 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.michlug, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Our 10 gate "new Metro Terminal" was completed AT THE SHOW by Chris in a
> demonstration of his building expertise. It's massive, and it drew a LOT of
> favorable comment. It got done a lot faster than the real terminal at DTW
> will! AND, we had an Airport Shuttle that was actually being used as an
> Airport Shuttle, it went THROUGH the terminal building on its route. This
> area featured the ONLY non LEGO of the whole show, Chris built an Air Force
> 1, complete with stretch limo, security team, and other aircraft waiting to
> take off (but no Monica) which used Best-Lock stickers for the presidential
> seal and "President of the United States" lettering along the fuselage.
The airport was awesome! Now only if they offered gray 2x2 tiles in 100
packs... :)
Actually the whole layout was very well done. I have to say, I prefer the look
of the "baseplate" landscape to the "brick" landscape. There is something
about the "brick" land style that is just too distracting. For some reason the
baseplate-based system just looks more convincing. I know that is
counterintuitive but it's what I see. Maybe it's because real live landscapes,
even hilly ones are essentially flat when viewed from most angles of elevation.
Brick based landscapes have too many "rectangular fractal" components, both
horizontal and vertical. Maybe that's what it is.
I love the McDonalds, but aren't the roof stripes white? Also, where's the
Pizza Hut? Don't they always go in pairs?
I also noticed that you used stock folding tables. Were these provided by the
exhibition hall? If so, how did you know that they would be the same height,
be level and in good repair? It looks like it worked out fine but I would hate
to have to worry about that for every show.
Great job!
KL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Kevin Loch wrote:
> Actually the whole layout was very well done. I have to say, I prefer the look
> of the "baseplate" landscape to the "brick" landscape. There is something
> about the "brick" land style that is just too distracting. For some reason the
> baseplate-based system just looks more convincing. I know that is
> counterintuitive but it's what I see. Maybe it's because real live landscapes,
> even hilly ones are essentially flat when viewed from most angles of elevation.
> Brick based landscapes have too many "rectangular fractal" components, both
> horizontal and vertical. Maybe that's what it is.
Interesting analysis, Kevin. I am curious, would you then advocate using, say a
mountain, which is non-LEGO and made out of paper mache? On a related note: it
seems to me that TLC used to make their dioramas out of bricks more than they do
today. Now, it's mostly computerized backdrops. I always thought that it was due
to cost considerations-- I never thought it might be because someone *preferred*
it that way. I wonder how others feel? Others?
-John
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I will say that I liked the baseplate look (I wish I had that many plates
for the NGLTC layout, but for now the tables are painted base plate green)
but it looked like it had a few draw backs. For one I don't think you'd have
a lot of flexibility in how the layout was arranged, you're forced to build
the layout in a grid format. When we (NGLTC) do shows it's a little more
freeform, we have a general idea of where things will go, but other than the
downtown area we pretty much put things how ever they fit around the track
layout. The track pretty much dictates the lay of the land. I'm curious on
how the MICHLUG felt the layout process went.
As for flat being better, well I don't know about that one. I think
elevations and dips give a layout more to look at, including the addition of
some bridges. I don't know what the fascination is, but people love to see
the trains climb elevations and go across bridges.
I tried a plaster mountain (inspired by the 1998 summer S@H catalog with
trains on the cover) for the first few NGLTC shows. It had some clone bricks
mixed in to give a LEGO feel, but it was all foam and plaster. But ever show
I would always get the comment "hey the mountain is made of LEGO bricks", so
this year I retired the mountain and have begun working on brick mountain.
Of course I have no idea how I'll fit it in the van, it's already full of
tables and the rest of the buildings, trains, controls and etc.
I did notice the lack of crowd control on the MICHLUG layout, very brave
indeed. There were a few pictures of little hands right on the tracks, they
tend to back off after you slam a train into them, but they seem to come
back to try it again. I found that the KRR really helps keep the little
hands off the layout, gives them something to touch, and at a train show
that a rarity.
Good job MICHLUG, I was very impressed with the size of the layout, glad you
guys pulled it off so well,
jt
--
James J. Trobaugh
North Georgia LEGO Train Club
http://www.ngltc.org
John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3A638C69.CF632205@uswest.net...
>
> Kevin Loch wrote:
>
> > Actually the whole layout was very well done. I have to say, I prefer • the look
> > of the "baseplate" landscape to the "brick" landscape. There is • something
> > about the "brick" land style that is just too distracting. For some • reason the
> > baseplate-based system just looks more convincing. I know that is
> > counterintuitive but it's what I see. Maybe it's because real live • landscapes,
> > even hilly ones are essentially flat when viewed from most angles of • elevation.
> > Brick based landscapes have too many "rectangular fractal" components, • both
> > horizontal and vertical. Maybe that's what it is.
>
> Interesting analysis, Kevin. I am curious, would you then advocate using, • say a
> mountain, which is non-LEGO and made out of paper mache? On a related • note: it
> seems to me that TLC used to make their dioramas out of bricks more than • they do
> today. Now, it's mostly computerized backdrops. I always thought that it • was due
> to cost considerations-- I never thought it might be because someone • *preferred*
> it that way. I wonder how others feel? Others?
>
> -John
>
>
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains.org, James Trobaugh writes:
> I will say that I liked the baseplate look (I wish I had that many plates
> for the NGLTC layout, but for now the tables are painted base plate green)
> but it looked like it had a few draw backs. For one I don't think you'd have
> a lot of flexibility in how the layout was arranged, you're forced to build
> the layout in a grid format. When we (NGLTC) do shows it's a little more
> freeform, we have a general idea of where things will go, but other than the
> downtown area we pretty much put things how ever they fit around the track
> layout. The track pretty much dictates the lay of the land. I'm curious on
> how the MICHLUG felt the layout process went.
When i designed that on track designer i was going for the "city block"
look.We were able to get a ton of plates(over 400) from TLC so i really
wasn't forced into that design.When we walked in there(to setup) i had the
road allready designed and printed out so that we could put it together
quickly.We did change a few road patterns here or there to make room for
certain buildings.The plan wasn't set in stone just a starting point to get
us going.
>
> I did notice the lack of crowd control on the MICHLUG layout, very brave
> indeed. There were a few pictures of little hands right on the tracks, they
> tend to back off after you slam a train into them, but they seem to come
> back to try it again. I found that the KRR really helps keep the little
> hands off the layout, gives them something to touch, and at a train show
Yes we will go with crowd barriers in the next show.
> Good job MICHLUG, I was very impressed with the size of the layout, glad you
> guys pulled it off so well,
>
> jt
> --
> James J. Trobaugh
> North Georgia LEGO Train Club
> http://www.ngltc.org
> John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains.org, Chris Leach writes:
> When i designed that on track designer i was going for the "city block"
> look.We were able to get a ton of plates(over 400) from TLC so i really
It's good to see they helped out like that. Did that include road plates
and runway plates or just green 32x32's?
KL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains.org, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.trains.org, Chris Leach writes:
> > When i designed that on track designer i was going for the "city block"
> > look.We were able to get a ton of plates(over 400) from TLC so i really
>
> It's good to see they helped out like that. Did that include road plates
> and runway plates or just green 32x32's?
200 green 32x32's, 192 straight road, 26 T roads ,32 grey 48x48 and
trees.Funny thing on the trees is they told me if i needed anything else
other then the plates that i could get it at cost.So i told them give me
$100 worth of the large trees.That came to 26 packages for $96And
change.Mean while part of the plate order(the 200 green) was lost buy UPS.As
i'm on the phone with the S@H rep discussing the lost plates we went over
the rest of the order that's when she told me she sent me the SMALL packs of
trees(25 count).So when she re sent the 200 greens again she tacked on
another 20 packs of trees ,the large 10 count ones.So we ended up with 850
trees along with my own and Scotts.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains.org, Chris Leach writes:
> In lugnet.trains.org, Kevin Loch writes:
> > In lugnet.trains.org, Chris Leach writes:
> > > When i designed that on track designer i was going for the "city block"
> > > look.We were able to get a ton of plates(over 400) from TLC so i really
> >
> > It's good to see they helped out like that. Did that include road
> > plates and runway plates or just green 32x32's?
> 200 green 32x32's, 192 straight road, 26 T roads ,32 grey 48x48 and trees.
> ...So we ended up with 850 trees along with my own and Scotts.
Might I be able to borrow the trees (and any extra straights and
switches) for Supertrain2001 one month from (yesterday and) today?
SRC
StRuCtures
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains.org, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.trains.org, Chris Leach writes:
> > In lugnet.trains.org, Kevin Loch writes:
> > > In lugnet.trains.org, Chris Leach writes:
> > > > When i designed that on track designer i was going for the "city block"
> > > > look.We were able to get a ton of plates(over 400) from TLC so i really
> > >
> > > It's good to see they helped out like that. Did that include road
> > > plates and runway plates or just green 32x32's?
> > 200 green 32x32's, 192 straight road, 26 T roads ,32 grey 48x48 and trees.
> > ...So we ended up with 850 trees along with my own and Scotts.
>
> Might I be able to borrow the trees (and any extra straights and
> switches) for Supertrain2001 one month from (yesterday and) today?
Email and we will talk.CWLeach
> StRuCtures
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains.org, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.trains.org, Chris Leach writes:
> > In lugnet.trains.org, Kevin Loch writes:
> > > In lugnet.trains.org, Chris Leach writes:
> > > > When i designed that on track designer i was going for the "city block"
> > > > look.We were able to get a ton of plates(over 400) from TLC so i really
> > >
> > > It's good to see they helped out like that. Did that include road
> > > plates and runway plates or just green 32x32's?
> > 200 green 32x32's, 192 straight road, 26 T roads ,32 grey 48x48 and trees.
> > ...So we ended up with 850 trees along with my own and Scotts.
>
> Might I be able to borrow the trees (and any extra straights and
> switches) for Supertrain2001 one month from (yesterday and) today?
>
> SRC
> StRuCtures
Incedentially, we used some of the trees to stablize the plates. We placed
trees on the four corners junctions of four plates to lock them into position.
The plates were green and so were the tree bases. You might also want to dig up
som 2x2 green plates for the same purpose.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains.org, James Trobaugh writes:
<snip>
> I tried a plaster mountain (inspired by the 1998 summer S@H catalog with
> trains on the cover) for the first few NGLTC shows. It had some clone bricks
> mixed in to give a LEGO feel, but it was all foam and plaster. But ever show
> I would always get the comment "hey the mountain is made of LEGO bricks", so
> this year I retired the mountain and have begun working on brick mountain.
> Of course I have no idea how I'll fit it in the van, it's already full of
> tables and the rest of the buildings, trains, controls and etc.
> <snip>
You could do it in sections like I did for the last show that WAMALUG (and
coincidently I) did. Keeping it to one 32 long X 'N' wide sections, you can
do a faily decent mountain.
Rich
--
Have Fun! C-Ya!
Legoman34
*****
Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (My views do not necessarily express the
views of my employer...)
BRICKFEST 2001 IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER... START MAKING PLANS TODAY.
Card carrying LUGNET MEMBER: #70
Visit http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/1334
...(the wait is over...)
..."The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." ...
*****
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains.org, James Trobaugh writes:
<snip>
> I tried a plaster mountain (inspired by the 1998 summer S@H catalog with
> trains on the cover) for the first few NGLTC shows. It had some clone bricks
> mixed in to give a LEGO feel, but it was all foam and plaster. But ever show
> I would always get the comment "hey the mountain is made of LEGO bricks", so
> this year I retired the mountain and have begun working on brick mountain.
> Of course I have no idea how I'll fit it in the van, it's already full of
> tables and the rest of the buildings, trains, controls and etc.
> <snip>
You could do it in sections like I did for the last show that WAMALUG (and
coincidently I) did. Keeping it to one 32 long X 'N' wide sections, you can
do a faily decent mountain.
Rich
--
Have Fun! C-Ya!
Legoman34
*****
Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (My views do not necessarily express the
views of my employer...)
BRICKFEST 2001 IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER... START MAKING PLANS TODAY.
Card carrying LUGNET MEMBER: #70
Visit http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/1334
...(the wait is over...)
..."The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." ...
*****
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains.org, John Neal writes:
>
> Interesting analysis, Kevin. I am curious, would you then advocate using, say • a
> mountain, which is non-LEGO and made out of paper mache? On a related note:
it
Absolutely not! I'm a purist to the point that I don't even like homemade
stickers. Besides, mountains are supposed to be rough and 3-dimensional.
The effect that I like is when you see a scene (or picture) that has nothing
but LEGO in the field of view it can magically transform into an almost
believable scene. Not necessarally an accurate representation but one that
suddenly gives you the "you are there" feeling. It's hard to do. The only
thing I know for sure is that it requires nothing but LEGO within the field of
view.
For example, this looks like an impressive airport scene at a train show:
ttp://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28039
While this image gives you the feeling you are actually looking at an airport
(not an airport model at a train show):
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28052
Now obviously your cognitive mind knows you are looking at a LEGO model
and not an actual airport, some other, part of your mind says
that it matches patterns with things that look like an airport.
How does this relate to baseplates vs bricks? I'm not sure, but my subjective
analysis is that baseplates provide a self-symetry that makes it look more
"natural". It may be subjective though and I'm not qualified to state that as
fact. There are other advantages too, chiefly the ability to rapidly and
arbitrarally reconfigure the layout. Of course there are advantages to the
brick method too, such as built-in elevation for underground features.
KL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains.org, John Neal writes:
> On a related note: it
> seems to me that TLC used to make their dioramas out of bricks more than they
> do today. Now, it's mostly computerized backdrops. I always thought that it
> was due to cost considerations-- I never thought it might be because someone
> *preferred*
> it that way. I wonder how others feel? Others?
I assumed that TLC uses drawn/computerized backgrounds so that no one can
claim they are being misleading about the contents of the package. For
instance, on the 3225 Classic Train, they used drawn-in track instead of
real track, because there was none in the set.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains.org, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.trains.org, John Neal writes:
>
> > On a related note: it
> > seems to me that TLC used to make their dioramas out of bricks more than they
> > do today. Now, it's mostly computerized backdrops. I always thought that it
> > was due to cost considerations-- I never thought it might be because someone
> > *preferred*
> > it that way. I wonder how others feel? Others?
>
> I assumed that TLC uses drawn/computerized backgrounds so that no one can
> claim they are being misleading about the contents of the package. For
> instance, on the 3225 Classic Train, they used drawn-in track instead of
> real track, because there was none in the set.
Right. That drawn track (and glowing cave, etc) have been there since the
start of 9V.
Mayhaps J2 is referring to catalog illustrations, though?
PS, I heard I left my vitamins at Chris's, did you happen to get those? I
wouldn't want to have to eat spinach or anything.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains.org, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> PS, I heard I left my vitamins at Chris's, did you happen to get those? I
> wouldn't want to have to eat spinach or anything.
Nope. I've got your track and Z'nap bridge, though.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains.org, Kevin Loch writes:
> I love the McDonalds, but aren't the roof stripes white?
I think it varies.
> I also noticed that you used stock folding tables. Were these provided by the
> exhibition hall? If so, how did you know that they would be the same height,
> be level and in good repair? It looks like it worked out fine but I
> would hate to have to worry about that for every show.
They were provided. and they were NOT the same height, and not level. This
caused much trouble. They WERE in good repair. No one on the Detroit side of
the state (this is a club that just formed for this show) has storage space
for tables and for the crowd control ropes that MICHLTC is favoring now.
Maybe after a few more shows the appearance money will pay for tables...
++Lar
| | | | | | |
