse the WIDTH, I say... then you get 12 wide as the right answer
(0) )
Scale, schmale.
I build 6 wide trains for the following reasons
- It's fun
- It's what LEGO did, for the most part
- You have to be cleverer to get stuff to work out when you work in a smaller
scale, so 6 wide builders are much cleverer than 8 wide (1)
- somebody has to do it or else there'd be no periodic religious wars here.
Build whatever width you want as long as you're happy at it.
The ONLY thing I ask is try to keep all the things on a show layout the same
width at any given time because mixing widths (for similar prototypes, I'm not
talking tom thumb vs big boy here) looks funny. (2)
Are you having fun? Yes? Then you're building the right width.
QED.
++Lar
0 - or 5 wide if you assume they're really really fat tall people with big
heads.
1 - Or 10 wide or, gasp... 14 wide... The wider, the easier. The wider, the less
talent... oh, ya, *who* is it that builds 14 wide sometimes again? Talk about
your easy build, all it takes is a lot of parts, no talent required, really.
2 - This point is sometimes lost on my home club. But we have fun anyway so, so
be it.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
>
> (blather blather blather... as if analysing the *height of a minifig* gets you
> anywhere... analyse the WIDTH, I say... then you get 12 wide as the right
> answer
You're definitely on the right ... track. I can get ... on ... board ... with
that notion. Ugh, I'm terrible ;)
> - You have to be cleverer to get stuff to work out when you work in a smaller
> scale, so 6 wide builders are much cleverer than 8 wide (1)
Cleverer? I'd take exception, but I'm currently in my thinking-man pose
contemplating complex and elegantly functional wheel articulation schemes :P
Seriously, I'd contend that building larger just means that you have to be
"cleverer" about a different set of parts. That is, on a 6-wide you may have to
be clever about how you approximate the curve of the boiler. On 12-wide, your
boiler curve is easier since you have more room for discretization of the curve;
instead, now you're worrying about how to approximate pipes, tubes, lever,
rails, steps and other such small details that are generally *below* the
resolution of a 6-wide.
It's all a big Mandelbrot sequence. Items that are too small to see in 6-wide
scale are the ones that are struggled with in 12-wide scale.
Then there is the point about wheel articulations, which I'd argue *is* more
challenging as you go larger, since the curve of the track remains constant
(*sigh*). This may very well be countered with an aspect that's more
challenging in 6-wide [1] than it is in 12-wide ... I just can't think of any ;)
> 1 - Or 10 wide or, gasp... 14 wide... The wider, the easier. The wider, the
> less talent... oh, ya, *who* is it that builds 14 wide sometimes again? Talk
> about your easy build, all it takes is a lot of parts, no talent required,
> really.
Pshaw. You've derailed.
Ugh,
-s
[1] we're speaking generally here
|
|
|
