Subject:
|
Re: train width
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:36:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2529 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: train width
|
| 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 (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.trains)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
