Scale vs looks right

[Anonymous]

I go for the "looks right" approach - my layout has some of the most rampant greenery on the planet if you check it with a scale rule! However, to my eye it looks right, and it covers a few mistakes (like not painting the board before laying track and ballasting...!)

[Anonymous]

I go for the "looks right" approach - my layout has some of the most rampant greenery on the planet if you check it with a scale rule! However, to my eye it looks right, and it covers a few mistakes (like not painting the board before laying track and ballasting...!)

[Anonymous]

That is a good question, Id say it depends on if you want a show me layout or a fun layout. me I would go for the scale and have a good looking layout.

[Anonymous]

That is a good question, Id say it depends on if you want a show me layout or a fun layout. me I would go for the scale and have a good looking layout.

[ham99]

If it "looks right," it is right -- even though not in scale. But it can't be far off scale or it would not look right. Let's see -- in N scale, Colorado's Mount Evans would be 89.7 feet tall. Even 9.6 inch pine trees are out of the question on my layout. Smaller scenery items seem to make the track appear longer. Put a simple loop of track down without scenery and it seems so small -- add a lot of scenery features and it gets longer, because we see the train passing things to give us a scale perspective.

[ham99]

If it "looks right," it is right -- even though not in scale. But it can't be far off scale or it would not look right. Let's see -- in N scale, Colorado's Mount Evans would be 89.7 feet tall. Even 9.6 inch pine trees are out of the question on my layout. Smaller scenery items seem to make the track appear longer. Put a simple loop of track down without scenery and it seems so small -- add a lot of scenery features and it gets longer, because we see the train passing things to give us a scale perspective.

[cwclark]

I strive to do both because the camera is the tattle tale...I scratch built a lumber mill once and to my eye it looked really good..but when pictures were taken I could find lots of flaws where things in the picture were bigger than life and ended up tearing it down and re-doing a large portion of it to get it into scale...I believe one is as important as the other...Chuck[:D]

[cwclark]

I strive to do both because the camera is the tattle tale...I scratch built a lumber mill once and to my eye it looked really good..but when pictures were taken I could find lots of flaws where things in the picture were bigger than life and ended up tearing it down and re-doing a large portion of it to get it into scale...I believe one is as important as the other...Chuck[:D]

[Jetrock]

Ballast is a tricky one--I recently tried ballasting with WS fine ballast instead of medium (I model HO) and did find that the results look better.

One thing to keep in mind is perspective. Especially when one is trying to exaggerate perspective, one can make use of out-scale items to enhance the illusion of depth. As an example, in this photo

http://emrl.com/~jetrock/fubar/quarterview2.jpg

I used trees varying between 1" and 3" tall in the background--which are tiny tiny trees in HO, barely saplings, but my objective was to make the viewer think that these trees were actually much farther away than they actually are--since the only thing on the hill to give a sense of scale are the trees, and our brains "know" that generally in the mountains pine trees are higher than 15-25 feet, our brain assumes that the hill in the background is farther away than it actually is.

This can also be done with equipment that is only slightly out-scale. The example of HO equipment in foreground with N in background is common, but it can also be used with equipment that is both technically in "HO" but not necessarily the same size. For example, I have some HO die-cast vehicles that have nice details but are a bit over-scale, and some German plastic HO vehicles that look nice on the outside but have no interior detail and are a bit small. Since I have several streets on my layout that run from foreground to background, by placing the larger, detailed vehicles closer to the edge of the layout and the smaller vehicles farther back, I enhance the illusion of distance while using two different vehicles that are both technically "HO."

In the above instances, the idea is to work WITH the camera eye--both illusions are destroyed if viewed from the back.

[Jetrock]

Ballast is a tricky one--I recently tried ballasting with WS fine ballast instead of medium (I model HO) and did find that the results look better.

One thing to keep in mind is perspective. Especially when one is trying to exaggerate perspective, one can make use of out-scale items to enhance the illusion of depth. As an example, in this photo

http://emrl.com/~jetrock/fubar/quarterview2.jpg

I used trees varying between 1" and 3" tall in the background--which are tiny tiny trees in HO, barely saplings, but my objective was to make the viewer think that these trees were actually much farther away than they actually are--since the only thing on the hill to give a sense of scale are the trees, and our brains "know" that generally in the mountains pine trees are higher than 15-25 feet, our brain assumes that the hill in the background is farther away than it actually is.

This can also be done with equipment that is only slightly out-scale. The example of HO equipment in foreground with N in background is common, but it can also be used with equipment that is both technically in "HO" but not necessarily the same size. For example, I have some HO die-cast vehicles that have nice details but are a bit over-scale, and some German plastic HO vehicles that look nice on the outside but have no interior detail and are a bit small. Since I have several streets on my layout that run from foreground to background, by placing the larger, detailed vehicles closer to the edge of the layout and the smaller vehicles farther back, I enhance the illusion of distance while using two different vehicles that are both technically "HO."

In the above instances, the idea is to work WITH the camera eye--both illusions are destroyed if viewed from the back.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rsn48

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

I've always thought that HO scale ballast looks too big. I ballast my track with N scale ballast because it looks right to me.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rsn48

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

I've always thought that HO scale ballast looks too big. I ballast my track with N scale ballast because it looks right to me.

[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

[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!

[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

[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]

yes

[Anonymous]

yes

[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".

[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]

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

[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!.