Subject:
|
Re: Definition of "micro"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.build.microscale
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:54:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1806 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.build.microscale, Phillip Thorne wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Allan Bedford wrote:
|
| |
| |
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).
|
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”.
| |
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 think you’ve hit on what I was trying to suggest earlier. That this ‘scale’
is really impressionistic. You are trying to hint at features and shapes to
represent an object, not recreate it in exacting detail. Again, I would offer
my thought that this leaves the exact size/scale open to interpretation by the
builder. i.e. whatever works.... works. And so long as it’s too small to
house/transport a minifig, then it by default ends up as microscale. Unless you
are basing it directly around your microfig, then it’s got to be more exacting.
So is there a difference between microfig scale and microscale? Or was that
question already asked? I’m getting confused. :)
| |
| |
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?
|
Ummm... for my purposes, no, I don’t see a need for mesofig.
| |
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.
|
O.K. Agreed. Are you sure that cutter isn’t microfig scale? :)
| |
Not a mini-model:
- A 20-brick go-cart that seats a minifig.
|
Seats minifig = minifig scale. Yes?
| |
- A skyscraper replica that seats microfigs, but is two feet tall.
|
Seats microfigs = microfig scale. Yes?
| |
And a Venn diagram:
.------------------.
| Microfig scale.--+-----------. .---------------.
`---------------+--'Mini-model | | Minifig scale |
`--------------' `---------------'
|
Not sure exactly what this is, maybe it didn’t translate well as an ASCII
drawing.
Do you mean to indicate that the size of mini-models falls between microfig and
minifig?
| |
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.
|
If you’re talking about developing a standard for usage at displays then I would
begin to agree that you need to decide upon a scale that everyone would use. I
think the moonbase standard is brilliant and results in some wonderful layouts.
But if we’re just talking about Bobby Builder sitting at home cranking out
‘micro’ sized models then I think they can be whatever scale suits.
For what it’s worth, I’m not specifically against developing standards, but I
think the question needs to be asked, “for what purpose are we trying to set
these standards?”
| |
| |
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.
|
Also don’t forget that for old farts like me the term ‘mini’ reminds us of
miniland scale models as seen in the LEGOland theme parks. As far as I know
those models are actually larger than minifig scale.
| |
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.
|
I am positively certain that I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking
about. ;)
Best regards,
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Definition of "micro"
|
| (...) Okay. We'll simply call them "sub-mini-super-micro figs." :) For instance, (URL) these tiny astronauts> or (URL) my tiny Starfleet figures>. And what exactly is "stickfig?" (...) Yes. If such a model fits in your hand, it's merely a "small (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.build.microscale, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Definition of "micro"
|
| (...) Oh, good. I always enjoy articulating ripe potential-yet-unvoiced notions. (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 25-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
|
|
|
|
