 | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
| |
and compressionism just don’t respect the scale... I’m curious about how do
the LEGO train community feel with compressionism ?
|
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I see it as just about mandatory to do
anything useable, and still have bricks left over. Replicating every window,
every seat, every rivet is just not possible, so leave some out, as long as
the feeling is evoked you’ve succeeded.
For instance in my diner I have only 3
tables, seating for 6... not very prototypical but it’s still a diner and
evokes the feel of the Super Chief diner.
|
Just a thought, brought on by you mentioning leaving windows out.
Some European HO manufacturers compress the length of long coaches in HO. They
do this by having the basic scale of 1:87 but having the length modelled to
1:100. this means that there are (for example) the correct amount of windows but
they are all narrower. Personally I wouldn’t buy them, however my question is:
is it better to compress length by having less windows or the correct number of
narrower ones?
Tim
Yes, I am bored at work today!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote:
| |
Just a thought, brought on by you mentioning leaving windows out.
Some European HO manufacturers compress the length of long coaches in HO.
They do this by having the basic scale of 1:87 but having the length modelled
to 1:100. this means that there are (for example) the correct amount of
windows but they are all narrower. Personally I wouldn’t buy them, however my
question is: is it better to compress length by having less windows or the
correct number of narrower ones?
|
Less windows, in my view. Typically, most modelers feel compression works better
by having less of a repeating element instead of making the element smaller (you
could do some searching of back issues of model railroad magazines for articles
on this).
I think that’s even MORE true with LEGO where the minimum feature size means
making something smaller means losing detail. If anything I would make a subpart
BIGGER to get more detail in. (referring back to my ATSF rake, the trucks on it
are, I think, overscale, so that I could get two coils and a transverse spring
in)
Good topic!
++Lar
| | | | | | |
