For over 40 of the 53 years I am in this hobby, I ´d have wholeheartedly confirmed your statement. Now, with failing eyesight and Parkinson´s disease, I don´t care for realism anylonger - I just wanna play!
HAHA!
Can’t argue with that, Ulrich! Nowadays I need three different pairs of glasses for different purposes, and if I take off the glasses everything blurs out and it all looks equally real!
We’re supposed to be here for the fun, and we are each free to get to that goal in whatever way pleases us.
Tom
Yes
Hello all,
Just to throw my opinion in the crucible…
I believe that the use of “clutter” depends on the scene you are modeling.
A switching layout set in downtown Los Angeles might have more “clutter” than a pastoral mainline passing through the sugar beet country of South-Eastern Colorado.
My pike is a freelance coal-branch loop set in West-Central Colorado; Paonia to be exact.
Yes, I could senic the area with lots of building and associated clutter but I choose to keep the senicing to a minimum.
Next to many of the buildings are items associated with the mining industry. Some you could consider “clutter” but most are items that “make sense.”
Often times I struggle to control the urge to put more stuff in the scene. Then I ask myself, “Is ‘this’ or ‘that’ going to enhance the realism or detract?”
Most often times I refrain from adding something just for the sake of having it in the scene.
Hope this helps.
Hi, thank you for your replies to my post. They are good to read because it did occur to me after I posted - who gives a damn what I think?
But my reference to clutter is when I feel there is (or are) too many none-railroad Details modelled on a Layout.
What also caught my attention in the May MRR was a review at the top of page 12 of the Goldie Electrical Co. Here I think the clutter of Gas Cylinders, Garbage Cans and the Fork-lift, rammed into the corner is excellent, because all of these suggest the daily life that takes place, whilst it is usually only the Trains that are actually moving. What I would have left out are the Figures and the possibly the Pick-up.
This leads me onto one of the first MRR’s that I purchased, before subscribing. March 2016 Jim Kelly writes an article about things he leaves out of a model, in N-gauge at least. Whilst I agreed with the sentiment of Jim’s thoughts here, Fence-post aside (in the photo on page 24) I would have left out the Cattle and instead modelled a Watering-hole, with the shallow end all dug-up by Cloven Hooves. This would suggest that Cattle roam these parts, but they are not here for Water, right at this very moment, whilst the Trains continue to pass-by.
I recently purchased MR Guide to Steel Mills by Bernard Kempinski. The amount of clutter required for a model seems infinate, as is I should imagine, anything to do with Quarries, Mines, Scrap-metal, Oil, Coal and Steam Loco Depots? Paul
Glad someobody got this one. Especially since he was referring to Switzerland.
(both he’s - Sir Madog and Jon)
–Randy
If I modeled life around me there would be litter and junk everywhere. If my wife modeled the scene would be barren. Th true trick is striking a balance