Subject:
|
Re: Minifig scale?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:54:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
626 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, David Eaton writes:
> ANYWAY... I made a little spreadsheet, which gives the total percentage
> error, and tested different values for minifig foot length from 7.0mm per
> minifig foot to 13.0mm per minifig foot.
Ok, so I DO have too much time on my hands:
According to a couple images found online (Actually, they reported avg human
height at 66" too, so I feel rather vindicated in that at least), "average"
human width (not that it MEANS anything) is about 9.43 inches front-to-back,
and 13.71 inches side to side.
> And the best all around error was at 8.8mm per 1 minifig foot, with total of
> 0.595, still about 20% avg error.
That gets revamped to the least overall error at: 1 minifig foot is about
10.2mm, with a total error of 0.626 (about 21%)
That would mean minifigs are about:
9.41 inches front-to-back
18.82 inches side-to-side
49.41 inches tall (4 feet, 1.41 inches)
Wow, that's pretty darn close to what Jeff said initially!:
> > In conclusion, a more suitable "minifig scale" would be:
> > 1 minifig height = 4 ± 1 feet.
And out of ridiculously bizarre coincidence, it makes my AT-AT (the one that
I built to be 75 feet tall) 51 feet tall instead (what other people were
arguing it 'should' be to begin with!), which is what that whole little SW
debate went on about... hm... Wow, that's a whole heck of a lot more
difference than I actually expected!
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Minifig scale?
|
| (...) Quite agreed. Only if someone has expressed their 'minifig scale' can you say that their model does not comply with their own assumed scale... And, as noted before, minifigs are NOT human-shaped. If they were, they'd either be tall and fat (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.general)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
