Texas Zepher wrote:And a tangent (had to throw in trig right) to that is the highly detailed model. It is so well done that it causes one great stress to run it on the layout.
What would happen if it derail, run into something, get clipped by another train, or even just be picked up wrong and have one of those details get folded, bent, spindled, or mutilated!
marknewton wrote: Texas Zepher wrote:And a tangent (had to throw in trig right) to that is the highly detailed model. It is so well done that it causes one great stress to run it on the layout. All of my models are very highly detailed, but they cause me no stress when they get run. Why should they?What would happen if it derail, run into something, get clipped by another train, or even just be picked up wrong and have one of those details get folded, bent, spindled, or mutilated!What would happen is they would get repaired. If they were damaged by derailment or collision then I'd take steps to prevent that happening again. If they got picked up wrong I'd tell whoever not to do it that way again! I can't decide if you're being facetious, but if you aren't, presumably you'd be an advocate of models having little or no detail? Litho'ed tinplate might be go for you...Mark.
I think he was being facetious.
TONY
"If we never take the time, how can we ever have the time." - Merovingian (Matrix Reloaded)
Man...for a few minutes there I was having flash backs to the ole college calculus days!
Tongue and cheek aside, I cannot fathom how you can measure "level of fun", "work expended", "and money spent", and "ribbits" with mathematics or quantum mechanics, but whatever floats your boat or fuels your spacecraft.
In any case, please do not start adding any statistics to this thread, because I will be lost in the explanations between the median, mean and the mode!
Ryan BoudreauxThe Piedmont Division Modeling The Southern Railway, Norfolk & Western & Norfolk Southern in HO during the merger eraCajun Chef Ryan
I have two scales of good enough. Mostly I can make models look really good to the naked eye--at least my naked eye.
Then I take a picture and it looks like a model again.
I think I need to buy a cheaper camera.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SpaceMouse wrote: I have two scales of good enough. Mostly I can make models look really good to the naked eye--at least my naked eye. Then I take a picture and it looks like a model again. I think I need to buy a cheaper camera.
There is as story about how Cliff Grandt scratchbuilt a locomotive (I think it was a Heisler) and sent it to John Allen for his appraisal. John (who was a professional photographer) took photos of the loco and sent the photos and the loco back to Cliff.
Cliff imediately rebuilt the locomotive to fix all of the errors that showed up in John's photos.
-George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
Autobus Prime wrote:DV:I believe you have done a great service to the hobby with this "quantitative" analysis of a difficult subject. However, based on my experience in reading steam tables etc. I believe that this chart could be improved to the point of utter incomprehensibility with further reasearch. For instance, here is a start:As you can see, the isobars make it much harder to read, especially once you spill that cup of coffee on it. With careful work, a chart can obscure complicated data in ways that would take many more pages with a table of values.
Well done, sir!
Add to it the fact that as we improve our skills even for the same set of initial conditions our definition of good enough keeps migrating to the right, and we will have achieved complete incomprehensibility.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Autobus
Nice Graph. Couldn't find the triple point, though
Jack W
If you want to take a probablistic view of the "good enough" concept you could define it as a series of yes-no questions about each facet of model building, ranging from the more general (is it the right scale?) to the more specific (are the rivet patterns correct?). You could ask the modelers the questions in order and record the answers as binary patterns, then graph those answers on a continuum between the lowest number (00000000000000000) and the highest number (11111111111111111111111). Graphing it would probably produce "clouds" different interest levels.
But all that would tell you is the most common amounts of compromise modelers are willing to make. But other than that this whole excercise is a moving target. I might have a different level of "good enough" for track than cars.
The level of "good enough" might also depend on the era or scale you model in. A 50's modeler might be able to achieve a high level of "good enough" because there are literally hundreds if not thousands of choices for rail cars. It is way easier to achieve a higher degree of fidelity because there is more variety. I model the TOC (turnof the century) and there are very few models available so my level of "good enough" is forced to be lower. While a 50's modeler may have 50 or 60 varieties of coal car to choose from, the TOC modeler has but 3 (6 if you include steel hoppers). So while my preferred level of "good enough" may be higher, the market forces me to compromise down.
The concept of "good enough" was formed back when the "average" boxcar was a an Athearn blue box. One also has to consider that since the concept was first put forward, the availability and variety of models has skyrocketed. So what was "good enough" in 1975 might be totally unacceptable today.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
It's really quite simple. "Good enough" happens when you aren't willing to put more time into it.
FWIW
Charlie Comstock
BCSJ wrote: It's really quite simple. "Good enough" happens when you aren't willing to put more time into it.FWIWCharlie Comstock
...not always... I have a few projects in the parts bin that are far from "good enough," but I'm not willing to put any more time into them. These are more like abortive modeling attemps.
Dave Vollmer wrote: BCSJ wrote: It's really quite simple. "Good enough" happens when you aren't willing to put more time into it.FWIWCharlie Comstock ...not always... I have a few projects in the parts bin that are far from "good enough," but I'm not willing to put any more time into them. These are more like abortive modeling attemps.
And you aren't the only one who has that situation.
Irv
Don't neglect the unquantifiable factor that everything I do is superior to everything everybody else does in my own mind. Therefore my "good enough" means that my own worst minimum is greater than another's best. (hey, after all I am the Emperor Supreme of my railroad).
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
This is not a big issue. All model railroading is simply and analogy of the real thing. All analogy's eventually break down. An example is HO code 100 versus smaller codes. Were does your analogy break down at?
Some people just like to argue or look down on other's modeling.
We are just "boys" playing with trains. Ask your significant other. They will say we look "cute" playing with our trains.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
No problem with my theory Dave. Those projects were good enough for the closet (or box or trash bin) where they got stashed. Or did you say that the standard of 'good enough' was judged as though for up front and personal at eye level in the location visitors see first when they walk into the layout room and nowhere else?
Ciao baby,
Dave Vollmer wrote: Autobus Prime wrote:DV:I believe you have done a great service to the hobby with this "quantitative" analysis of a difficult subject. However, based on my experience in reading steam tables etc. I believe that this chart could be improved to the point of utter incomprehensibility with further reasearch. For instance, here is a start:As you can see, the isobars make it much harder to read, especially once you spill that cup of coffee on it. With careful work, a chart can obscure complicated data in ways that would take many more pages with a table of values.Well done, sir!Add to it the fact that as we improve our skills even for the same set of initial conditions our definition of good enough keeps migrating to the right, and we will have achieved complete incomprehensibility.
Yes, "well done" ............. A salute to Autobus for clearing this up.
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
Dave,As another point of view discussed among advanced modelers is:Where do we draw the time line for a given locomotive?
Do we draw that line when the locomotive was new from the plant-in other words shiny and all fresh.
Do we draw that line when the locomotive has seen many months of service and has lost its luster?
Do we draw that line when the locomotive is long over due for a fresh coat of paint?
What details should we add/remove and when should they be added/removed? Let's say we model AB&C..The question we need to ask and find the answers to is when did the shop add A/C to the 444? When was the headlights lowered from above the cab to the nose? Then there is the minute detail such as the crack door glass.Wait! When was 444 converted to a road slug? Or perhaps: What?? 444 was wrecked and scrapped shortly after it was delivered?
Many questions many different time frame answers in the life span of a given locomotive
As we can see there is far more in "accuracy modeling" then just adding the "correct" details.
Of course the above type of modeling is hardcore and many won't take that extra step.
I know I won't and will stop at "close enough/good enough" rather then sweat the minute details..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
OMG you people need to get a life!! Where do you find time to model??
Thanks for starting the post .. it is fun reading.
It is all subjective however, I know that all the curves shift to the left for me as a factor of the time I have been working on a particular scene. Fortunately, after I get away from it for a while it shifts back to the right.
Whatever happened to the idea that a model railroad was a tool with wich to have fun? To bond with offspring or others with similar interests? Why is a railroad with a Burlington Route steam locomotive running on it sub standard to some (rivet counters) because there is no identifiable scenery on the layout through wich the CB&Q ran?
I myself have no background in electronics, design, engineering, art (drawing a straight line with a ruler my thumb generally gets in the way), nothing that would readily enable me to build the kinds of layouts seen in MRM. Everything I have learned I have learned by trial and error. I have probably spent as much on my layout rebuilding it (8 times to date) because "something" didn't turn out right or I got a better idea, as any of the great larger layouts seen in MRM. I just learned what I know the hard way-trial and error.
There was only one small hobby shop in town when I began, and the owner leaned more to repair than anything else. I did learn some from him. Today, there are three places that advertise HO gauge, but not one of the proprieters can answer a technical question. They carry very little in stock and order whatever you want from Walthers. (I can do that at home).
I may have drifted a little off topic and I apologize, but when I saw the charts presented by Dave Vollmer I kinda lost it. Why not start a drive to once again begin having fun with the hobby and not worry about whether your layout is good enough for whatever or whoever. How about this: Is it good enough for you??? When it comes to my Railroad, Fallen Flags, Inc., if you don't like it you don't have to look. But you know what? I haven't had one person or child tell me they didn't like it. Most didn't want to leave. My one layout covers: ATSF, Burlington, BN, BNSF, UP, SP, D&RGW, NYC, PENNSY, B&O, C&O and AMTRAK, steam and diesel respectively, and all pass the same scenery. GOOD ENOUGH!!!!
AMEN!
Doc
trainnut57 wrote:I myself have no background in electronics, design, engineering, art (drawing a straight line with a ruler my thumb generally gets in the way), nothing that would readily enable me to build the kinds of layouts seen in MRM. Everything I have learned I have learned by trial and error. I have probably spent as much on my layout rebuilding it (8 times to date) because "something" didn't turn out right or I got a better idea, as any of the great larger layouts seen in MRM. I just learned what I know the hard way-trial and error.
I may have drifted a little off topic and I apologize, but when I saw the charts presented by Dave Vollmer I kinda lost it. Why not start a drive to once again begin having fun with the hobby and not worry about whether your layout is good enough for whatever or whoever.
Doctor Dave, Dave Nelson, et.al.--
Your "doc" is exposed.
Better check your gif files and watch your language.
Some of our members here may be sensitive to graphs, plots, and intersecting data.
Autobus Prime wrote: trainnut57 wrote:I myself have no background in electronics, design, engineering, art (drawing a straight line with a ruler my thumb generally gets in the way), nothing that would readily enable me to build the kinds of layouts seen in MRM. Everything I have learned I have learned by trial and error. I have probably spent as much on my layout rebuilding it (8 times to date) because "something" didn't turn out right or I got a better idea, as any of the great larger layouts seen in MRM. I just learned what I know the hard way-trial and error. tn57:Engineers do that too, but they say "empirical methods" for respectability's sake. A lot of the charts we use were come up with over the years by just that trial and error. The analog computer of reality is an excellent analyst in the long run. From what you're telling me, you've done lots of experimenting along the way, and for my money that's the heart of model railroad engineering...that and sharing your mistakes and successes so other people can avoid / repeat them. I may have drifted a little off topic and I apologize, but when I saw the charts presented by Dave Vollmer I kinda lost it. Why not start a drive to once again begin having fun with the hobby and not worry about whether your layout is good enough for whatever or whoever. DV was being facetious, and maybe poking a little fun at that very tendency to overanalyze. After all, neither his chart nor my obfuscated version has any recognized units anywhere. It's good enough when it's good enough.
Uh... that answer sounds good enough for me!
George
In my own modeling (which applies only to me, and nobody else) I have a dream. At a point on my under-construction layout where the benchwork has yet to be erected, I will model a long, twisting upgrade climb parallel to a fast-flowing river in a steep-sided valley. When it is finished, steam-powered freights will work hard and move slowly to climb it.
At that time, when I look at the results of my efforts from a couple of meters away, I will ask myself, "Does that look like what I saw from the other side of the river between Agematsu and Kiso-Fukushima?"
If the answer is yes, I will have achieved my own, "Good enough."
Chuck (modeling the Upper Kiso Valley of Central Japan in September, 1964)
trainnut57 wrote: I may have drifted a little off topic and I apologize, but when I saw the charts presented by Dave Vollmer I kinda lost it. Why not start a drive to once again begin having fun with the hobby and not worry about whether your layout is good enough for whatever or whoever. How about this: Is it good enough for you??? When it comes to my Railroad, Fallen Flags, Inc., if you don't like it you don't have to look. But you know what? I haven't had one person or child tell me they didn't like it. Most didn't want to leave. My one layout covers: ATSF, Burlington, BN, BNSF, UP, SP, D&RGW, NYC, PENNSY, B&O, C&O and AMTRAK, steam and diesel respectively, and all pass the same scenery. GOOD ENOUGH!!!!
I imagine you didn't read my follow-up post exposing this as a bit of good-natured humor... But that's okay, because even if I were serious about this, I think it's fun to think of the hobby in terms of science and math. You may not, but that doesn't make my views on the hobby invalid. But I do make it clear throughout that "good enough" is defined by the modeler himself, and no one else. I hope you read that too.
I'm an analytical person; that's just as valid a way to approach the hobby as any.
I would suggest by your reaction you may be taking the hobby a bit seriously as well....! Relax and have fun. I am!
Today's models are so well done, so highly detailed, that I'm having fun just weathering them and running them. I recently took my kids to one of Europe's biggest model railroad displays (sorry, it's an all German web-site):
http://www.modellbahn-wiehe.de/index2.htm
While we were there, I observed the display, and realized that the whole thing was not hyper-detailed. No one could have appreciated it anyway, as all the trains were operating. It was more about "setting the scene", about creating an impression of reality. And it works! I would rather have more railroad with less detailing that gives the overall impression of being real, because I will be running trains over it, and want to feel as if I'm running over a real branch line.
My interlocking must have a tower with a towerman and a few mock up armstrong levers visible inside, but it does not have to have cable conduits running from the tower to the tracks as in the prototype. My freight car trucks need not have real springs; I'm satisfied with die-cast springs. Have fun and..."stop counting rivets!"
trainnut57 wrote:Whatever happened to the idea that a model railroad was a tool with which to have fun?
Why is a railroad with a Burlington Route steam locomotive running on it sub standard to some (rivet counters) because there is no identifiable scenery on the layout through wich the CB&Q ran?
I may have drifted a little off topic and I apologize, but when I saw the charts presented by Dave Vollmer I kinda lost it. Why not start a drive to once again begin having fun with the hobby...