When 1:72nd doesn't look like 1:72nd....

Butters · Post by **Butters** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:50 am

I'm working on a project and the resource material I find online and in a source book gives me a length of 5" (thank you Scale Converter!). I scale up some found 3d orthos to 5" and.... it just doesn't look right.

It's scaled to 1:72nd (using my resources) but, it looks to be 1:48-1:60ish, if I compare it to other, known, 1:72nd models and figures. At supposed 1:72nd scale, the canopy and cockpit look too big, it's armament appears to be a scale 18' feet long, the engines seem too massive, etc....

Now, I know that it's quite possible that all the references are wrong, but if I build it to what 'looks' right and then, someone in the know, says, "You know, that's not really 1:72nd scale", what do I say?

Rogviler · Post by **Rogviler** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:05 am

Is it a real design, like a plane, or is it something made-up, like a space ship? That can be a big factor, I've found...

-Rog

Butters · Post by **Butters** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:09 am

Rogviler wrote:Is it a real design, like a plane, or is it something made-up, like a space ship? That can be a big factor, I've found...

-Rog

Spacecraft.

Rogviler · Post by **Rogviler** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:14 am

Is it...a secret?

Unless it's something from Star Trek, most people probably aren't going to notice if it's a little off, so I'd go with what looks right myself. I'm finding that with my 1:144 Red October, lots of things I'll scale correctly with math but it just doesn't look right for whatever reason.

-Rog

Butters · Post by **Butters** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:25 am

Well, at this point, it is a secret. It will (I hope) be cast for sale, so it's liable to come under some scrutiny.

seam-filler · Post by **seam-filler** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:29 am

So the original thing is 30 feet long - that's what 5 inches at 1/72 scale represents?

So if your source material is correct, then you are correct. One trouble I've often come across is that these "definitive" sources for fictional craft are prurely conjectural - just look at the arguments over the size of the Discovery from 2001. Perhaps your source differs from those that others have used - whose to say is right?

Is there anything that you can compare it against - even a 1/72nd scale figure?

It might help if we knew what it was - maybe one of us has definitive info.

Rogviler · Post by **Rogviler** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:43 am

seam-filler wrote:It might help if we knew what it was - maybe one of us has definitive info.

I didn't want to press the issue, but yeah, it's hard to give a good opinion without knowing.

You're the one who asked, after all.

I would at least say that as long as you make sure you have the right number of rivets you should be fine.

-Rog

Butters · Post by **Butters** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:48 am

seam-filler wrote: Is there anything that you can compare it against - even a 1/72nd scale figure?

It might help if we knew what it was - maybe one of us has definitive info.

Butters wrote: ....but, it looks to be 1:48-1:60ish, if I compare it to other, known, 1:72nd models and figures.

Well, it's a rather obscure vehicle, so there's not a lot of 'source' material out there. At this time, I don't want to share what it is, but, if I market it. It will be scrutinized against available material. And therin lies the rub; at the source material size, it will appear to be too large for 1:72nd, even though - technically - it will be correct. At the stated size, a 1:48 pilot looks about right against my printed orthos.

Alas, there's no screenshots to conjecture it from, just info somebody came up with that they thought sounded pretty good.

I know I'm being vague, and I appreciate your patience.

Butters · Post by **Butters** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:49 am

Rogviler wrote:
seam-filler wrote:It might help if we knew what it was - maybe one of us has definitive info.
I didn't want to press the issue, but yeah, it's hard to give a good opinion without knowing.

You're the one who asked, after all.

I would at least say that as long as you make sure you have the right number of rivets you should be fine.

-Rog

Surely, after reading my intention of marketing it, you can appreciate my desire for secrecy?

Rogviler · Post by **Rogviler** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:45 am

Butters wrote:Surely, after reading my intention of marketing it, you can appreciate my desire for secrecy?

Of course, it's just sort of a catch 22. Maybe someone will come up with a better answer, but until then, "what looks good" is probably the best it's going to get.

-Rog

Butters · Post by **Butters** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:08 pm

I understand. Another part of this is that if I 'eyeball' it to what looks right, some buyers may be turned off due to the fact it's not 'scale-to-the-references'. Hard to advertise it as 1:72nd scale, when I've 'fudged it'.

Lichtbringer · Post by **Lichtbringer** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:11 am

It depends - if it is something "strange", not liked by the most, but loved by a few - then there wouldn´t been a real reason to keep it secret.

On the other hand - if it may be something many would love, the "secret" can be bad. If there is another person working on the same subject ....

If i would work on ..... lets say a ship of SW ..... an then another one works secretly on it, too - if i´m ready with the biggest part when he pops out with his, i wouldn´t throw mine in the dumpster automaticly. If i would think my quality can compete with his build (or be better), i post pics of it as soon as his pops out - and then let the customers decide which version they like more. If his looks better - i would be pleased to be informed asap, to stop my project before to much energy any money went into it.

So, i see no real reason for keeping that secret.

Chacal · Post by **Chacal** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:51 am

Obfuscation aside, let's see:

Try to find the source of the reference you used for size, and their reasoning. Sometimes they'll make a compelling argument.

About the orthos, who did them? Are they (the orthos) accurate?

The 'other' sources you compared the design you're working with, are they Sci-fi or Military? Sometimes the craft sizes are waaay off in sci-fi, and the pilots would be REEEAL cramped if the craft were real. Like in a Viper. Compare a Viper's cockpit with an F-15's for example.

Anyway, if there is little info online, there's no 'canon', so nobody can tell you it's wrong. I'd say dig deeper online to see if there are more references. If not, go for what you feel like is right. Is there is much more info, and it's not conflicting (90% say the same thing), go with that. If there is controversy (50-50 or thereabouts) again go for what YOU think is right.

Butters · Post by **Butters** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:13 am

Chacal wrote:Obfuscation aside, let's see:

Try to find the source of the reference you used for size, and their reasoning. Sometimes they'll make a compelling argument.

About the orthos, who did them? Are they (the orthos) accurate?

The 'other' sources you compared the design you're working with, are they Sci-fi or Military? Sometimes the craft sizes are waaay off in sci-fi, and the pilots would be REEEAL cramped if the craft were real. Like in a Viper. Compare a Viper's cockpit with an F-15's for example.

Anyway, if there is little info online, there's no 'canon', so nobody can tell you it's wrong. I'd say dig deeper online to see if there are more references. If not, go for what you feel like is right. Is there is much more info, and it's not conflicting (90% say the same thing), go with that. If there is controversy (50-50 or thereabouts) again go for what YOU think is right.

Well, from what I find, there's no controversy; all sources say it's 'x' big. But, it just looks too big against a 1:72nd pilot. I going to wing it. I'll split the difference abit; the purists will say it's not to scale, but hopefully the buyers will say, "Cool! A 1:72ish XP93 Widget P-Model! Yay! I've wanted one for years!"

Yoda Jammies · Post by **Yoda Jammies** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:39 pm

I have no clue what the kit is, so let me just add this (and I hope it helps):

If it's 1/72 (or close) and star wars-- I'l buy it.

MTFBWY

Jammies

widget · Post by **widget** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:14 am

Butters wrote: "Cool! A 1:72ish XP93 Widget P-Model! Yay! I've wanted one for years!"

Yes! But will he/I do windows?

Butters · Post by **Butters** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 6:28 am

Yoda Jammies wrote:I have no clue what the kit is, so let me just add this (and I hope it helps):

If it's 1/72 (or close) and star wars-- I'l buy it.

MTFBWY

Jammies

Gracias, Mi Amigo! Stay tuned. Other projects have reared their big ugly heads.

widget wrote:
Butters wrote: "Cool! A 1:72ish XP93 Widget P-Model! Yay! I've wanted one for years!"
Yes! But will he/I do windows?

But, of course.

jeffrowse · Post by **jeffrowse** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:39 pm

As someone who's been into BattleTech since the early days with the folded cardboard standups, only one mapsheet design and twelve "official" 'Mechs (well, 13 if you count the Chameleon training 'mech from the rulebook), it has always amused me how the 'mechs are supposed to be about 10-12 meters tall...

I could be wrong, but for war machines weighing between 20 and 100 tons, it seems a tad small. I can see the smaller 'mechs maybe starting that sort of size, but the heavier ones? Just doesn't seem right somehow.

Bearing in mind that most of them are humanoid, it would mean that your average western human adult male would be about the right size of a 1/6th-scale 'mech!
Somehow I just cannot really see a 12" action figure (ie Action Man, GIJoe, the various lines from BBI, C21, Sideshow, Hot Toys etc) sitting "inside my head" and looking "right" for someone supposed to be driving 100 tons of walking tank.

On the other hand, I wonder if any clothes stores near me want to get rid of any display dummies..?

Jagdson · Post by **Jagdson** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:30 pm

BattleMechs violate "intuitive" sizing (translation: guesswork) because their materials tend to be very dense. Foamed metal skeletons designed for weight savings are one thing; heavy composite armors, to say nothing of shielded fusion reactors, are another.
Granted the books (and games) are full of 'Mechs blowing apart, but barring catastrophic damage they're supposedly tough enough to return to service time and again over centuries as long as the spare parts hold out.
That's solid craftsmanship, and it weighs tons.