Personally, I love seeing pics of layouts in MR magazine where models cannot be distinguished from live trains, but the same effect could be had without twelve rivets where twelve are supposed to be. Ten would be okay for me. [;)] I’m not going to go to somebody’s layout and pick up their engines and count rivets before I say it looks good. [:D] What your opinion?
If you are going to do it, do it right. But I think there is a small line between looking great and anal.
As much as you want. I prefer as much as my eyes can handle.
Hmm…If you turn your own Aluminum reflectors for headlights could that be considered excessive attention to detail?
I love seeing the really great detailed layouts and equipment but I know I’ll never get there (I’m not prepared to expend the time and energy to even attempt it).
One of the advantages to modeling in N scale and having older eyes is that I use the three foot rule. Saves me a lot on detailing. I’d suggest one slight rewording of the options, though. I take the approach “If you can’t see the detail from three feet, it doesn’t have to be there.” as opposed to saying it “shouldn’t” be there. Slight difference in meaning (am I being a rivet counter here?). I’ll actually get around to doing some detailing that I’ll have to look close to see.
I don’t have a problem with super prototype modelers (rivet counters) as long as they’re counting their own rivets, or those of people who have asked for critique. I take big liberties with my freelanced layout, but it works for me.
Thanks for asking,
Ed
I’m still running Athearn locomotives without thier handrails attached yet[:0].
Maybe someday i’ll get motivated enough to attach them.
Some of us are 3’ kinda guys and some of us are 2’. I’m in the 2’ range as I’m 40+ and me eyes aren’t as good as they use to be. I like detail but not into counting every rivet there ever was.
Fergie
When you look at Hoover’s picture of the entire town in the June issue of MR, you will see that it looks almost real. Counting rivets would make no difference it the look of that picture. The ability of the artist makes for pictures like his and the Big Diesels of Pelle.
Museum scale is great for rivet counters and it has a place in the hobby, but most people looking at pelle’s work are not taken by the number of rivets.
Pelle said he puts just enough detail to make it look right, so if your scene doesn’t look like his, you probably put in too much detail. [:D]
Uhhh, I guess I need the layout first…
I think this is a loaded question. And there are as many answers as there are modelers. I even think it could vary on a layout. I could see deciding that I want to model a particular (train, car, loco, building) in excruciating detail, while being happy with much less in other areas.
Good point there about Pelle Soeberg’s layout. That is one layout anybody would be proud to own. I just hope mine can look half as good as that someday! [8D][tup]
Whatever works for you-anything else is just someone elses opinion…
I think the answer would lie in the question: how much equipment had to be bought and how many headlights were being outfitted? You know, if it would save money, it wouldn’t be a problem. If it will cost $100 to make reflectors that would otherwise cost $25, yeah, that is too much attention to detail. Okay, 'nough from me![soapbox] [8D][tup]
I like detail, but it doesn’t have to exact, as long the overall effect looks good.
Enjoy
Paul
To each his own but for me 3 feet. I am working in N scale just for my own enjoyment and maybe to entertain two step granddaughters. For me if it looks right it is fine. If I need to model a 30 foot diameter tower and I find something that scales out to be 31 1/2 feet but if it looks good, it is good.
Everyone has their own “comfort zone” for detail. My roster includes Athearn BB F7’s and an IHC 4-8-2, so you know that I’m not a strict rivet counter. However, I do try to detail and weather most of my scenery and equipment to the point it “looks” pretty real. Even if it doesn’t have the correct horn, or curve to the numberboard, the illusion of reality is what matters to me.
I’m not sure that it is the level of detail in a railroad that determines the realism. I agree with the previous thoughts about Pelle’s layout being as much about the total picture as the details…
I think that realism is defined by what is not there. I call it the cheese factor. Are there cheesey buildings, trees, rolling stock, scenery etc???..All it takes is a couple of cheesey items and the effect is ruined. Stuff can be nondescript, not superdetailed and still look real. It just can’t cross the cheese line…
I think you all know what I mean…
BTW: I love superdetailing and will spend the rest of my life (the train part of it) trying to fill a layout room with superdetailed stuff…
I’m in the majority. I’d accept the 10 rivets, but dream of the model that had 'em all!
To me, if a died-in-the-wool, no rivet uncounted modeler were to use a standardized scoring template on a given model, and any of mine got 85%, or better, I’d be very happy.
To put this all in perspetive, though, would any of you be happy with a loco that only scored 85% on its running ability and overall mechanics? Some, sure, but not very many. I couldn’t accept a loco that was reliable in doing what I commanded it to do only most of the time.
Aw, heck…Just make it look as nice as YOU like and to blazes with comments from others!! If you want to put the nuts and washers on the exterior face of the stringers on your trestle, do it. More power to ya! Me…I rather run trains.
As long as it has the basic feel of the locomotive and doesnt have any eye sore detail mistakes its good as gravy in my book.
And Im a man who loves his gravy.
At a train show a while back I can’t forget seeing this guy standing beside his small 4’x2’ diorama grinning off into space, I looked at the diorama, it was a small logging operation, a logging siding, some logs, 2 log cars, a small creek bridge, lots of trees, a little skid shack etc etc. I could almost smell the trees and swore I saw things moving. I commented on how realistic this scene was, he replied “that’s the way it looks” soon there were 4 or 5 of us commenting on the quality of the scene, we all seemed to agree that logging operations were the most realistic layouts, and I agree, and the guy was still there grinning. Then you can get the guy who is still researching the exact location and type of toilet paper roll in his C.P.R wooden H.O. caboose. to each his own, I guess. Trainn: I agree completely( the one cheeseball truck or building or figure can shoot down the whole scene)