Subject:
|
Re: Set-Like Scale? (was: Is bigger better? Or is detail what counts?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.town
|
Date:
|
Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:49:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
827 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.town, John P. Henderson writes:
> Hi,
> I was actually about to broach this subject when I saw I had missed the
> discussion. Looking around the internet it certainly seems there is quite
> an interest in building towns that have buildings that are both large *and*
> detailed. I must say that I am ever-impressed with all I have seen from
> this community. The creative ways some of you think of to use certain
> LEGO(R) elements never ceases to amaze me.
I think it's amazing too. I'd love to have such detailed buildings (room
for them would be nice!), but I know I'd get bored building them myself.
Personally I don't have the budget or the inclination to build half-a-dozen
identical storeys, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate those that do.
> Likewise, the recent discussion of Microfig scale for Town and Train
> displays simply blows my mind. In many circles, I seem to be the creative
> one. But in this society of AFOLs, I am stuck in my ways, always building
> things that are of a size and shape that relates to the old Town Sets of the
> 1980s. I appreciate to no end that many of you can build such things. That
> being said, here is what I do with my Town displays...
Don't worry - keep building. Be, competitive but not jealous - budget is no
substitute for skill. Just build a super-detailed hot-dog stand, sit it in
front of one of these tower blocks, and just see which of them everyone
takes pictures of... ;-)
> I build in my version of "Minifig Scale". (I know there have been debates
> as to what that term means, but I don't want to start that here. Let me
> just explain what it means to me...)
> To me, this scale is more of a conceptual thing. It is not a true scale
> where a 2" mini-fig represents 5 feet in height, so a 10 story building
> would be a few feet tall. No, no. That's not what I do. Rather, this
> scale is a way of minimizing the size and shape of things to represent
> things simply and clearly, yet without having to sacrifice the *play*
> feature of the toy.
> This is the conceptual toy-scale that TLC sets are often designed with.
Me too. You get the same debate with trains - do you build them 6-studs
wide (with a corresponding lower ceiling) as TLC do, or do you build them
8-studs wide, which is to scale (based on the track gauge among other
things). My main reason for sticking to 6-wide is budget, and compatibility
with others in similar circumstances.
> Say they want to sell a police car set. They want to design a car that has
> enough pieces to offer alternative building, and one that is big enough to
> fit a mini-figure in it. But they also don't want it to be so big of a set
> that it becomes too expensive to be considered a small set. Thus, it ends
> up being just barely big enough for one mini-fig. But that's all the child
> needs to understand it is a car they can build *and* play with.
Quite true. Lego Town cars are little more than go-karts. In the 80s the
cars were either 4x6 or 4x10, although now they've settled on 4x7. The only
thing that approches scale cars are the Adventurers vehicles.
> Buildings that use this ideology are equally toned down in size. A single
> story is almost always only eight bricks high. Since the goal is to
> represent the type of building in few pieces, most buildings are only one or
> two stories high. This means that impressive looking high-rises need only
> be four or five stories high. You can represent a house with little more
> than a window, a door, and a roof over one floor. An entire airport can be
> symbolized with only one short runway and a tower. For layout variety, most
> buildings will also fit neatly on one side of a roadplate, with only the
> largest overlapping onto another.
This is what Larry calls 'Selective Compression' - the trick is to take all
the unnecessary extension or duplication out of the model, in such a way
that a casual observer doesn't notice it's gone. It's also why I find huge
building facias a bit boring - you end up looking over the whole thing for
just a bit of variation.
> Another feature (adding to the *play*) is the "dollhouse" construction
> where the back side of most buildings is open to view the inside. Interiors
> are simplified, again to convey what type of building it is without going to
> lengths for details. The interior of a house can be shown with only a table
> and chairs. Luxury homes get a bonus like a fireplace or a separate
> kitchen. Office building interiors need only have a desk or two
> (representing far more). Hospitals need to show little more than a single
> operating room and a recovery room. Details like bathrooms, basements,
> stairs, and elevators are very rare indeed.
Now, this depends on what you're going to do with the model. I'd rather
have a building that's enclosed. That way you can add little details like
fire escapes, scaffolding or dustbins around the back, and use it as a
display model on a layout. YOu can also skimp on the internal detail, since
it's harder to see inside. But, if you want a play model, you have to leave
the back open. The answer for the true master builder, of course, is to
have the model hinged so that it can work as either.
> Now, by building at this set-like scale there are some things I can't do.
> I can't have a six-foot high skyscraper with amazingly detailed window
> arches and trimmings of gargoyles around each floor. I can't have double
> wide buses with room for twenty passengers. And my cargo ships can't carry
> hundreds of containers of goods. *However*, I can still squeeze in some
> interesting variety. I do have some smaller window arches. Some of my
> houses get (oooh) a dormer window or two. I have an office tower that
> includes a boardroom. And another (at only 8" high) has some unique styling
> (lookes like sculpted concrete with angles and pillars...).
So, build your office blocks with a smaller base. It doesn't matter if
their bases are no bigger than your houses - they'll look taller (or at
least better proportioned), and all your minifigs get a nice corner office.
> With this scale, I can't impress people with a display of massive city
> buildings crammed into a neighborhood with multi-lane highways. *However* I
> also have no need to spend money-I-don't-have on thousands of bricks in the
> same color. Instead, I can diversify and have several neighborhoods of
> different types spread out over the same amount of display space. My
> current display offers over thirty structures, a multi-dock harbor, four
> trains, and "miles" of roadway. (I must admit, though, that about 50% of it
> is TLC designed sets.) At the larger scale, I would spend more and likely
> only have one neighborhood of one business type. (Albeit, it would be a
> *very* impressive architectual model indeed!)
And you're talking budgets? My buildings at the moment consist of one hut
(see trains on my site). Okay, I'm planning a few bigger ones.
> Don't get me wrong. I love what some of you do with your collections. I
> was simply explaining what I do with mine. It started as a small town of
> TLC designed sets, and it grew from there, but not in conceptual scale.
>
> I am curious though, are there any others out there that build towns as I
> do? I'd love to see sites or hear ideas that are geared towards the Town
> builder with a budget....
Plenty, I should think. It's the only way you can integrate your treasured
genuine TLC models with your own designs. Starting completely from scratch
would be a lot harder - particularly to maintain consistency.
> -Hendo
>
> PS I finally got some images scanned. As soon as I get through this
> project at work, I will put together a little webpage...
Get on with it!
We wanna see!
Jason J Railton
<http://www.joefish.cwc.net>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
