Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8967Re: [z_scale] Re: Z scale "aura" compared to N

Expand Messages
  • Jay & Anne Greer
    Mar 4, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Jeffrey,
      My first comment here is that I hope I am not elongating all of the copy too
      much with my own comments. Eric Foxman and his wife came over for a visit
      last week for a bit of lunch and a visit. We ran a couple of trains on a
      loop left over from the Christmas tree we had on our kitchen island. I noted
      that Eric's wife immediately got down to a level that was almost even with
      the track or maybe eight scale feet above it. It was a natural action on her
      part and I remember commenting how I felt that a better feeling of realism
      can be accomplished by having our layouts laid out on a table that is
      slightly higher than we normally would built them. I for one vote for higher
      layout tables!
      Best Regards,
      Jay Greer

      > From: "jmac_han" <jmac_han@...>
      > Reply-To: z_scale@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 15:27:35 -0000
      > To: z_scale@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [z_scale] Re: Z scale "aura" compared to N
      > --- In z_scale@y..., "pasowl" <Pasowl@a...> wrote:
      >> I feel there's another reason for what "feels" right also. And
      > that's
      >> your viewing distance.
      > SNIP
      >> 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
      >> observation
      >>> 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
      >> N
      >>> 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
      >> look.
      >>> ...
      > Hi Pete, Hi Jeff,
      > You have both touched on aspects of Z model railroading that
      > appeal to me and, I suspect, to many visitors to the Val Ease
      > Central at train shows.
      > I agree that adding super details to Z rolling stock may be
      > overdoing it in many cases since, frankly, nobody would ever
      > notice the detail except the builder and Jeff Rothfus :-)
      > Many of my N projects involved superdetailing with MU hoses,
      > ditch lights, windshield wipers, sun shades etc. The more detail
      > I added the more I found that I had forgotten. At a certain point it
      > became frustrating not having the skill or knowledge level to
      > produce an "exact" replica of my favourite locomotives and rolling
      > stock. A turning point came for me when I presented a Russell
      > snow plow that I had scratch built in an NMRA modelling
      > competition. I had worked from photos of the original and I was
      > quite proud of my effort. The judges thought otherwise. Not only
      > did I not recieve more than 20 points I received several
      > disparaging and discouraging comments concerning my work.
      > Once I had recovered from my bout of depression ;-) I began to
      > think about why I liked my model and the judges didn't. I realized
      > that I was more interested in the overall effect or impression the
      > model gave than the list of prototype details. The psychological
      > impact a miniature creates seems to be the result of the mental
      > background the observer adds to the picture. The judges
      > superimpose the image of the model onto a construct of the
      > prototype. I my case, the model was a piece of a jigsaw puzzle
      > image of my miniature landscape. The details become fuzzy
      > when in your mind's eye you see the loco at the head of a long
      > freight drag rounding a curve on a tough grade, spewing black
      > smoke and shaking the ground underfoot with the roar of it's
      > diesel plant. But I digress!
      > I think that Pete is correct in his observation about viewing
      > distance. Most of us don't hold an object 3 inches from our eyes
      > but rather at a comfortable viewing distance like when holding a
      > book. At 20 - 24 inches, a Z loco or car doesn't need to be
      > superdetailed. In the prototype world we would actually be
      > looking at a massive object from a distance of 440 feet. How
      > many details would one really see?
      > On the subject of viewing height, the debat continues to rage. I
      > like to have the layout at eye level when I am sitting down. When
      > I stand and tower over the layout I enjoy the helicopter
      > perspective. At train shows I also enjoy watching my trains from
      > 10 to 20 feet away. Perhaps the surprise of seeing the miniature
      > landscape from many percieved distances is what appeals to
      > viewers. We can all pretend to be Superman zooming in to save
      > the day as we approach the Z landscape from afar. Didn't you
      > ever have dreams of flying like a bird?
      > I have heard that Z appeals to many people who seem to sum
      > up their feelings with the word "cute". <wink> When the
      > cuteness of Z trains is enveloped by a fully scenicked landscape
      > the public seems to lose sight of the trains and see an animated
      > world. At least that is the impression I get from talking to
      > visitors
      > to the Val Ease Central.
      > After almost 10 years on the road with the layout, I still get a
      > thrill
      > when I step back and enjoy the colours and visual textures of the
      > finished diorama (i.e. layout). Our animated dioramas have
      > railroads as a central theme but they are really just a series of
      > dioramas that may be discreet or continuous.
      > Diorama building is a very impressionistic art form. I have tried
      > to express my modelling philosophy with the phrase "Don't Look
      > for Perfection, Perfect the Look". And I'm still working on it!
      > Jeffrey
      > "Z" WARNING! HANDLE WITH CARE! Highly addictive in Small DoseZ!
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic