Subject:
|
Re: Baseplate vs Brick landscape (was: Re: Show report)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:03:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3595 times
|
| |
|
|
I will say that I liked the baseplate look (I wish I had that many plates
for the NGLTC layout, but for now the tables are painted base plate green)
but it looked like it had a few draw backs. For one I don't think you'd have
a lot of flexibility in how the layout was arranged, you're forced to build
the layout in a grid format. When we (NGLTC) do shows it's a little more
freeform, we have a general idea of where things will go, but other than the
downtown area we pretty much put things how ever they fit around the track
layout. The track pretty much dictates the lay of the land. I'm curious on
how the MICHLUG felt the layout process went.
As for flat being better, well I don't know about that one. I think
elevations and dips give a layout more to look at, including the addition of
some bridges. I don't know what the fascination is, but people love to see
the trains climb elevations and go across bridges.
I tried a plaster mountain (inspired by the 1998 summer S@H catalog with
trains on the cover) for the first few NGLTC shows. It had some clone bricks
mixed in to give a LEGO feel, but it was all foam and plaster. But ever show
I would always get the comment "hey the mountain is made of LEGO bricks", so
this year I retired the mountain and have begun working on brick mountain.
Of course I have no idea how I'll fit it in the van, it's already full of
tables and the rest of the buildings, trains, controls and etc.
I did notice the lack of crowd control on the MICHLUG layout, very brave
indeed. There were a few pictures of little hands right on the tracks, they
tend to back off after you slam a train into them, but they seem to come
back to try it again. I found that the KRR really helps keep the little
hands off the layout, gives them something to touch, and at a train show
that a rarity.
Good job MICHLUG, I was very impressed with the size of the layout, glad you
guys pulled it off so well,
jt
--
James J. Trobaugh
North Georgia LEGO Train Club
http://www.ngltc.org
John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3A638C69.CF632205@uswest.net...
>
> 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:
 | | Baseplate vs Brick landscape (was: Re: Show report)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
