Subject:
|
Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:35:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1633 times
|
| |
|
|
> I'd say one would have the best shot at "realism" in 1:48.
Perhaps in P:48 :)
There is no functional difference between 2mm(Fine Scale, UK), S4 (note, not
P4, which has manufacturing tolerances, but S4 does not),P:87, P:48,
ScaleSeven. None, except the actual size of each model, and the fiddlyness of
them. The "normal" level of detailing in the scales varies, it is _very_
unusual for 2mm scale modelers to include inside motion, not unheard of for 4mm
modelers, and now a defacto standard on 7mm models to include the full inside
motion (save a movable radius arm for reversing)
(I personally fail to see the point with electric engines of doing so, but, hey
to each his own...)
Of course, my view is that if you are going to go to all that work, make a real
steamer, and go outside with it...
> > I would suggest that you pick a scale, then do the math and figure how many
> > inches each stud equals. Stick to that scale for everything you build,
> > including your trains. If the minifigs don't quite look right in that
> > scale, that is fine. They don't look quite right in any scale.
>
> That's why we love'm (except Timmy;)
Yep, if I was as short and fat as a MF, I would have a 54" waist, and be 5'4"
tall...
:)
James P
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| (...) Ouch. Comparing to Lionel;-( (...) Which is fine with me. I don't run any out-of-the-box stuff anyway. What kills me is when they produce elements that *restrict* me to 6 wide (windshields, sharp curves, etc). (...) Mike and I have discussed (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
40 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
