Scale vs looks right

[Anonymous]

Question... When you build which is more important, scale or that it looks right? What I am getting at are things like texture and detail size. If you do streets and grass and even ballast at real scale they seem too small to me. AnY thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Question... When you build which is more important, scale or that it looks right? What I am getting at are things like texture and detail size. If you do streets and grass and even ballast at real scale they seem too small to me. AnY thoughts?

[GregAlbert1]

I go for looks right over scale. Going for the overall impression is more important than exact scale replication. I go to hilltops overlooking street and rail scenes and notice the overall effect. That's what I want to reproduce in miniature, the overall effect. Too many otherwise great model railroad scenes are diminished by excessive, distracting details. Also pay attention to how atmospheric perspective and sunlight lightens the overall colors in a scene. Not many modellers get this right, and paint their models with colors that are too saturated or too dark.

[GregAlbert1]

I go for looks right over scale. Going for the overall impression is more important than exact scale replication. I go to hilltops overlooking street and rail scenes and notice the overall effect. That's what I want to reproduce in miniature, the overall effect. Too many otherwise great model railroad scenes are diminished by excessive, distracting details. Also pay attention to how atmospheric perspective and sunlight lightens the overall colors in a scene. Not many modellers get this right, and paint their models with colors that are too saturated or too dark.

[dknelson]

An interesting question that the whole hobby has been struggling with for 80 years! I think that the problem is that things "look right" until you take a good photograph and then the lack of scale accuracy makes it look "not right."
One classic example is the use of "astro-turf" for fields of corn. It looks great in real life. It looks absurd in a photograph. Wooden sided freight cars are another example -- a real wooden car had the wood pieces meet in a very tight way, but on model cars there is a groove big enough to fit an HO scale hand into. We make it wrong so we can see what it is because otherwise a true scale wood car might look smooth sided to us.
Trees are another good example. Most people's trees are very short compared to the prototype but they "look right" to us. Scale height trees -- and an 80 foot tree is hardly unusual remember -- look like they are in the wrong scale! Take a passenger car and think of a tree that tall
But true scale trees make for a better photograph. Things like gravel roofs and gravel roads -- most modelers use gravel that is too big because they want to see the individual grains. If we were giants and looking at HO sized prototypes we would hardly be able to see the individual grains. The texture would be more like fine sandpaper (which some modelers actually use for gravel roofs).
I am not suggesting exact scale here. I am suggesting that viewing your models through a camera viewfinder might suggest the benefits of being closer to scale
Dave Nelson

[dknelson]

An interesting question that the whole hobby has been struggling with for 80 years! I think that the problem is that things "look right" until you take a good photograph and then the lack of scale accuracy makes it look "not right."
One classic example is the use of "astro-turf" for fields of corn. It looks great in real life. It looks absurd in a photograph. Wooden sided freight cars are another example -- a real wooden car had the wood pieces meet in a very tight way, but on model cars there is a groove big enough to fit an HO scale hand into. We make it wrong so we can see what it is because otherwise a true scale wood car might look smooth sided to us.
Trees are another good example. Most people's trees are very short compared to the prototype but they "look right" to us. Scale height trees -- and an 80 foot tree is hardly unusual remember -- look like they are in the wrong scale! Take a passenger car and think of a tree that tall
But true scale trees make for a better photograph. Things like gravel roofs and gravel roads -- most modelers use gravel that is too big because they want to see the individual grains. If we were giants and looking at HO sized prototypes we would hardly be able to see the individual grains. The texture would be more like fine sandpaper (which some modelers actually use for gravel roofs).
I am not suggesting exact scale here. I am suggesting that viewing your models through a camera viewfinder might suggest the benefits of being closer to scale
Dave Nelson

[gerryleone]

I couldn't agree with Dave more. Sometimes over- and under-scale things just look "righter."

When I was going for my "Master-Scenery" certificate in the NMRA's Master Model Railroader program, one of the things I got faulted for was having trees that were too small. Wasn't a big deal, but they look better to my eye than full-size trees would have.

Dave's analogy of standing a passenger car on end to see what a real 80-foot tree would look like is a great one. WAY too tall for my layout!

-Gerry

[gerryleone]

I couldn't agree with Dave more. Sometimes over- and under-scale things just look "righter."

When I was going for my "Master-Scenery" certificate in the NMRA's Master Model Railroader program, one of the things I got faulted for was having trees that were too small. Wasn't a big deal, but they look better to my eye than full-size trees would have.

Dave's analogy of standing a passenger car on end to see what a real 80-foot tree would look like is a great one. WAY too tall for my layout!

-Gerry

[Anonymous]

We are putting on theatre, so looks is more important than reality. People is my pet peeve in N scale. Even if they are to scale, they just look to small for my taste, so I am seriously planning on using TT people where I can get away with it.

Another example is ballast, in N scale your ballast would almost be a powder if done to scale, which wouldn't "look" right.

We can never make mountains to scale, but people believe our creations are mountains anyways.

Or scale train lengths for us contemporary runners is usually out of the question for us - 150 cars through the Fraser Canyon in BC is normal.

Or forced perspective, with an HO house in front, a couple of inches behind an N house, definitely not reality.

We as a people read so much, watch TV and movies, look at plays and participate in pageants; we are prepared to hang our reality hats at the door. I'm a firm believer in the "wow factor"; if you knock the visitor's socks off with great scenery, weathering and structures, they will forgive you your scale transgressions.

[Anonymous]

We are putting on theatre, so looks is more important than reality. People is my pet peeve in N scale. Even if they are to scale, they just look to small for my taste, so I am seriously planning on using TT people where I can get away with it.

Another example is ballast, in N scale your ballast would almost be a powder if done to scale, which wouldn't "look" right.

We can never make mountains to scale, but people believe our creations are mountains anyways.

Or scale train lengths for us contemporary runners is usually out of the question for us - 150 cars through the Fraser Canyon in BC is normal.

Or forced perspective, with an HO house in front, a couple of inches behind an N house, definitely not reality.

We as a people read so much, watch TV and movies, look at plays and participate in pageants; we are prepared to hang our reality hats at the door. I'm a firm believer in the "wow factor"; if you knock the visitor's socks off with great scenery, weathering and structures, they will forgive you your scale transgressions.

[Anonymous]

I always go for "look right" over scale-most folks that view the layout could care less about scale. The pics my wife takes are by no means contest quality-but my "looks right" always looks right, in them[^]

[Anonymous]

I always go for "look right" over scale-most folks that view the layout could care less about scale. The pics my wife takes are by no means contest quality-but my "looks right" always looks right, in them[^]

[der5997]

I think that I'd go for "lopks right" over absolutely true scale as well. However I'm pretty sure that dknelson is quite right about wood siding and grain. I find that most modeled wood grain (eg on ties, house siding) is overdone, an inch or so high in reality! Colour (oops my Brit roots are showing) is another tricky thing, as GregAlbert1 points out. If you tone down and wash out everything doesn't that work against the fact that most layout lighting is somewhat weak? However, bright colours may look toy-like. Bright colour here and there can be very useful to distract the eye from stuff you don't want seen too well, like joins between modules, which are hopefully quite rare in real life!.

[der5997]

I think that I'd go for "lopks right" over absolutely true scale as well. However I'm pretty sure that dknelson is quite right about wood siding and grain. I find that most modeled wood grain (eg on ties, house siding) is overdone, an inch or so high in reality! Colour (oops my Brit roots are showing) is another tricky thing, as GregAlbert1 points out. If you tone down and wash out everything doesn't that work against the fact that most layout lighting is somewhat weak? However, bright colours may look toy-like. Bright colour here and there can be very useful to distract the eye from stuff you don't want seen too well, like joins between modules, which are hopefully quite rare in real life!.

[Anonymous]

The problem comes when you have a to scale item next to a not 2 scale item. An etreme example would be a man in his yard and his grass is hitting the top of his window. While it is usually not this big of a difference as the example given. Things are noticeable when not 2 scale. rails might sit to high, or whatnot and it just makes it look odd

[Anonymous]

The problem comes when you have a to scale item next to a not 2 scale item. An etreme example would be a man in his yard and his grass is hitting the top of his window. While it is usually not this big of a difference as the example given. Things are noticeable when not 2 scale. rails might sit to high, or whatnot and it just makes it look odd

[Javern]

I built a roadside billboard via plans in Model railroader once, ho scale. I never did think it looked right, too big. I cut it down until I thought it looked right to me

[Javern]

I built a roadside billboard via plans in Model railroader once, ho scale. I never did think it looked right, too big. I cut it down until I thought it looked right to me

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: I'm a firm believer in the "wow factor"; if you knock the visitor's socks off with great scenery, weathering and structures, they will forgive you your scale transgressions.

Rick - I couldn't agree more. If something doesn't "look" right, it just keeps drawing my attention to it and I forget everything that is right and concentrate on what my eye perceives as a "fault".

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: I'm a firm believer in the "wow factor"; if you knock the visitor's socks off with great scenery, weathering and structures, they will forgive you your scale transgressions.

Rick - I couldn't agree more. If something doesn't "look" right, it just keeps drawing my attention to it and I forget everything that is right and concentrate on what my eye perceives as a "fault".

[Anonymous]

yes

[Anonymous]

yes

[orsonroy]

Tough question. Personally, I'm all over the road, for various reasons.

When I build freight cars and superdetail steam engines, I "try" to stay as close to scale as possible, but will deliberately use wire grabirons or piping that's too large for appearance and strength. I'll also leave off a lot of detail, especially if it's not normally seen, or not really necessary for the overall appearance of the engine.

In terms of scenery, I actually prefer scale ballast and foliage. I'm not grinding my own scale leaves, but I do try to find off the shelf materials that come as close as possible, and I prefer realistic grass over ground foam. I regularly selectively compress large buildings, and I think we all compress trackwork. I'm with RSN48 in that most model people look undersized. I prefer using Musket Miniature figures over Preiser's.

[orsonroy]

Tough question. Personally, I'm all over the road, for various reasons.

When I build freight cars and superdetail steam engines, I "try" to stay as close to scale as possible, but will deliberately use wire grabirons or piping that's too large for appearance and strength. I'll also leave off a lot of detail, especially if it's not normally seen, or not really necessary for the overall appearance of the engine.

In terms of scenery, I actually prefer scale ballast and foliage. I'm not grinding my own scale leaves, but I do try to find off the shelf materials that come as close as possible, and I prefer realistic grass over ground foam. I regularly selectively compress large buildings, and I think we all compress trackwork. I'm with RSN48 in that most model people look undersized. I prefer using Musket Miniature figures over Preiser's.

[Anonymous]

I always go for "looks right." If I were to view a layout strictly through photographs, I might have a differing opinion.

When there is a strong likelyhood that a layout I'm building is destined to grace the pages of Model Railroader, I'll scale it for the camera lens. Until then, it's my eye it has to please.

Wayne

[Anonymous]

I always go for "looks right." If I were to view a layout strictly through photographs, I might have a differing opinion.

When there is a strong likelyhood that a layout I'm building is destined to grace the pages of Model Railroader, I'll scale it for the camera lens. Until then, it's my eye it has to please.

Wayne

[CBQ_Guy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gerryleone

I couldn't agree with Dave more. Sometimes over- and under-scale things just look "righter."

When I was going for my "Master-Scenery" certificate in the NMRA's Master Model Railroader program, one of the things I got faulted for was having trees that were too small. Wasn't a big deal, but they look better to my eye than full-size trees would have.

Dave's analogy of standing a passenger car on end to see what a real 80-foot tree would look like is a great one. WAY too tall for my layout!

-Gerry

Gerry,

Next time tell 'em you're just using your modeler's license and employing selective compression to the trees!

[CBQ_Guy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gerryleone

I couldn't agree with Dave more. Sometimes over- and under-scale things just look "righter."

When I was going for my "Master-Scenery" certificate in the NMRA's Master Model Railroader program, one of the things I got faulted for was having trees that were too small. Wasn't a big deal, but they look better to my eye than full-size trees would have.

Dave's analogy of standing a passenger car on end to see what a real 80-foot tree would look like is a great one. WAY too tall for my layout!

-Gerry

Gerry,

Next time tell 'em you're just using your modeler's license and employing selective compression to the trees!

[leighant]

Do 80 foot trees look right? I read that full-grown East Texas pine trees range from 80 to 140 feet tall. I went with 80. The foreground deciduous trees look kind of shrimpy by comparison. Maybe I ought to make them bigger, say at least 60 or so.

http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/aad.jpg
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/aap.jpg

[leighant]

Do 80 foot trees look right? I read that full-grown East Texas pine trees range from 80 to 140 feet tall. I went with 80. The foreground deciduous trees look kind of shrimpy by comparison. Maybe I ought to make them bigger, say at least 60 or so.

http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/aad.jpg
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/aap.jpg