8966Re: [z_scale] Re: Z scale "aura" compared to N
- Mar 4, 2002I went from a ZBend standard of 50 inches in heigth to a table top level
for two reasons. 1. I have an interior valley in one wide module that is
hard to see for most adults at the 50 inch level , and 2. Dads and Moms
were always lifting children up to see the layout at shows. I brought a
step ladder to the shows to help out , but now I have a much larger layout
and would need too many ladders for the kids.
--- pasowl <Pasowl@...> wrote:
> I feel there's another reason for what "feels" right also. And that's__________________________________________________
> your viewing distance.
> With my most recent HO layout now under construction, I raised it up
> quite a bit above what module units and others reccomend. This
> permits me to look more into the scene then down on the scene and the
> HO size allows you the detailing possiabilities for doing that.
> In N scale the most common height is the N-trak specs which I am sure
> most of us have seen. In many cases I feel (and only my opinion on
> all of this subject)these modules would gain a lot better perspective
> if they were raised up a bit more so more people would either look
> more directly into the scenes (like the spectator was in a tall
> building looking down perhaps)or dropped a bit and the modules widen
> some to make the "mental image" more "common" to what someone might
> already have an "mental" feel for, I.e. flying in a jet over the land.
> When viewing these modules now, in many cases, I feel that you're
> looking at it from a platform such as when you're flying over them in
> a crop duster or helicopter close to the ground. Most people never
> have that opportunity so you feel a little uneasy about what you are
> seeing in the broad sense yet you're not sure just why.
> Of course if it's a "first look" at the scene you're excitied at all
> of the details, the memories the scene might bring to you, the
> mpovement of the trains, etc. However the longer and more often you
> look at the same modules, you tend to build up this sense
> that "somethings not quite right". I feel part of the problem is that
> your mind doesn't really have a lot of memory information to compare
> this "unusual" viwewing angle/distance with.
> I haven't had a chance yet to visit any Z modelers layouts as I am
> just starting into this scale but in my inital views of small
> displays at a couple of shows and of web page pictures, etc. I can
> see how many people may feel "more comfortable" with the
> overall "mental images" they get from well made Z scale systems
> because they have been exposed to smaller ground based items from a
> height they can relate to. Most people either fly often or seen many
> more higher attitude images (via magazines, films, TV, etc.) then
> they have from a low flying viewpoint.
> So in my opinion part of the "aura" equation needs to be the smaller
> size vs the probable viewing distance and what people have more
> memories of to compare it metallly to.
> I've flown in copters before and that's what kind of "platform" my
> mind often imagines as I view N modules at a show from my sight level
> (I'm 6'1" tall). With HO modules, if my bad back permits it, I almost
> always lean down and look more straight on. Z's going to be
> interesting to get the feel of once I can visit some layouts but my
> inital thoughts right now is that I will probably feel that I am on a
> higher attitude plane platform. More and more this "mental image" may
> play a factor in viewing comfort as it is very common nowadays for
> people to be exposed to a lot of high attitude images from flying or
> even newsclips and movies, especially with the terroism war going on
> and so many action type movies being produced.
> So that's just my thoughts that viewing distance can also contribute
> to the "mental reality" a lot in addition to other factors. Z may
> have an advantage here of being more friendly to peoples minds when
> you're dealing with "standard module heights" as you are playing into
> mental images that your spectators are more comforatable with.
> Just my thoughts,
> Pete Shatswell
> Night Owl Railways
> --- In z_scale@y..., "webffm" <webffm@y...> wrote:
> > Maybe aura is the wrong term, but it closely describes my
> > of the fact the modeling scale of Z simply looks better for some
> > reason than N scale. I noticed I was never happy with the size of
> > scale. Whereas HO offers enough detail to be very believable, Z
> > offers enough of a direct lack of detail to also be very realistic,
> > in proportion. N scale tries to be HO in detail, but it is so much
> > larger than Z you can't hide enough of it to make it look really
> > good. Comes off almost too "toy-like" I think. I guess what I am
> > saying is Z pulls it off better than N in terms of the overall
> > ...
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>