Subject:
|
Baseplate vs Brick landscape (was: Re: Show report)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:49:21 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.[avoidspam]net
|
Viewed:
|
3261 times
|
| |
|
|
Kevin Loch wrote:
> Actually the whole layout was very well done. I have to say, I prefer the look
> of the "baseplate" landscape to the "brick" landscape. There is something
> about the "brick" land style that is just too distracting. For some reason the
> baseplate-based system just looks more convincing. I know that is
> counterintuitive but it's what I see. Maybe it's because real live landscapes,
> even hilly ones are essentially flat when viewed from most angles of elevation.
> Brick based landscapes have too many "rectangular fractal" components, both
> horizontal and vertical. Maybe that's what it is.
Interesting analysis, Kevin. I am curious, would you then advocate using, say a
mountain, which is non-LEGO and made out of paper mache? On a related note: it
seems to me that TLC used to make their dioramas out of bricks more than they do
today. Now, it's mostly computerized backdrops. I always thought that it was due
to cost considerations-- I never thought it might be because someone *preferred*
it that way. I wonder how others feel? Others?
-John
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Show report
|
| (...) The airport was awesome! Now only if they offered gray 2x2 tiles in 100 packs... :) Actually the whole layout was very well done. I have to say, I prefer the look of the "baseplate" landscape to the "brick" landscape. There is something about (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
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
|
|
|
|
