On the theory of "good enough..."

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

…or when to stop counting rivets!

Figured I’d share my latest blog post.

Tony Koester of MR/RMC fame has often spoken of a so-called “good enough” philosophy (citing V&O creator Allen McClelland as the source) for model railroading. In other words, for each one of us, there’s a point at which a model or scene is “good enough.”

I thought about this as I tried to codify my own threshold of “good enough,” and it began to remind me of differential equations from calculus. “Good enough” is nothing more than a unique solution to an initial value problem.

Let’s call the solution the “sweet spot.” This solution is the point at which the amount of work required to make a model more accurate exceeds the fun the modeler would have in doing so. So, let’s define two curves:

The red dashed line represents fun (scaled on a dimensionless, normalized range between zero and unity) and the solid black line represents work (scaled the same way). As a store-bought or scratch-built model becomes more and more accurate, it requires more and more exacting, tedious, and time-consuming work to accomplish. Theoretically, the amount of fun a modeler is having is simultaneously decreasing (i.e., the law of diminishing returns). The “sweet spot” is that level of accuracy whereby the modeler is still having fun but working hard to accomplish his goal; any more work and it stops being fun. Notice the curves are asymptotic; no model can ever achieve 100% prototype accuracy.

What makes this an initial value problem (i.e., the sweet spot is a unique solution to a very specific set of circumstances) is that the slope of these curves varies greatly from modeler to modeler, and from project to project. In other words, the skills, desires, and patience of the modeler affec

2

Great post Doc! If I understand correctly you’re saying to stop tweaking when its not fun anymore. If that’s what you mean, I agree 100%

Best!

3

How about a three-dimensional analysis where the z-axis is money? I can think of other factors, but I can’t conceptualize in more than three dimensions at a time.

Mark

4

Ah, yes, another critcal initial condition! In fact, it may well be worth adding a third curve for cost, which should follow roughly the same curve as work. Some modelers, however, are lucky enough not to have to concern themselves with money (I wish I could say I were one of them), but I suspect the vast majority might see money as a damping effect.

I imagine that money would certainly affect the starting point and slope of the fun and work curves. More PDE for ya! In other words, with less money, more work must be done to produce the same result, and so the work curve is steeper. Perhaps the fun curve drops off faster too. Hmmm…

5

As long as we’re adding dimensions, TIME is always a factor. We all get a standard issue, sixty seconds per minute…

Then, too, there are FAMILY CONSIDERATIONS - an irregular curve, unique for every individual, possibly totally independent of FUN and WORK but probably having a significant influence on TIME and MONEY.

Add in AVAILABILITY (of an RTR model, a basic kit, detail parts…) That would be represented by random numbers, not any kind of smooth curve.

Gets complicated in a hurry, no?

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - to the 100 meter rule)

EDIT! Horrors! I almost forgot JOB RESPONSIBILITIES. How do we quantify that (especially if the modeler goes to work in a military uniform?)

6

A common ommission for those retired.

Mark

7

Doc,

One of the limitation of your model is its assumption that 100% prototype fidelity is a universal goal. Not all modelers view the hobby that way.

Not all modelers aspire to be “rivet counters” even though it is well within their capablity to do so.

Just like not all people who are over 6’6" tall play basketball. [;)]

-George

8

We can count on Dave V. to come up with good thought starters. That’s quite something making a graph like that, Dave.

An economist may add the law of diminishing returns in some fashion to the theory. Hypothetically, a modeler may do a great job building a replica of his favorite type of locomotive, and he will feel a great sense of accomplishment at completion of that model. Suppose, however, he builds a second locomotive identical to the first… Possibly, he feels less of a sense of accomplishment with the second locomotive. Continuing, he will feel less as he builds more and more models of the same type of locomotive.

But…his prototype had 45 such locomotives of the same class… Clearly, the fun will run out as he builds more of the same. It’s not likely that he will build 45 identical models and feel it’s fun each time.

Same goes for the layout. His prototype operated 10,000 miles of railroad. He’ll never fit that in the layout room even with Z scale.

To keep the fun up, he practices plausible realism of course. Also, he is highly selective in choosing certain potions of the prototype to replicate.

It all gets back to the modeler who must decide about priorities.

What matters to him or her?

9

You could try to factor in all the additional variables, like time, expense, etc., but “cost” in the Kynesian Economics classical definition, implicitly including opportunity costs, will cover them all.

So, for that matter will “work”, in the classic pysics definition.

I take exception to the general shape of the “work” curve. This may be symptomatic for some modellers, but in theory, hobbies should be free and ultimately enjoyable. How close we come to achieving that is a matter of purity and personal pride. I stand in awe of my own ability to reach new pinnacles of achievement in avoiding “work”

I also take exception to the assymptotic nature of both curves.

I firmly believe perfection IS possible, whether anyone ever reaches that standard or not.

And I know for a historical documented fact that perfectly infinite spending, both time and money, on THIS hobby IS equally possible, in fact, even likely.

Finally, it is clear that smaller and smaller details would satisfy the limiting nature of the work curve as originally described. As detail approaches nano-angstroms in size, down to the Nyquist limit where accurate visual detection requires light wavelengths at least twice that of the receptor’s minimal ability to discern, the investment return dwindles toward zero. At the same time, details which are orders of magnitude larger, as in O or G scale, similarly drive the work (cost) curve upwards, diminishing the cost/benefit ratio there too.

Clearly, the economies of scale play a part here. Just as clearly, HO > N.

2X.

Thanks, Dave, for your excellent work in proving what most of us knew all along.

:wink:

10

It’s an interesting idea, but I don’t acccept what appears to be your basic premise. That is work and fun are a zero sum game whereby one decreases as the other increases. I personally find that work and fun can rise together. The limiting factor for me is time. Good enough represents the amount of time I can spend on each item - car, structure, track - while achieving an overall effect yet bulding the whole layout. Money allows me to reduce the time for each item and/or move good enough to the right. The size of the layout forces me to reduce the time spent on each item and moves good enough to the left. If good enough gets too far left to be satisfacory, then the layout is too large for the time I have available or I don’t have enough money available to compensate (or some combination of the two).

Case in point. On my last layout I did most of the benchwork with dadoes and some of it with hand cut dovetails and mortise and tenons - all my joints were glued. This was a lot more work, but it was also a lot more fun for me. However, it took too much time in the overall scheme of building the layout. Good enough was exceeded on benchwork, but scenery was never done. So the overall effect was reduced. Time was the issue. My current layout uses simple butt joints. I compensate by using more screws which raises the cost, but overall time is reduced while a satisfactory level of good enough is achieved.

just my thoughts

Enjoy

Paul

11

Nobody told me there would be story problems…

For me, “time” is a critical variable (well, that and “incompetence”). The less time I have available, or the longer I’ve been working on a particular project, that “Work” curve tends to steepen sharply and I get a much lower Good Enough critical point, but time away from that same project will flatten the Work curve.

I’m glad Dave did the math already - I last did calculus 20 years ago in college and I completed all 4 semesters of calculus/differential equations in only 5 semesters!

12

[:D]

As some of you may have suspected, the first post was meant sort of tongue-in-cheek… but what’s cool is so many folks ran with it and thought about it!

Paul’s right; the major limitation in this “theory” is the idea that work detracts from fun. A case in point for me was the labor of love that was my N scale PRR M1 4-8-2; by far the most ambitious kitbash I’d ever attempted. It was a lot of work, but I enjoyed most of that work. There are practical limitations that aren’t the same as work that limit accuracy in such cases (such as lack of access to a lathe to turn new drivers or a boiler, etc.).

There are times when I stop having fun, such as when the valve gear pops apart (as happens often with Spectrum steam in N scale) and I spend an hour putting it back together with tweezers and an Optivisor… or when I’m on my hands and knees looking for that little coupler spring that took flight, wishing I was in G scale where the parts aren’t so danged small…

…but those times are not related to prototype accuracy.

As for the premise that not all modelers are looking for prototype accuracy, this theory doesn’t really apply to them. “Good enough,” as Tony Koester calls it, does relate to accuracy, although it can be applied to freelancers as well (such as Allen McClelland). Where the theory is non-applicable is to the spectrum of modelers to whom faith to prototype practices is not important. For them, “good enough” is more arbitrary and less depedndent upon initial conditions for their “sweet spot.”

13

I have my brother-in-law. Habitually out of work, he has a beeper that- when I get to that 70-80% point where I am somewhat confused as to whether it IS- or isn’t- good enough- I beep. Within 15 minutes, Leon comes a-knockin’, tool belt on, an old SX70 in hand… I point at a scene and Leon dives right in. I call him
“Ol’ Eighty-Per” for short. In a typical “mission”, Ol’ Eighty will arrive- and within twenty minutes, he’ll bring me a Polaroid “proof”. My only problem so far has been a certain amount of theft… and I fixed most of that by switching to “G” scale.

Incidentally, he gets $1.35 / hr.(I model the transition era).

14

Dave V opines:

Paul’s right; the major limitation in this “theory” is the idea that work detracts from fun.

For a rather complete dissertation on what constitutes fun and what constitutes work, see Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer”, specifically chapter 2 wherein Aunt Polly assigns Tom to whitewash a fence. The fence gets whitewashed many times over, but not by Tom. Tom discovers a great truth.

Andre

15

Hi!

May I add another view of “good enough”…

“Good enough” has different meanings to different folks and varies with the task at hand.

In example, my building of a generic structure has a low threshold of “good enough” - as compared to - my building of a replica of Grandmom’s trackside house that stands in southern Illinois.

Another example is that I have a very high threshold of “good enough” when doing track laying, but a lower level when detailing the obstructed from view backs of structures.

Mobilman44

16

Maybe it was intended to be tongue in cheek but this actually is an interesting and perhaps even significant idea, because obviously each person’s chart is going to look different and some people’s will be nowhere near as symetrical as Dave Vollmer posted. And as Tony Koester has pointed out, Allen McClelland may have originated the notion of “good enough” but actually is such a superb modeler that his stopping short of going all out is still several notches above the norm.

What is significant about Dave V’s graph from a commercial aspect it is the extent to which different hobby magazines cater to different graphs. Prototype Modeler is different than Mainline Modeler is different than Model Railroading is different than RMC is different than MR. The NMRA’s Scale Rails magazine has made a huge change in its graph under its new leadership of Steven Priest. Obviously this is a calculated decision by each of them and just as obviously, some of them have failed commercially in recent years, more’s the pity. Model Railroader for example I suspect has elected a graph that represents the largest number of people who call themselves modelers. It is not a specialty or narrow publication. So the dissatisfaction quotient with any given magazine or hobby product is a a function of where you come out on the Vollmer Scale.

My own Vollmer Scale graph? I am extremely fussy about clean workmanship and scale accuracy. On the other hand, I am extremely untalented and try as I might my work lacks clean perfection so that paint and weathering and Squadron putty have to cover up a multitude of sins. A very sad graph indeed.

17

Not really unless one’s spouse wants to get you out of the house and doing something that brings green stuff (and I am NOT referring to fruits and vegetables [swg]) into the house.

Irv

18

But who determines what “good enough” means?

It’s nice to come up with theories (and in academic circles one is expected to do so practically on a daily basis) but to be practical it’s each individual that determines what “good enough” means.

Most of us have artistic streaks that find expression in building model railroads. But just as there are different styles and philosophies of painting landscape or people, ther are different philosophies of model railroading. So if you wnat to build very detailed models of locomotives you may find that operating them may not be possible because of various reasons.

We therefore come back to the concept of good enough. So there are restraints on how we define the term. Some of the restraints are time, money, family resposnibilites and relationships, skills, space, ability and any number of others that people are bound to come up with. But at some point the interaction of all of these do come to some gathering place which you’ve termed “the sweet spot.” But that’s not the problem, Dave.

The problem is that what you or I or the next guy consider “the sweet spot,” may not be acceptable to others. Sometimes it’s jealousy but most of the time it’s simply nit picking.

So let’s define “nit picking.” I once was reading a military modelling magazine and came across a cartoon which showed two modeller’s talking about a 54mm figue of a Greek Hoplite. One says to the other:

That’s the wrong color of mud between the guy’s toes for the Peloponesian Wars."

Now the humour may be lost on some but the jist is that the dirt between the toes of a 54 mm figure is virtually irrelevant to the rest of the figure because it is barely the size of dust spec. So that’s nitpicking. And lots of us tend to do it. We may tedn to think we offering constructive criticism, but are we really?

I personnally don’t think nitpicking accomplishes much ex

19

For me, “good enough” has a somewhat different meaning.

I will spend the lion’s share of my time and effort on my trains - locomotive and rolling stock. They are, after all, the “stars” of my layout. I will spend less time and effort on scenery and structures because they are the “supporting cast” as it were. I wouldn’t want them to upstage the “stars”.

The last thing I want my vistors to do is to say, “Wow! Look at that fantastically detailed warehouse! By the way, did a train just go past here?”

-George

20

Hey, I’ll give you $1.50 if you can rent him out to me. that 15 cents should be enough to buy you an extra length of snap track at transition era prices. [:-^]

Irv