Subject:
|
Re: Compressionism (D&RGW coach set)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:04:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5769 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
| |
and compressionism just don’t respect the scale... I’m curious about how do
the LEGO train community feel with compressionism ?
|
Personally, I try and avoid it like the plague. I consider building 6 wide
trains an (unnecessary) exercise in width compression. Of all the types of
compression, this particular one makes a train look wonky IMO. There is just
no getting around the fact that the train width should be about twice the
width of the track gauge (normally in the US at least). Having them be
virtually the same width is makes them appear too toyish, which is okay if
that is the look one is after. That is not what I’m after.
So I will find schematics of what I want to build and adhere to them as
closely as is possible. Because the fact is that no matter how closely I
can get to the exact proportions of a prototype, it will still look
relatively unrealistic because it is built from LEGO, not scale materials.
That is what I love-- it looks “real” and “unreal” all at the same time.
This effect has been perfected in the minilands, and the joy is in the
suspension of believe.
JOHN
|
It’s the age old debate b/w 6 and 8 (or other) wide.
For me, there are three overwhelming factors for my love of 6 wide and
‘selective compression’--
1. since the minifig isn’t to the same scale as a person in all dimensions,
making a locomotive and rolling stock ‘to exact scale’ of real life then throws
its scale to the minifig out of whack in some dimension.
2. The track selection of ‘L’ gauge--I had HO and N when I was younger. Heck,
from the ‘HO track laying manual’, the radius of HO curves shouldn’t be as
‘tight’ as the current LEGO curve radius, and HO is a much smaller scale.
Seeing large 8-10 wide LEGO rolling stock going around LEGO curves looks
absolutely ridiculous. Sure some do the straight/curve/straight to get around
that, but then you get the rocking motion which looks even more absurd.
3. As Larry stated, 6 wide frees up pieces. I have lots o’ pieces in my
collection, but I don’t want my locomotive to have more pieces in it than the
ISD.
I made the GM SD70ACe as close as I could to the original--
It’s the biggest 6 wide loco I’ve ever built and is pretty much ‘to scale’ to
the real thing, and it looks stupid going around corners, and will take out any
scenery/building that happens to be near the curve. I basically just have it
sitting on my layout for ‘display purposes’. I would absolutely hate to see the
thing in 8 wide--you couldn’t build any scenery for like 15 studs on each side
of a curve.
Anyway, bottom line for me is I’ll stick to 6 wide. It’s an all-around better
way of using LEGO. IF someone wants ‘all the detail’, then get into a different
gauge.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Compressionism (D&RGW coach set)
|
| (...) Personally, I try and avoid it like the plague. I consider building 6 wide trains an (unnecessary) exercise in width compression. Of all the types of compression, this particular one makes a train look wonky IMO. There is just no getting (...) (20 years ago, 30-Mar-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
61 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
|
|
|
|
