Subject:
|
Re: Compressionism (D&RGW coach set)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:04:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4941 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Compressionism (D&RGW coach set)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
