Quote:
Originally Posted by FRD
The two things that I'm struggling with are interrelated, the scale and complexity.
My objective is to keep it as simple as possible without sacrificing details, that's not as easy as it sounds.
Even at 1/200 the Gun muzzles taper down to a very small diameter, these are essential details but may not be easy to assemble.
The theory being that the larger the scale, the greater the ease of assembly and the greater number of 3-D details that can be modeled.
But, the larger the number of components, the greater the complexity, so you see, it's a very fine line when you want to "keep it simple" yet, "not sacrifice details".
I'm seriously thinking that 1/200 may be the answer, this would make the finished model at 23.43 inches (59.51 cm) long but that is larger than what I initially envisioned.
Originally I was contemplating 1/250 which would produce a model 18.74 inches (47.6 cm) long, this would make it a smaller, simpler model but at a loss of easy to assemble, 3-D detail.
I'll "cross this bridge when I get to it" but I'll be putting a lot of thought into it in the interim, it's a, "very fine balance" that I'm sure all designers consider to one extent or another.
|
I viewed the scale-complexity problem as a continuum. That is larger scale means more details, so a smaller scale means less details. In the end, I picked a scale that would give me a model I can put somewhere in my house. I figure the details will take care of themselves on way or another.
One of the things I've noticed about steel ship is how bumpy they are. The wind, waves, and docks push the plates in between the frames leaving vague square patterns on the sides. I've spent a lot of time looking a Great Lakes freighters, and even the new ones look worn in and worn out.
I haven't yet seen anyone model those defects, but I'm new at this. How do you decide that a detail is too small for your scale and should be skipped over?