Subject:
|
Re: Definition of "micro"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.build.microscale
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:28:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1476 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.build.microscale, Allan Bedford wrote:
| |
I think you’ve made an excellent observation.
|
Oh, good. I always enjoy articulating ripe potential-yet-unvoiced notions.
| |
Since there are no LEGO microfigs as such,
|
It seems the *convention* (not a standard) espoused by Ashley Glennon and
Janey “Red Brick” is that a “microfig” be a 1x1 round cylinder (optionally with
a 1x1 plate/tile as a hat), or a stack of 1x1 plates (to evoke variegated
clothing).
Since these proportions are even more squat than those of minifigs, replicas of
buildings will necessarily be “impressionistic.” Or you can pretend that all
the people are wearing 50-gallon drums. :)
| |
I’ve always seen this scale as being much more flexible.
|
“Scale,” “range,” “standard,” “size regime.” “1:24” is a scale. O, HO, N and Z
are scales. Is “microfig” a scale? Do we want “mesofig” to cover people
between 4/3-brick and minifig stature?
Perhaps some examples will clarify my thinking:
Mini-model:
- TLG “Star Wars” mini-models, X-pods, and small Creator sets.
- Most of the animals from the 80s Idea Books.
- A 6-brick thing-that-evokes-chicken-ness.
- An original starship that fits in your hand.
- A Coast Guard cutter that’s four inches long.
Not a mini-model:
- A 20-brick go-cart that seats a minifig.
- A skyscraper replica that seats microfigs, but is two feet tall.
And a Venn diagram:
.------------------.
| Microfig scale.--+-----------. .---------------.
`---------------+--'Mini-model | | Minifig scale |
`--------------' `---------------'
Basically: to be mini, it has to be a small model; at the same time, it might or
might not be microfig scale. An *ensemble* layout -- a microfig town, a
micro- or nano-moonbase -- will need a consistent scale, and need no longer be
small -- only its components are.
| |
See above for the flexibility of the word ‘micro’ as applied to building.
|
I’m all for flexibility in design, but we want *some* standardization to terms.
“Microfig” and “microscale” might be too easily confused by virtue of their
prefixes. “Microfig scale” and “mini-model” more obviously describe different
things. But then “mini-model” and “minifig” get confused.
It’s like the terminological brouhaha over “nanotechnology,” which resulted in
the specific terms “molecular nanotechology” and “molecular manufacturing” to
distinguish Drexlerian visions from conventional nanoscale solution chemistry.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Definition of "micro"
|
| (...) Ahhh...O.K. I think I see what you mean/meant. You're talking about a builder-manufactured "microfig" rather than something like the LEGO-manufactured "minifigs". (...) I think you've hit on what I was trying to suggest earlier. That this (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.build.microscale, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Definition of "micro"
|
| (...) I hope minifig scale isn't quite 1:60. If my math is not way out of whack, I think that would mean that a minifig represents a 'real' person that's about seven and a half feet tall. :) I think, depending on who you talk to, minifig scale is (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.build.microscale, FTX)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
