|
Dr. Lunchables posted:What scale are car models usually at? I’d imagine either 1:18 or 1:24, given that’s how diecasts operate, but it might be something completely different 99% of model cars are 1/24 or 1/25. There are some larger models out there like 1/16 and 1/12 but they tend to be massively expensive.
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
1/43 is a very popular size for die cast model cars, at least in Eastern Europe.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 16:36
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:1/43 is a very popular size for die cast model cars, at least in Eastern Europe. It's also the size Airfix use for their cars, presumably because it's the same as die cast or for some other long forgotten historical reason like their ships all being 1:600.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Die cast sizing follows these trends almost exclusively: 1/12 1/18 (popular dealer “desk model size”, my preferred size) 1/24 (also “desk model size”) 1/32 (pretty rare in my experience) 1/43 1/64 (hotwheels scale) 1/87 Kinda surprised 1/25 is the go-to for kits, since 1/24 wouldn’t cost much more in terms of tooling or materials per kit. e: upon looking, it seems there’s a decent split between 1/25 and 1/24, and one isn’t preferred over the other. That’s a definite oddity in the crafting size, as I’ve never seen much 1/25 diecast representation. It’s weird that there’s two very similar but noticeably different scales as the most popular. Dr. Lunchables fucked around with this message at 14:50 on May 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 14:43
|
|
|
I've tried to approach it from a few different angles and just can't find one where 1/25 works. "Is half of the architectural scale 1/50" is it?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:1/43 is a very popular size for die cast model cars, at least in Eastern Europe. I checked out wikipedia because of course there's an article about scale model sizes, and apparently 1:43 was European O scale for trains (American being closer to 1:48) HO, at 1:87, is Half O scale. That's what it stands for.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 15:15
|
|
|
Sash! posted:I've tried to approach it from a few different angles and just can't find one where 1/25 works. "Is half of the architectural scale 1/50" is it?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 15:15
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Use metric: 1 metre real size = 4cm scale size. That would make sense if you were working in metric, but for kits literally from the 60s, from American vendors, based on then-contemporary muscle cars designed and built in imperial, it does seem like a weird choice in terms of ease of converting your dimensions Maybe it was just picked to have a round number for the scale
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
A lot of scales have fairly arbitrary origins - 1/35 became the standard for armour after Tamiya started using it because it was big enough for their electric motors to fit inside the tank chassis.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
Apparently when the original kit manufacturers in the US back in the day requested technical information for the models from the car companies, the automotive engineers sent it to them in 1/25, which was a common engineering scale of the time, or so I've read
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 15:38
|
|
|
Edit is not quote
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
One of the funniest results of scale weirdness is we've ended up with 1/35 as a standard for armour and 1/32 as a standard for aircraft, but helicopters - as vehicles often used in conjunction with armour - exist in a liminal zone between the two and can be tooled in either scale.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 15:45
|
|
|
Hilariously, Border Models has just started to bridge the gap between 1/35th and 1/32nd scale by introducing 1/35th scale WW2 aircraft. As much as I love the Large Scale Planes forums, and I really do, they have been losing their poo poo over this perceived transgression. You would think that somebody personally blasphemed about their mothers with the amount of vitriol that's being directed at Border Models for their 135th aviation efforts. It's truly breathtaking. Ironically, by all accounts, the kits coming out from Border look to be extremely high quality and well detailed. They also include subjects that have never been done in 1/32nd scale and may never be. So, they're all kind of shooting themselves in the foot by boycotting this new 1/35th effort. Edit: I I'm absolutely supportive of Border's endeavors. The minute yet noticeable difference between those two scales has always annoyed me. I would much rather have one universal scale for all of the vehicles that I do than a set of scales that just kinda doesn't work. Chuck_D fucked around with this message at 17:23 on May 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 17:21
|
|
|
tidal wave emulator posted:One of the funniest results of scale weirdness is we've ended up with 1/35 as a standard for armour and 1/32 as a standard for aircraft, but helicopters - as vehicles often used in conjunction with armour - exist in a liminal zone between the two and can be tooled in either scale. And then you have ships... which come in all kinds of bizzaro scales. Plastic stuff definitely tends towards 1/700 or 1/350 with a few giant 1/200 for giggles, but there are certainly outliers. Wooden ships? Lol.. whatever man.. make up whatever scale you want and toss it on the box because it's probably wrong anyway! 1/8, 1/10, 1/12, 1/16, 1/20, 1/24, 1/25, 1/32, 1/33, 1/35, 1/40, 1/43, 1/48, 1/50, 1/55, 1/60, 1/64, 1/65, 1/67, 1/72, 1/75, 1/77, 1/78, 1/80, 1/84, 1/87, 1/89, 1/98, 1/100, 1/150, 1/200, 1/250. The above incomplete listing is from just 3 manufacturers with a few more common scales like 1/48 and 1/64 thrown in. Add to the above the Chinese/Russian rip-offs of the above models which are extremely likely to be mis-scaled slightly just for fun.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
Gewehr 43 posted:Hilariously, Border Models has just started to bridge the gap between 1/35th and 1/32nd scale by introducing 1/35th scale WW2 aircraft. As much as I love the Large Scale Planes forums, and I really do, they have been losing their poo poo over this perceived transgression. You would think that somebody personally blasphemed about their mothers with the amount of vitriol that's being directed at Border Models for their 135th aviation efforts. It's truly breathtaking. This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Oh no, somebody's producing decent kits with modern tooling, and now all my stuff looks good together. Is it some kind of perceived heresy? Like, I literally can't figure out why they're upset.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
So I'm building babbys first tank model. Should I lay down another coat of olive drab? I feel like the pre shading highlights are a bit too visible. I plan on weathering with various oils and washes so will that darken it up?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Oh no, somebody's producing decent kits with modern tooling, and now all my stuff looks good together.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 18:56
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So I'm building babbys first tank model. Should I lay down another coat of olive drab? I feel like the pre shading highlights are a bit too visible. I plan on weathering with various oils and washes so will that darken it up? Weathering will definitely darken it. You've got a perfect base there for all your weathering.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
tidal wave emulator posted:One of the funniest results of scale weirdness is we've ended up with 1/35 as a standard for armour and 1/32 as a standard for aircraft, but helicopters - as vehicles often used in conjunction with armour - exist in a liminal zone between the two and can be tooled in either scale. Helicopters were only 1/32 for the longest time (or 1/48 or 1/72). It wasn't until the 90's that a 1/35 helicopter came out. I want to say it was an Academy kit, but it's been a while.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
The Locator posted:And then you have ships... which come in all kinds of bizzaro scales. I think the ubiquity of 1/700 stems from the Japanese waterline consortium in the 70s (Tamiya, Hasegawa, Fujimi, Aoshima) working together to divide up the market between themselves and standardising on 1/700 to do so. My guess is 1/350 came from being double the size of 1/700. Most other ships around that time were 'box scale' and so just designed to fit into whatever size of box the manufacturer was using. Slugworth posted:I'm assuming because it won't scale properly with the rest of their plane collection. Which, I mean, none of this is worth getting upset about, but I think it's as fair an argument as wanting your planes to scale with your armor, for example. It's really funny cos their first release was a BF109 and I'm sorry but they've not got a leg to stand on to complain about one of the most tooled subjects in history being made in a scale they don't favour. Just don't buy it! I guess their argument is the same as when a manufacturer brings out a release of a kit they don't want ("another spitfire yawn") which will guarantee them income, rather than some obscure kit which will sell half a dozen boxes - "they're wasting their designers' time" etc.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So I'm building babbys first tank model. Should I lay down another coat of olive drab? I feel like the pre shading highlights are a bit too visible. I plan on weathering with various oils and washes so will that darken it up? Every layer of weathering, oils, etc will dull down contrast. My base coated tanks are actually pretty colourful, but by the end the differences are very subtle.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Weathering will definitely darken it. You've got a perfect base there for all your weathering. Agreed. This is a perfect starting point for the next steps in the process.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
tidal wave emulator posted:I guess their argument is the same as when a manufacturer brings out a release of a kit they don't want ("another spitfire yawn") which will guarantee them income, rather than some obscure kit which will sell half a dozen boxes - "they're wasting their designers' time" etc. Over in my train world, you get this any time a maker announces a new run of the F7 (3700+ built, operated by basically every railroad in the US and Canada in the early 50s, some still in service), SD40-2 (4000+, effectively the default locomotive after 1975, or Dash 9 (3600+, replaced the SD40-2 in the late 90s, exported to Australia and Brazil, largely identical to the the 2800 AC440CW, allowing your tooling to double dip), you get someone wanting a locomotive like the P30CH. They built 25, for one railroad, who hated them and replaced them as fast as possible. But then you get someone who actually does a rare one. Like the 10 SDL39s, that wore three different paint schemes before getting shipped off to Chile. A prime example of the rare "no one will ever make it" type. Of course it got the "why are they wasting time with the SDL39s." Why wouldn't it?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
Gewehr 43 posted:Agreed. This is a perfect starting point for the next steps in the process. Awesome. So I'm used to car models and the paint is generally very smooth so sliding decals onto it is no problem. But from what I understand with military models since they often are painted with flat paints it can be difficult to slide a decal on it so it's recommended to paint it with a gloss varnish then slide the decals on top of that. So a couple questions I had about that are - Is it ok to just put some gloss clear down on the area you will be putting a decal on or do you need to cover the whole model? - After the decals are in place then go over the model with a flat varnish to kill the shine from the gloss varnish right? Should I do this before or after weathering?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 21:51
|
|
|
You can put a gloss coat down just where the decals are going or you can put it down across the whole model. The latter is better if you're planning to do washes to help highlight the lows and raised details and things like that. As to whether or not you weather over the top of a flat or a gloss coat, it's kind of up to you. I've done it both ways and I don't necessarily think one is better than the other. At the end of it all you will need to hit it with the flat coat in order to dull it down, so try it one way this time and the other way the next time. See which way you like better.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
If you only gloss in certain spots then it can be a bit trickier to achieve a uniform flat over the top of everything. Bear in mind too that putting down flat coats will change the look of weathering products like pigments or clay based washes underneath them so you might want to leave them on last if you like how they look. Generally stuff like pigments will stick to flat coats more (since it's a rough surface) whereas they'll slide off a gloss surface and won't be as easy to work with (but easier to clean up).
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
tidal wave emulator posted:Most other ships around that time were 'box scale' and so just designed to fit into whatever size of box the manufacturer was using. I don't know how true it is, but my understanding of the crazy number of scales in wooden ships is the 'box scale' thing. They had one standard size of box, and every ship was scaled for the longest parts to fit in that size box. It's only fairly recently that some manufacturers have settled on a scale and built all their models to that scale with 1/64 being the most popular. Victory models started making most of their ships in this scale (some larger ships got their own scale), and other more modern/newer companies chose the same scale for theirs also.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
Dr. Lunchables posted:Die cast sizing follows these trends almost exclusively: 1/16 scale is used a lot in a weird niche - diecast farm tractors. They were popular toys in rural areas when I was a kid, now it’s almost entirely an adult collectible. (I have a few…)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 23:38
|
|
|
The Locator posted:I don't know how true it is, but my understanding of the crazy number of scales in wooden ships is the 'box scale' thing. They had one standard size of box, and every ship was scaled for the longest parts to fit in that size box. It's only fairly recently that some manufacturers have settled on a scale and built all their models to that scale with 1/64 being the most popular. Victory models started making most of their ships in this scale (some larger ships got their own scale), and other more modern/newer companies chose the same scale for theirs also. That is such an insane reason  "What the hell are we supposed to do? Make the box BIGGER?!"
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 03:33
|
|
|
Boaz MacPhereson posted:That is such an insane reason
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 04:32
|
|
|
Box size has an impact on your supply chain costs, this was more prevalent fifty years ago when logistics actually cost something, but I can totally see looking at the cost to upgrade the packaging line and palletizers and just going “gently caress it, make the plane smaller.”
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 04:51
|
|
|
Attention: Buy more 1/1200 scale ship models. That scale is a great compromise between detail, cost, and display space. I need more kits in my battleship row!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 05:23
|
|
|
I have normal sized fingers and rapidly decaying vision so no.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 05:23
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Attention: Buy more 1/1200 scale ship models. Yikes... I consider 1/700 too small for my drat eyeballs these days. I wouldn't even try to build a 1/1200 scale warship.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 05:24
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Yikes... I consider 1/700 too small for my drat eyeballs these days. I wouldn't even try to build a 1/1200 scale warship. You end up with fewer pieces mostly larger than the average for a 1/700 kit, so assembly is much easier than for 1/700s. Also, reading glasses are dirt cheap, my last set of 5 was $15. They help a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 05:32
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:You end up with fewer pieces mostly larger than the average for a 1/700 kit, so assembly is much easier than for 1/700s. I use an optivisor for fine work since I wear prescription glasses. Still prefer to work with stuff that's larger.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 05:45
|
|
|
I'm in the really weird position where my astigmatism means my close vision is still really good, but aging means my eyeballs don't react to me taking off my glasses as quickly as they used to. After a day of work it can take an hour or so before I can actually properly focus on tiny toys. Getting old! Wooooo!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 06:02
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I'm in the really weird position where my astigmatism means my close vision is still really good, but aging means my eyeballs don't react to me taking off my glasses as quickly as they used to. After a day of work it can take an hour or so before I can actually properly focus on tiny toys. My vision is fine - 20/20 in my right better than 20/20 in my left - which is amazing given both my hobbies and profession entail staring at things not far away for extended periods of time. Most worrisome to me is that I occasionally show evidence of the hand tremors that have plagued my dad for 10+ years. His hands shake so bad that it interferes with his day to day lifestyle. If it's hereditary, it's only a matter of time before I'll have to hang up the sprue nippers. Edit: Guess what! It's hereditary and most often pops up between the ages of 40 and 50... says the 43 year old. 
Chuck_D fucked around with this message at 11:50 on May 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 10:10
|
|
|
Have you tried not getting old?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I'm in the really weird position where my astigmatism means my close vision is still really good, but aging means my eyeballs don't react to me taking off my glasses as quickly as they used to. After a day of work it can take an hour or so before I can actually properly focus on tiny toys. I wear progressive lens glasses so I can focus at all distances. Took a bit of time to get used to them the first time, but now I wouldn't be without them.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 18:25
|
|