 | | Re: Dutch 1851 - by Joep Klazen
|
|
(...) Hi Joep, Seems that trains is very busy with new posts at the moment. I am curious why you decided to change to eight-wide. It seems to me that this train is not gaining anything much from it but perhaps you see future trains as having greater (...) (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Dutch 1851 - by Joep Klazen
|
|
(...) Sheesh, would it hurt to be less condescending? :roll: ;-) (...) Legoswami (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Dutch 1851 - by Joep Klazen
|
|
(...) If I wanted to be condescending I would have just said "Nice work! champ". Note the subtle difference ;) Tim (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Dutch 1851 - by Joep Klazen
|
|
(...) I think that, yes, your bias is clouding your judgment, because it is obviously clear why he went 8 wide to model this train-- because he totally nails the look and feel of the proto by doing it. Compare it to his 6 wide version. There is no (...) (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Dutch 1851 - by Joep Klazen
|
|
(...) I agree he has the shape 100% down but I thought that for the six-wide version too. I'll never quite get eight-wide but these are nice trains, six- or eight-wide. Tim (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Dutch 1851 - by Joep Klazen
|
|
(...) (URL) This> shot shows the scale improvements beautifully. I still like my toy train size but I agree it is improved in eight-wide. Tim (19 years ago, 2-Mar-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
