#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I was willing to incorporate a less than accurate looking Track if it made for a simpler and easier build, but as the scale gets bigger, the need for visual accuracy gets stronger. The 1/16 scale centurion needed an accurate looking design. 1/50 is pretty small, if the tracks are well hidden, you might be able to get away with a generic design. But it should look like the proper track for that Tank, and every single tank has a very unique track design. So one generic track design doesn't please me...even for smaller scales. I like Charlie's track design...works better for wrapping around drive wheels. And its more 3D scale for larger scale builds. But its still going to be more unique to only one tank. And a nit picking Armour modeller will be the first to point that out "you've got the wrong tracks on that tank!".
__________________
SUPPORT ME PLEASE: PaperModelShop Or, my models at ecardmodels: Dave'sCardCreations |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Dave - Sergey's method would not work for the larger scales.
You don't incidentally use a generic track - as I said in my explanation (perhaps I was not clear)... "Simply copy two sets of tracks and then, before you cut the tracks out, draw up the templates on them (or work out where your cuts should be to create the templates), and then cut the tracks out to the template shapes." To clarify further, you need two copies of kit tracks because you are going to overlay the one over the other to give the depth - AFTER you have worked out the way to cut them according to the template examples provided by Sergey. Obviously, the templates will vary depending on the types of tracks. I have made one set where I actually used 3 "templates" for the layering. ---------------------------------- But having said that you could use the same method to provide 3d layers to larger-scale tracks, proving the upper templates are only there to position the individual pads etc. but are not joined to each other.
__________________
The SD40 is 55 now! |
|
|