[WWI] Optically challenged

Shane Weier bristolf2b at hotmail.com
Sat Jan 29 08:32:34 EST 2005

Andy says

>Agreed. But all of the arguments seem to be based on the idea that I HAVE 
>to add more detail in the larger scales. I don't, and neither do you.

Ah yes, but in this we differ. I *do* need to add it, because larger scale 
models look bare and clunky without it. For example, the throttle alone 
looks fine in 1/72, but make it 1/48 and if I can't see the mounting screws 
it looks bare and unconvincing. Make it 1/32 and the screws need to be 
identifiable as domed or countersunk, in 1/24 they won't look right without 
slots or phillips head.

>I don't have to add a wingnut in 1/48th or even a throttle handle in 1/72 
>if I don't want or feel I need to.

Of course. Nor do I, except that otherwise *I* look at the larger model and 
say "Gag...what an undetailed POS"

>My point is simply this: on a part by part basis a 1/72 scale part is more 
>difficult to see than the equivalent 1/48th or larger one WITH THE SAME 
>AMOUNT OF DETAIL ADDED. If you choose to add more that is entirely up to 
>you, at which point eyesight may become an issue. If it is, then either 
>don't add the detail, move up a scale or several, or start strapping 
>microscopes to your forehead.

Well, i already made my point about that so I can leave it be. Suffice it to 
say that we disagree on a definition of "THE SAME AMOUNT OF DETAIL" in so 
far as you're happy with a bigger copy of the same thing, but I see that as 
a *lesser* amount of detail in the context of a larger model.

>(Wondering how I keep getting embroiled in these debates and hoping I'm not 
>annoying people!)

I'm not arguing Andy. We simply have different perspectives on the same 
thing. "Viva la whatsit" as Eric would say.


.---- - --- ....- ---.. .-. ..- .-.. . ... .-.-.-

   My Strine is a Toad in Disguise

        Quidvis recte factum,
   quanvis humile, praeclarum
.---- - --- ....- ---.. .-. ..- .-.. . ... .-.-.-

More information about the WWI mailing list