Subject:
|
Re: Green line pics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:00:47 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest*IHateSpam*.net
|
Viewed:
|
967 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> > And BTW, if your measurements seem to be off a little, remember this: it's the
> > *figs* which are off. 1 stud = 1.3 feet is about the best ratio I can come up
> > with.
>
> Yep, I'm quite the anal retentive nerd when it comes to minifig scale
> measurements:
> http://news.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=10489
> http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=26604
> http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=26607
>
> But despite all that, I still usually go by 7mm = 1 minifig foot, even
> though 8mm (1 stud) is still reasonably accurate and also allows for more
> detail... it just looks... a LEEETLE bit too big when I use 8mm per mf foot
> to my eyes... dunno why...
Yeah, by rights, if you were modeling standard gauge (4' 8 1/2" between the rails
which is almost exactly 5 studs, so about 1 foot to 1 stud), then you'd really
need to build your trains *10 wide* (10 feet is about the typical train car
width). Then, all minifigs are midgets, and if you thought 8 wides looks horrible
on curves....;-)
I will stick to 8 wide and get my super-detail jollies building my 14wides{:^D
-John
>
>
> > Welcome to 8 Wide Utopia:-)
>
> Wow, and I never even had a 6-wide dark age :)
>
> DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Green line pics
|
| (...) Yep, I'm quite the anal retentive nerd when it comes to minifig scale measurements: (URL) despite all that, I still usually go by 7mm = 1 minifig foot, even though 8mm (1 stud) is still reasonably accurate and also allows for more detail... it (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
