To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.trainsOpen lugnet.trains in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Trains / 22964
22963  |  22965
Subject: 
Re: A little math cioncerning ships, containers and Minifigs
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.boats, lugnet.trains
Date: 
Thu, 20 May 2004 15:37:03 GMT
Viewed: 
379 times
  
In lugnet.boats, Jan-Albert van Ree wrote:
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:

That container's 8 wide! I prefer my scenes more packed with detail rather
than doing one 10 foot long ship so that I can fit my to scale containers on.
(and, arguably, 10 foot is too short if you want 6000 TEU worth of containers
on it).

Absolute to scale realism is for scale models. This is a toy. I want to evoke
a scene, not get the rivet count right. Think tinplate, not scale.

Where on earth are you going to get space to show a 10 foot long ship, in
context with several others, and with containre cranes busily unloading, as
just PART of an overall layout? In the space you'd spend JUST on your ship, I
can do several, then fit in an engine yard, a farm and maybe a mountain.

Selective compresssion is clearly the way to go here. I'm just myself not
sure if I switch to 6 wide containers or stick with the LEGO standard (1) 4
wide containers... I'll ooh and aah at your models as interesting academic
exercises, but I won't be building 8 wide containers.

While on one side I'd say that you're right here, on the other hand some things
in proper proportions can get a point across much better.

http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=614099
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=614098

If you've ever seen a real terminal, you'll know it's really overwhelming. I
think using 4*6 or 4*8 containers and a crane like LEGO's 4555 doesn't manage to
give you the same feeling. The above crane (by Ludger Havighorst) did manage to
do that. Plus it's motorized ;) It's still not really to scale, but against a
minifig it does look much more realistic.
BTW the containers are 7-wide, and use some clever building techniques

http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=68738
--
Jan-Albert van Ree


I can see both sides of this, but I'm more swayed by 'selective compression', as
Larry mentioned.

For example--

Jeff VW set up his harbour cranes at a few of our train shows--

http://sparky.i989.net/images/nmra0307/P009703.jpg

http://sparky.i989.net/images/rtl0301/p008660.jpg

http://sparky.i989.net/images/rtl0301/p008680.jpg

Using the 'standard' 4x8xwhatever freight containers.  The cranes were motorized
and RCX'ed to pick up a container from the ship and drop it in the yard (k, that
part didn't work as well, but with a little more time for programming...)

Anyway, for me, if you have the room and the pieces, do the larger scale.  I
don't have either the room or the pieces, so I'll have to stay with the
compression.

Those 7-8 wide containers are very nice, though :)

Dave K



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: A little math cioncerning ships, containers and Minifigs
 
(...) While on one side I'd say that you're right here, on the other hand some things in proper proportions can get a point across much better. (URL) you've ever seen a real terminal, you'll know it's really overwhelming. I think using 4*6 or 4*8 (...) (20 years ago, 20-May-04, to lugnet.boats, lugnet.trains)

9 Messages in This Thread:



Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR