Subject:
|
Re: The effects of Bulk Sales are evident....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:42:54 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest^ihatespam^.net
|
Viewed:
|
3130 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Warning, a bit rambly post on the theory of realistic building scenes.
>
> In lugnet.trains.org, Scott Sanburn writes:
> > Steve Demlow said:
> >
> > > Tall isn't the problem (although transportion is an
> > > issue). Footprint is the
> > > issue. And one big building might be okay but we can't
> > > cram a dozen of 'em
> > > in there. So overall we need to shoot for something
> > > between "Lego corporate"
> > > scale and "realistic" scale.
> >
> > Indeed. At our show at GATS here in Michigan, we had some
> > interestig things, huge buildings by Chris Leach, and some
> > LEGO scale buildings as well. We were fortunate that we had
> > a lot of room, but it is something to consider for our next
> > few shows.
>
> They (the MichLUG buildings) were stunning buildings but I think they
> suffered from not being close enough together. Anything 5 stories or more
> ought to be cheek to jowl with other stuff or it does have that cornfield
> effect. And even low density buildings look better crammed together. Think
> of most railroad districts, every square inch of land has some junk or some
> building on it. Even the odd shaped parcels.
>
> Odd shaped buildings are an area we always tend to underbuild. Railroad
> districts tend to use the space that curves leave behind and fill it with
> triangular or whatever buildings... LEGO layouts tend to be very orthoganal.
>
> I think the GMLTC ought to consider having a few "baby" skyscrapers... no
> more than 4 or 6 windows wide and no more than 6 or 8 stories high, crammed
> into a relatively (OK, really really) small space. Think of a Manhattan
> block. It's not very big but it may have a BUNCH of buildings in it. Some
> are only 20 feet wide but still go up 6 or 8 stories. 3 25 story buildings
> can share the same tiny (from one street to the next is not much more than
> 100 feet) block! Talk about crowded. Go for that effect and you get lots of
> room for the vignettes that J3 wants (and I totally agree with him when he
> says "we need more people"!).
>
> Knowing J2, what he wants is some monstrosity that would make the miniland
> grand central terminal building look kind of small. Tell him he has a budget
> of so many studs by so many studs and he needs to cram all he wants to say
> into that space.
Okay, here's a for instance. Three of my buildings' footprints are: 28 x 44,
26 x 50, and 30 x 42. Surely those aren't "monstrosities"! Who's with me
here?
-John
> It's all about selective compression, baby.
>
> ++Lar (who probably made the car shop one stall too wide but I digress)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The effects of Bulk Sales are evident....
|
| (...) Ya, but I thought that the entire layout was only about 16'x16'. That means, that your smallest building is about 2x the size of the layout :) (no, a 26x50 building is not all that big. I tend towards 32x32 as a max size for normal buildings, (...) (26 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The effects of Bulk Sales are evident....
|
| Warning, a bit rambly post on the theory of realistic building scenes. (...) They (the MichLUG buildings) were stunning buildings but I think they suffered from not being close enough together. Anything 5 stories or more ought to be cheek to jowl (...) (26 years ago, 13-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
36 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
|
|
|
|
