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.
BCSJ wrote: It's really quite simple. "Good enough" happens when you aren't willing to put more time into it.FWIWCharlie Comstock
It's really quite simple. "Good enough" happens when you aren't willing to put more time into it.
FWIW
Charlie 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.
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,
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.
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"
And you aren't the only one who has that situation.
Irv
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
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
Autobus
Nice Graph. Couldn't find the triple point, though
Jack W
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.
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.
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..."
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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
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.
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!
I think he was being facetious.
TONY
"If we never take the time, how can we ever have the time." - Merovingian (Matrix Reloaded)
TZ .. I'm gald you brought this thread back to the top. It was thought provoking. I like your latest post and all the others. The earler remark on "economy of scale" made me laugh loudly. .............I expect some quadratic equations from the mathmaticians.
Never mind that. I'm behind building my fleet of F3's for the Burlington, and I've got work to do.........until I get the same number the CB&Q had in it's fleet, I ain't prototypical.....
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
Heartland Division CBnQ wrote:An economist may add the law of diminishing returns in some fashion to the theory. Hypothetically, a modeler may do a great job building a replica of his favorite type of locomotive, and he will feel a great sense of accomplishment at completion of that model.
Good idea, Doc. Mine is when I can finally say "I can't do any better, that looks about right." Of course, I'll take a break if it's tedious work. But yeah, if it ain't fun, do something else.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
I have been a long time subscriber to the "good enough" theory of modeling.
Case in point, visually, I need my models to, at first glance, to be what they are supposed to represent. That means a GP-35, for example, has to have 3 fantowers 2 large, one small, the spartian cab, no anti-climbers, symmetric dynamic brake blisters blah blah blah. I'm not too worried about a few scale inches here or there, but, a real deal breaker for me is bad mechanical soundness.
Jerky motion, grinding gears, high starting amperage, too high speed, either low end, or top end, is a no-no! I demand smooth operation, standardized gear ratios (for MU use) and NMRA standard gauge and wheel profiles!
To me nothing is more frustrating that a locomotive or car that is always derailing, hard starting, bad rolling, or just plain badly engineered no matter how well scaled and detailed it is.
I have had a few cars that fall into that catagory. They became kitbash fodder real quick!
I feel that model railroading is about building a mini world, where everything "plays well" together, and not sweat the small details. I (like many) have a job where small details are the difference between right and wrong, (and in my former career, life and death! see my screenname for the why of this concept)
Embrace "good enough"! Like the loop, an occasional "fantasy" paint scheme, or the old standby, a dinosaur as a log skidder, and enjoy a hobby.
Now, where did I put that bottle of O scale fly droppings? I need to put them on the windshield of that custom made WM F-7 to date it for exactly 9:26 a.m. Friday, August 14 1968.
Dave;
Just change fun to reward and work to cost and you can roll all the other variables into them....
And its just as relevant.
I do also want to point out, as some may have missed, that this concept is on a "per modeler" basis, i.e., "good enough" is defined by the individual modeler's "sweet spot" and not by a larger group consensus.
Unless one is actually building models for other people (such as a custom builder might), one should always define "good enough" based on one's own standards. Building your own models to please someone else often leads to frustration and disappointment.
Remember, it's about fun.
loathar wrote: Dave V wrote-I have a ton of soap-box issues on model railroading, so rather than smack you guys around with them on the forums (as much), I'd put them all in one place.
Dave V wrote-I have a ton of soap-box issues on model railroading, so rather than smack you guys around with them on the forums (as much), I'd put them all in one place.
Ah, yes, but I have not shared all of my blog nuggets here (see the paranethetical passage above)!
I believe that one should look to Webster to understand the limits of the model-railroading hobby. It is defined as "a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation."
If you find pleasure and relaxation from your hobby nothing else matters.
I spent an extraordinary amount of time constructing bench work and building models. I bought locomotives for more money than I spent for my first car without any hesitation. I have wasted more time creating details on a scene that even a museum would do which no one but me would ever see.
Am I crazy? Sometimes my wife thinks so. I do it now because it relaxes me.
I will admit that many years ago when I was young I spent my time and money on cigarettes, whiskey and wild-wild women for relaxation but my tastes have changed for the better.
Don't psychoanalyze your hobby just follow it as closely as any other source of pleasure and relaxation "if it feels good do it."
Doc
joegideon wrote:I have my brother-in-law. Habitually out of work, he has a beeper that- when I get to that 70-80% point where I am somewhat confused as to whether it IS- or isn't- good enough- I beep. Within 15 minutes, Leon comes a-knockin', tool belt on, an old SX70 in hand... I point at a scene and Leon dives right in. I call him "Ol' Eighty-Per" for short. In a typical "mission", Ol' Eighty will arrive- and within twenty minutes, he'll bring me a Polaroid "proof". My only problem so far has been a certain amount of theft... and I fixed most of that by switching to "G" scale. Incidentally, he gets $1.35 / hr.(I model the transition era).
Hey, I'll give you $1.50 if you can rent him out to me. that 15 cents should be enough to buy you an extra length of snap track at transition era prices.
For me, "good enough" has a somewhat different meaning.
I will spend the lion's share of my time and effort on my trains - locomotive and rolling stock. They are, after all, the "stars" of my layout. I will spend less time and effort on scenery and structures because they are the "supporting cast" as it were. I wouldn't want them to upstage the "stars".
The last thing I want my vistors to do is to say, "Wow! Look at that fantastically detailed warehouse! By the way, did a train just go past here?"
But who determines what "good enough" means?
It's nice to come up with theories (and in academic circles one is expected to do so practically on a daily basis) but to be practical it's each individual that determines what "good enough" means.
Most of us have artistic streaks that find expression in building model railroads. But just as there are different styles and philosophies of painting landscape or people, ther are different philosophies of model railroading. So if you wnat to build very detailed models of locomotives you may find that operating them may not be possible because of various reasons.
We therefore come back to the concept of good enough. So there are restraints on how we define the term. Some of the restraints are time, money, family resposnibilites and relationships, skills, space, ability and any number of others that people are bound to come up with. But at some point the interaction of all of these do come to some gathering place which you've termed "the sweet spot." But that's not the problem, Dave.
The problem is that what you or I or the next guy consider "the sweet spot," may not be acceptable to others. Sometimes it's jealousy but most of the time it's simply nit picking.
So let's define "nit picking." I once was reading a military modelling magazine and came across a cartoon which showed two modeller's talking about a 54mm figue of a Greek Hoplite. One says to the other:
That's the wrong color of mud between the guy's toes for the Peloponesian Wars."
Now the humour may be lost on some but the jist is that the dirt between the toes of a 54 mm figure is virtually irrelevant to the rest of the figure because it is barely the size of dust spec. So that's nitpicking. And lots of us tend to do it. We may tedn to think we offering constructive criticism, but are we really?
I personnally don't think nitpicking accomplishes much except to encourage people to leave the hobby. And if enough that happens, we may find ourselves alone and thus have to go back to the time when being a model railroader required being able to create everything from scratch.
markpierce wrote: tomikawaTT wrote: EDIT! Horrors! I almost forgot JOB RESPONSIBILITIES. How do we quantify that (especially if the modeler goes to work in a military uniform?)A common ommission for those retired.Mark
tomikawaTT wrote: EDIT! Horrors! I almost forgot JOB RESPONSIBILITIES. How do we quantify that (especially if the modeler goes to work in a military uniform?)
EDIT! Horrors! I almost forgot JOB RESPONSIBILITIES. How do we quantify that (especially if the modeler goes to work in a military uniform?)
A common ommission for those retired.
Mark
Not really unless one's spouse wants to get you out of the house and doing something that brings green stuff (and I am NOT referring to fruits and vegetables ) into the house.