Subject:
|
Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:12:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1679 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Mike Poindexter (<FpMJo1.HDw@lugnet.com>) wrote at
18:38:12
>
> Lego has kind of put us AFOLS in a pickle here, because they mix scales
> constantly. Some things are bigger than they should be, some are smaller.
> They both look fine individually, but put them together and they look wrong.
> Maybe a little, maybe a lot, but they are still off. Rounding everything in
> the real world to the nearest 15 or 18 inches would make things look weird,
> but shrinking this arbitrarily and randomly would make things look even
> weirder. Most train layouts I have seen try to stay away from looking
> weird.
>
> 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.
This is quite a good argument for six wide.
The fundamental difficulty with trying to make scale model trains in
LEGO *is* the scale problem. Because there is no scale, you simply can't
do it consistently within the LEGO world.
You *can* build trains that look right, by using TLC's idiom of
selective and dramatic compression & omission.
But to try and model a prototype *within* a LEGO world is to make so
many compromises that the exercise is futile.
So you're left with making an accurate model but taking it out of the
minifig realm, or making a representation suitable for minifigs, which
can't be scaled up to look right in the real world.
It seems to me that the six wide lot are trying to convince themselves
that they can make scale models, when the simple fact is that they can
only make toys.
I'm definitely *not* saying that there is anything wrong with this. In
fact, it's where the challenge lies. A literal interpretation is easy;
using TLC's idiom to design & build a good looking train isn't.
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| IMHO you have a choice of throwing out the minifig scale and create a nice "relatively" scale model of rolling stock (as per TLGs modelers) ((and forget about running it on the track)) or create a nice looking model in minifig "scale" and enjoy (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| (...) I would qualify that by saying one can't if one uses set designs rather than MOCs (or maybe that is what you mean here). (...) I disagree, or maybe I'm not getting your point. Even when I build 8 wide, I am not striving for perfect model (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| The width of Lego track is almost exactly the same as Lionel, which is about equal to "O", or close enough for all intents and purposes of this discussion. The last time I was in a train store (1 week ago) I looked at the "O" scale and Lionel trains (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
