By popular request (well … 1 of several posts). Here is round two.
This one jumped right out at me. It will not be obvious to everyone but should be easier to spot than the last. Hint: Don’t look too deeply.
Have fun - that, after all, is what model railroading’s all about.
Looks like the boats are riding a bit high…
–Randy
The telegraph lines don’t cross the river and/or the tank cars should not be behind the loco but at the end of the train. Just guessin,can you tell? BILL
Looks to me like the boats are on top of the water, instead of in the water.
It seems that you are very anxious to point out others mistakes. Perhaps you can put up some photos of your own modeling now … so that we may all see what perfection looks like.
Now, now! This is a fun exercise with samples that are so far anonymous. The intent here is to locate errors that are overlooked. Nobody is criticizing an individual’s work per se, but merely looking for items or arrangements of same that often go unnoticed by even the person doing the model, let alone later observers.
However, what I object to most in your quoted statement above is the ad hominem! [*-)] The subject of the thread is not larak’s modeling, but modeling in general that has errors. He may or may not offer examples of his own work, but that would be entirely up to him. Furthermore, he as not stated that his own work has been error free. And perhaps what he has shown is his own modelling…we don’t really know since he hasn’t revealed the name of the person(s) whose modelling we are seeing.
A better way of stating your objection to the whole thread would be to say, “I feel uncomfortable about the nature of this thread, larak. Should we be critiquing a layout made by someone who is not likely to be able to explain his rationale here? I think it would be fine if we all understood that you were posting images of your own past mistakes, but not to post someone else’s work and invite us to point out the person’s mistakes.” That is just a statement of your discomfort about the whole thing, and doesn’t end up attacking ‘the person’, which an ad hominem fallacy constitutes.
-Crandell
Seriously? Are you serious? You must chill, this is supposed to be a fun, interactive thread. Figured someone would find the negative in this.
geeeez…
Looking at the picture I have to wonder how I would get in or out of one of the boats tied up to the dock.
I would either need a ladder or ask that the dock be lowered to the proper height from the water for river boats.
So my answer is the dock is too high.
Happy Railroading
Bob
“An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.” (emphasis added)
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Thus, an Ad hominem statement would be “Larak has no right to post these photos, since his front yard is full of junked cars and he smells of elderberries”. Many people think the statement “Larak has no right to post these photos, since his own modeling is so poor” is also Ad hominem, but it would not be, since it would be illustrative of his skills and experience on the topic…
But even that is not at all what I said. I invited Larak to show us his scenes so that we may play “Wheres Waldo” with his modeling. Larak chose to present himself as a knowledgeable critic.
If you look at the way Larak named the scans, it is easy to see whose layout photos he is using. Or if you happen to have the issues of the magazine. Those layout builders are not here to defend there choices.
Perhaps Larak should start one of these threads on Motley’s layout, since Motley finds it such a chill and fun exercise?
My last post to these topics. Knock yourselves out.
Looks pretty obvious to me…one of the locomotives is going the wrong way…
Some funny stuff in this thread.
I would offer up a picture of my layout, but my artistic abilities are so pathetic and it would make the list of errors so long the servers would crash.[(-D]
In all seriousness though, I am enjoying this exercise as it is making me take a good hard look at what a person has done and I am learning a lot by just observing. So lets have more.[Y][C):-)]
Brent
Are those old Type 21 tankers in a modern setting?
Hmmm…I was never a grade A student in school…but i do seem to remember my geography teacher telling me that the world WAS round…and in the early years people were afraid to sail to far cause they would fall off the edge of the earth…i guess my teacher was wrong!!! LOL!!!
I got nothing except that! Very interesting post idea!! It’s suppose to be fun…just like the hobby itself…
It’s pretty hard to see, but there is a floating dock with a ramp going up to the main one (It’s there. You need to look closely) Of course, it’s hard to see. Even I had to stare at it through several verses of A Pirate’s Life For me.
So, my answer is, thare ain’t no pirate ship. Of course, I hear all of the pirates are now in the Carabbian! [oX)]
Alco_Fan, this will be my last post of this nature in larak’s thread, but it most certainly is an ad hominem because you have introduced the irrelevancy of larak’s own work not being represented. What does it matter, except apparently to you? It is the errors that we are to consider, not larak’s errors or perfection. It was never his position, implied or expressed, that his own work was above reproach. Had he said it was above reproach, then the most you could have done was to ask him to confirm that we were viewing examples of his own work.
BTW, I teach philosophy at the university level, so I’m pretty confident in my assertion that what you posted constitutes the informal fallacy of ad hominem. [swg]
-Crandell
The dock vs. boat height disparity is fine…if you look closely you can see a lower dock platform between the more visible higher portion and the boat.
I think the wooden pylons under the bridge shoe support is a problem. I doubt that an engineer would have approved such an arrangement.
-Crandell
I see no ropes tying the rowboat to the dock.
Hmm. Something I just noticed, It looks like the trees on the mountain in the far back of the background are real, while the otherstrees (in front of the background mountain) seem to be painted on something flat.
I don’t know. It could just be the age of the photo (and resulting fading) playing tricks on me.
If none of the above are correct my final answer and last response is that the shadows on the bridge are incorrect, too large and not in keeping with the shadows under the bridge.
Was this supposed to be easier than the first ???
Bob